|
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 15 2013 01:46 slyboogie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 01:23 nam nam wrote:On July 15 2013 01:16 slyboogie wrote:On July 15 2013 01:01 ZasZ. wrote:On July 15 2013 00:57 slyboogie wrote:
Huffpo writer Syreeta McFadden writes: "Only in America can a dead black boy go on trial for his own murder."
Disappointing verdict, but not unexpected. Only disappointing if you ignore any and all evidence presented in this case. And that quote is fucking retarded. Sensationalist journalism at its finest. The evidence is clear - they were involved in a scuffle. During that scuffle, Trayvon Martin was shot and killed. That's about it. The defense then proceeded to attack Trayvon Martin character - why? To insinuate that he's the type to beat someone up? That George Zimmerman was right to feel threatened? Travon Martin was as much on trial as George Zimmerman. It isn't sensationalist, especially compared to some stuff on this thread. I've punched someone for walking too close to me after repeated requests that they back offs I was young and immature and stupid. I was a little intoxicated. I was also "winning" the fight. If that guy shot and killed me then, would that be justified? Justified because I was a bad kid? Because I "won" a fist fight by knocking someone down? I suspect, that in a court of law, there was insufficient evidence to disprove self-defense. It's okay, that's why our justice system exists. But it's disappointing. We can wait for the civil rights trial. What if when you were "winning" you jumped on top of him saying "I'm going to kill you" and continued to punch him? What if you saw that he had some kind of weapon and you decided to reach out to grab it? What if someone told you to stop and you still kept going? Then yes, it would be justified... Mmm, it's convenient that he killed the only person who could refute that Trayvon Martin said "I'm going to kill you." Or that he "reached for the gun." How lucky we are to have George Zimmerman's eyewitness account though.
Eh no, if Zimmerman's story is true it's highly inconvenient that we don't have better evidence of it... And that was actually the point, WE DON'T KNOW. The state failed to present enough evidence for manslaughter and above and failed to poke hole in Zimmerman's story.
Also you were the one that brought up that stupid analogy since it doesn't even make sense in the context of the case so I'm not sure why you are being sarcastic at me... The point is that there are fights were injuries isn't severe that still is self-defense. The fact that you got beat up worse than Zimmerman looked is irrelevant.
|
On July 15 2013 02:21 ConGee wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 02:18 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 15 2013 02:01 fezvez wrote:
What I read (the conclusion of the trial) left me floored. What, TM is a 17 year old, 160 pound teenager, who was on top of GZ and punching him? The description I got from major media outlets at the time of the event are so far from reality that I am simply flabbergasted. Yes. He was born in 1995. There's also nothing unusual about fighting back when a man has been chasing you at night with no attempt to hide the fact. There's a huge difference between fighting back and escalating the confrontation to the point where the other person fears for their life.
Trayvon was defending himself, as the person who was pursuing him made no signs of stopping, even directly disobeying police orders, and had a dangerous weapon. This is the text-book scenario females are warned out (and all males to a lessor extent); it's only natural Trayvon fought when he realized he was in danger.
On July 15 2013 02:17 Taf the Ghost wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 02:15 farvacola wrote:On July 15 2013 02:04 Boiler Bandsman wrote:On July 15 2013 02:00 slyboogie wrote:On July 15 2013 01:49 farvacola wrote:
Maybe this says something about the college I went to and the people I consort with, but where I come from, "getting your ass beat" looks way worse than what happened to Zimmerman, which looks more like, "got his nose broken and a few scrapes.". Oh well.
Perhaps we can all move on soon enough. I completely agree! I'm not someone to question a man's fear of his own life, but I've been ASS BEAT before and I woke up sore and without my wallet. This is how it goes. But if you're a mewling coward, yes, you just shoot him GZ's head was being beaten repeatedly into the goddamn concrete. There was physical evidence backing this up, if not outright confirming it. Martin was using lethal force. Those injuries are not consistent with lethal force. Not in the least. Having someone on the ground and taking swings at them is "lethal force". One solid connection to the head, which hits the pavement and you can quite easily kill someone. It's the same reason that using a knife is "lethal force", even if you have to connect to one of a few spots to actually kill someone.
You must have a sheltered mindset, as this definitely isn't even remotely comparable to a "real beating". Do you know what a Mafia enforcer will do to you? Yazkua? Anyone with fighting experience? Even a bar confrontation between two grown men? Zimmerman's injuries were on the level of a playground shuffle compared to an actual deadly fight. Also, of course this is an anecdote, but being someone tall and skinny I can tell you that when I was 17 years old and 6'1 (150-160 pounds like Tray) there were probably girls at my high school that could take me yet alone a 29 year old guy. Ectomorphs have terrible centers of gravity, and the tall ones at that age especially aren't potent fighters because of small torso, long limbs, and low fat/muscle.
|
Obese men aren't potent fighters either.
|
On July 15 2013 02:36 SnipedSoul wrote:
Obese men aren't potent fighters either.
There's a correlation between obese men and strength. It's all just speculation as we can't objectively confirm unknowable details, but it's twisted to assert that Zimmerman feared for his life at any point in time. When on the phone with the dispatcher while spying on Trayvon he told the officer he looked like he was "late teens", and this supports the idea that if Zimmerman reasonably thought he could've been in danger he wouldn't have chased and initiated a confrontation after being told to stay in his vehicle assuming he had a logical brain.
|
On July 15 2013 02:29 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 01:49 farvacola wrote:
Maybe this says something about the college I went to and the people I consort with, but where I come from, "getting your ass beat" looks way worse than what happened to Zimmerman, which looks more like, "got his nose broken and a few scrapes.". Oh well.
Perhaps we can all move on soon enough. Should he have waited to shoot until he was a bit more battered? In need of serious medical treatment, perhaps? In any case, Z said he shot because he thought Trayvon was reaching for his gun. That's as good a reason as any to shoot when your life is in danger.
I'm not necessarily arguing that Zimmerman ought to have acted any differently given the situation, as it's clear he doesn't know how to fight nor know what to expect in a physical altercation. But, it would behoove those interested in policing their neighborhoods to have a bit more fighting experience and wherewithal to handle themselves in a physical altercation, and I hope this case serves as a lesson of that rather than "have your guns ready folks."
|
On July 15 2013 02:02 Boiler Bandsman wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 01:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Polls spoilered: + Show Spoiler +Poll: Just looking at the arguments and facts presented in the trial...I agree with the acquittal- the prosecution failed at establishing guilt. (131) 90% Should be manslaughter- the prosecution demonstrated he was guilty of at least this. (7) 5% Should be murder- the prosecution demonstrated he was guilty of this. (4) 3% Other (3) 2% 145 total votes Your vote: Just looking at the arguments and facts presented in the trial... (Vote): I agree with the acquittal- the prosecution failed at establishing guilt.
(Vote): Should be manslaughter- the prosecution demonstrated he was guilty of at least this.
(Vote): Should be murder- the prosecution demonstrated he was guilty of this.
(Vote): Other
and Poll: Regardless of the verdict, which do you feel is most accurate?GZ is truly innocent. (89) 70% GZ truly committed manslaughter. (19) 15% Other (13) 10% GZ truly committed murder. (7) 5% 128 total votes Your vote: Regardless of the verdict, which do you feel is most accurate? (Vote): GZ is truly innocent.
(Vote): GZ truly committed manslaughter.
(Vote): GZ truly committed murder.
(Vote): Other
I think these polls are an excellent encapsulation of the fact that the best-informed people agreed with the verdict. This thread has been extremely well-done, and the discussion has made anyone who participated (and voted) better-informed about this case. Meanwhile, the drive-by types who paid no attention at all between the original sensational story and the verdict are all over Twitter advocating murder and mayhem.
I agree.
This is also one of the most one-sided polls I've ever seen on TL in terms of national/ international events. I was astonished that there really wasn't a solid backing for the prosecution's side.
|
On July 15 2013 02:37 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 02:29 LegalLord wrote:On July 15 2013 01:49 farvacola wrote:
Maybe this says something about the college I went to and the people I consort with, but where I come from, "getting your ass beat" looks way worse than what happened to Zimmerman, which looks more like, "got his nose broken and a few scrapes.". Oh well.
Perhaps we can all move on soon enough. Should he have waited to shoot until he was a bit more battered? In need of serious medical treatment, perhaps? In any case, Z said he shot because he thought Trayvon was reaching for his gun. That's as good a reason as any to shoot when your life is in danger. I'm not necessarily arguing that Zimmerman ought to have acted any differently given the situation, as it's clear he doesn't know how to fight nor know what to expect in a physical altercation. But, it would behoove those interested in policing their neighborhoods to have a bit more fighting experience and wherewithal to handle themselves in a physical altercation, and I hope this case serves as a lesson of that rather than "have your guns ready folks."
I was thinking something similar last night after the verdict. If a reasonably competent individual had me on the ground for 40 seconds, he's probably getting at least 20 strikes in, and likely more if he's allowed to swing away. I'm not getting a gun after that many hits, I'm out cold.
I suppose that Zimmerman's decision to pursue Martin was in the heat of the moment rather than calculated. What did he think he was going to do when he actually confronted Martin? Run him off? Fight him, when he should have known he wouldn't be able to "win"?
|
On July 15 2013 02:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 02:02 Boiler Bandsman wrote:On July 15 2013 01:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Polls spoilered: + Show Spoiler +Poll: Just looking at the arguments and facts presented in the trial...I agree with the acquittal- the prosecution failed at establishing guilt. (131) 90% Should be manslaughter- the prosecution demonstrated he was guilty of at least this. (7) 5% Should be murder- the prosecution demonstrated he was guilty of this. (4) 3% Other (3) 2% 145 total votes Your vote: Just looking at the arguments and facts presented in the trial... (Vote): I agree with the acquittal- the prosecution failed at establishing guilt.
(Vote): Should be manslaughter- the prosecution demonstrated he was guilty of at least this.
(Vote): Should be murder- the prosecution demonstrated he was guilty of this.
(Vote): Other
and Poll: Regardless of the verdict, which do you feel is most accurate?GZ is truly innocent. (89) 70% GZ truly committed manslaughter. (19) 15% Other (13) 10% GZ truly committed murder. (7) 5% 128 total votes Your vote: Regardless of the verdict, which do you feel is most accurate? (Vote): GZ is truly innocent.
(Vote): GZ truly committed manslaughter.
(Vote): GZ truly committed murder.
(Vote): Other
I think these polls are an excellent encapsulation of the fact that the best-informed people agreed with the verdict. This thread has been extremely well-done, and the discussion has made anyone who participated (and voted) better-informed about this case. Meanwhile, the drive-by types who paid no attention at all between the original sensational story and the verdict are all over Twitter advocating murder and mayhem. I agree. This is also one of the most one-sided polls I've ever seen on TL in terms of national/ international events. I was astonished that there really wasn't a solid backing for the prosecution's side.
I will note that the best-informed people simply agree that the prosecution was terrible. That kind of vote isn't a proclamation of Zimmerman's innocence.
|
On July 15 2013 02:37 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 02:29 LegalLord wrote:On July 15 2013 01:49 farvacola wrote:
Maybe this says something about the college I went to and the people I consort with, but where I come from, "getting your ass beat" looks way worse than what happened to Zimmerman, which looks more like, "got his nose broken and a few scrapes.". Oh well.
Perhaps we can all move on soon enough. Should he have waited to shoot until he was a bit more battered? In need of serious medical treatment, perhaps? In any case, Z said he shot because he thought Trayvon was reaching for his gun. That's as good a reason as any to shoot when your life is in danger. I'm not necessarily arguing that Zimmerman ought to have acted any differently given the situation, as it's clear he doesn't know how to fight nor know what to expect in a physical altercation. But, it would behoove those interested in policing their neighborhoods to have a bit more fighting experience and wherewithal to handle themselves in a physical altercation, and I hope this case serves as a lesson of that rather than "have your guns ready folks."
He was learning MMA, and he did get better, but his instructor said that he still sucked.
|
On July 15 2013 02:34 DemigodcelpH wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 02:21 ConGee wrote:On July 15 2013 02:18 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 15 2013 02:01 fezvez wrote:
What I read (the conclusion of the trial) left me floored. What, TM is a 17 year old, 160 pound teenager, who was on top of GZ and punching him? The description I got from major media outlets at the time of the event are so far from reality that I am simply flabbergasted. Yes. He was born in 1995. There's also nothing unusual about fighting back when a man has been chasing you at night with no attempt to hide the fact. There's a huge difference between fighting back and escalating the confrontation to the point where the other person fears for their life. Trayvon was defending himself, as the person who was pursuing him made no signs of stopping, even directly disobeying police orders, and had a dangerous weapon. This is the text-book scenario females are warned out (and all males to a lessor extent); it's only natural Trayvon fought when he realized he was in danger.
Zimmerman did not disobey police orders, Dispatchers have no authority. This is also something Trayvon didnt know so it doesnt help him evaluate the situation.
Secondly there is a 4 minute gap between Zimmerman losing sight of Trayvon after he started running and the fight starting. 4 minutes!
Trayvon didnt see a person follow him and turn around. He ran away. circles around and then engaged in a fight.
3e he is moments away from reaching his house, or was it his gf's house. At that point if your being followed you dont turn around and fight someone. you keep walking and go home.
Plus Trayvon likely didnt even know he had a "dangerous weapon" since it was night and the gun was concealed.
Even if everything happends as you say there he was not defending himself anymore when the witness say him on top of Zimmerman beating on him and refusing to stop.
|
On July 15 2013 02:42 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 02:37 farvacola wrote:On July 15 2013 02:29 LegalLord wrote:On July 15 2013 01:49 farvacola wrote:
Maybe this says something about the college I went to and the people I consort with, but where I come from, "getting your ass beat" looks way worse than what happened to Zimmerman, which looks more like, "got his nose broken and a few scrapes.". Oh well.
Perhaps we can all move on soon enough. Should he have waited to shoot until he was a bit more battered? In need of serious medical treatment, perhaps? In any case, Z said he shot because he thought Trayvon was reaching for his gun. That's as good a reason as any to shoot when your life is in danger. I'm not necessarily arguing that Zimmerman ought to have acted any differently given the situation, as it's clear he doesn't know how to fight nor know what to expect in a physical altercation. But, it would behoove those interested in policing their neighborhoods to have a bit more fighting experience and wherewithal to handle themselves in a physical altercation, and I hope this case serves as a lesson of that rather than "have your guns ready folks." He was learning MMA, and he did get better, but his instructor said that he still sucked.
Well then that begs the question: Are there some people who ought to leave the protection of the neighborhood to others? I think we both know the answer to that.
|
On July 15 2013 02:41 DemigodcelpH wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 02:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 15 2013 02:02 Boiler Bandsman wrote:On July 15 2013 01:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Polls spoilered: + Show Spoiler +Poll: Just looking at the arguments and facts presented in the trial...I agree with the acquittal- the prosecution failed at establishing guilt. (131) 90% Should be manslaughter- the prosecution demonstrated he was guilty of at least this. (7) 5% Should be murder- the prosecution demonstrated he was guilty of this. (4) 3% Other (3) 2% 145 total votes Your vote: Just looking at the arguments and facts presented in the trial... (Vote): I agree with the acquittal- the prosecution failed at establishing guilt.
(Vote): Should be manslaughter- the prosecution demonstrated he was guilty of at least this.
(Vote): Should be murder- the prosecution demonstrated he was guilty of this.
(Vote): Other
and Poll: Regardless of the verdict, which do you feel is most accurate?GZ is truly innocent. (89) 70% GZ truly committed manslaughter. (19) 15% Other (13) 10% GZ truly committed murder. (7) 5% 128 total votes Your vote: Regardless of the verdict, which do you feel is most accurate? (Vote): GZ is truly innocent.
(Vote): GZ truly committed manslaughter.
(Vote): GZ truly committed murder.
(Vote): Other
I think these polls are an excellent encapsulation of the fact that the best-informed people agreed with the verdict. This thread has been extremely well-done, and the discussion has made anyone who participated (and voted) better-informed about this case. Meanwhile, the drive-by types who paid no attention at all between the original sensational story and the verdict are all over Twitter advocating murder and mayhem. I agree. This is also one of the most one-sided polls I've ever seen on TL in terms of national/ international events. I was astonished that there really wasn't a solid backing for the prosecution's side. I will note that the best-informed people simply agree that the prosecution was terrible. That kind of vote isn't a proclamation of Zimmerman's innocence.
The prosecution had no evidence to support their argument; of course they seemed terrible.
|
On July 15 2013 01:16 slyboogie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 01:01 ZasZ. wrote:On July 15 2013 00:57 slyboogie wrote:
Huffpo writer Syreeta McFadden writes: "Only in America can a dead black boy go on trial for his own murder."
Disappointing verdict, but not unexpected. Only disappointing if you ignore any and all evidence presented in this case. And that quote is fucking retarded. Sensationalist journalism at its finest. The evidence is clear - they were involved in a scuffle. During that scuffle, Trayvon Martin was shot and killed. That's about it. The defense then proceeded to attack Trayvon Martin character - why? To insinuate that he's the type to beat someone up? That George Zimmerman was right to feel threatened? Travon Martin was as much on trial as George Zimmerman. It isn't sensationalist, especially compared to some stuff on this thread. I've punched someone for walking too close to me after repeated requests that they back offs I was young and immature and stupid. I was a little intoxicated. I was also "winning" the fight. If that guy shot and killed me then, would that be justified? Justified because I was a bad kid? Because I "won" a fist fight by knocking someone down? I suspect, that in a court of law, there was insufficient evidence to disprove self-defense. It's okay, that's why our justice system exists. But it's disappointing. We can wait for the civil rights trial.
Engaging in a scuffle and beating someone to the ground is one thing. Continuing the scuffle once someone is on the ground and escalating would only worsen the entire situation. In this case TM continued to make the situation worse by mounting GZ and beating him further. It went to as far as he feared for his life which goes to say this was no little "fist fight".
I dunno if there will be a civil rights trial whatsoever because the entire thing took place in Florida.
In florida we have this: 2012 Florida Statutes
As you can see that is the 2012 Statutes could be subject to change. It looks like people will be holding their breathe on this one but it is unlikely he will get a civil rights trial.
|
On July 15 2013 02:43 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 02:42 LegalLord wrote:On July 15 2013 02:37 farvacola wrote:On July 15 2013 02:29 LegalLord wrote:On July 15 2013 01:49 farvacola wrote:
Maybe this says something about the college I went to and the people I consort with, but where I come from, "getting your ass beat" looks way worse than what happened to Zimmerman, which looks more like, "got his nose broken and a few scrapes.". Oh well.
Perhaps we can all move on soon enough. Should he have waited to shoot until he was a bit more battered? In need of serious medical treatment, perhaps? In any case, Z said he shot because he thought Trayvon was reaching for his gun. That's as good a reason as any to shoot when your life is in danger. I'm not necessarily arguing that Zimmerman ought to have acted any differently given the situation, as it's clear he doesn't know how to fight nor know what to expect in a physical altercation. But, it would behoove those interested in policing their neighborhoods to have a bit more fighting experience and wherewithal to handle themselves in a physical altercation, and I hope this case serves as a lesson of that rather than "have your guns ready folks." He was learning MMA, and he did get better, but his instructor said that he still sucked. Well then that begs the question: Are there some people who ought to leave the protection of the neighborhood to others? I think we both know the answer to that.
I'm going to copy this from an edit I just made, because I think it says something about the whole neighborhood watch thing. Is it mainly to act as a deterrent? Honest question:
I suppose that Zimmerman's decision to pursue Martin was in the heat of the moment rather than calculated. What did he think he was going to do when he actually confronted Martin? Run him off? Fight him, when he should have known he wouldn't be able to "win"?
|
On July 15 2013 02:45 AgentW wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 02:43 farvacola wrote:On July 15 2013 02:42 LegalLord wrote:On July 15 2013 02:37 farvacola wrote:On July 15 2013 02:29 LegalLord wrote:On July 15 2013 01:49 farvacola wrote:
Maybe this says something about the college I went to and the people I consort with, but where I come from, "getting your ass beat" looks way worse than what happened to Zimmerman, which looks more like, "got his nose broken and a few scrapes.". Oh well.
Perhaps we can all move on soon enough. Should he have waited to shoot until he was a bit more battered? In need of serious medical treatment, perhaps? In any case, Z said he shot because he thought Trayvon was reaching for his gun. That's as good a reason as any to shoot when your life is in danger. I'm not necessarily arguing that Zimmerman ought to have acted any differently given the situation, as it's clear he doesn't know how to fight nor know what to expect in a physical altercation. But, it would behoove those interested in policing their neighborhoods to have a bit more fighting experience and wherewithal to handle themselves in a physical altercation, and I hope this case serves as a lesson of that rather than "have your guns ready folks." He was learning MMA, and he did get better, but his instructor said that he still sucked. Well then that begs the question: Are there some people who ought to leave the protection of the neighborhood to others? I think we both know the answer to that. I'm going to copy this from an edit I just made, because I think it says something about the whole neighborhood watch thing. Is it mainly to act as a deterrent? Honest question: I suppose that Zimmerman's decision to pursue Martin was in the heat of the moment rather than calculated. What did he think he was going to do when he actually confronted Martin? Run him off? Fight him, when he should have known he wouldn't be able to "win"?
This has probably been covered thousands of times already, but if you accept George Zimmerman's account then he wasn't pursuing Trayvon; he was attempting to determine where Trayvon was headed to relay that information.
|
On July 15 2013 02:45 AgentW wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 02:43 farvacola wrote:On July 15 2013 02:42 LegalLord wrote:On July 15 2013 02:37 farvacola wrote:On July 15 2013 02:29 LegalLord wrote:On July 15 2013 01:49 farvacola wrote:
Maybe this says something about the college I went to and the people I consort with, but where I come from, "getting your ass beat" looks way worse than what happened to Zimmerman, which looks more like, "got his nose broken and a few scrapes.". Oh well.
Perhaps we can all move on soon enough. Should he have waited to shoot until he was a bit more battered? In need of serious medical treatment, perhaps? In any case, Z said he shot because he thought Trayvon was reaching for his gun. That's as good a reason as any to shoot when your life is in danger. I'm not necessarily arguing that Zimmerman ought to have acted any differently given the situation, as it's clear he doesn't know how to fight nor know what to expect in a physical altercation. But, it would behoove those interested in policing their neighborhoods to have a bit more fighting experience and wherewithal to handle themselves in a physical altercation, and I hope this case serves as a lesson of that rather than "have your guns ready folks." He was learning MMA, and he did get better, but his instructor said that he still sucked. Well then that begs the question: Are there some people who ought to leave the protection of the neighborhood to others? I think we both know the answer to that. I'm going to copy this from an edit I just made, because I think it says something about the whole neighborhood watch thing. Is it mainly to act as a deterrent? Honest question: I suppose that Zimmerman's decision to pursue Martin was in the heat of the moment rather than calculated. What did he think he was going to do when he actually confronted Martin? Run him off? Fight him, when he should have known he wouldn't be able to "win"?
Generally, neighborhood watch is the sort of thing you post signs all over the neighborhood about, have a few diligent window watchers ready, and do little else. Zimmerman was likely upset at the recent failings of the neighborhood watch in stopping petty theft, and that no doubt played into his willingness to pursue Martin, or estimate his movements, or whatever you wanna call it.
|
When GZ was mounted with his head against the pavement, no doubt about it, that is extremely threatening.
You don't have to be a martial artist to ruin someone's spine. Simple punches from an amateur to the back of anyone's head can paralyze that person for life, all too easily.
The problem is GZ couldn't and didn't shoot TM when he was mounted. He had to have thrown TM off the mount to get his gun and pull it, and GZ even admits this happened. The problem is there GZ claims that TM reached for the gun, thus GZ had to shoot TM or lose his gun. Another problem is we aren't sure who started the fight (although GZ calling the kid a "punk" and lurking around him kind of leans me towards calling GZ the instigator). If GZ started the fight, lost the fight at one point in brutal fashion, and then pulled a gun, I'm not sure it isn't TM defending himself.
Yes, a witness saw TM attacking GZ and told TM to stop, but that doesn't mean much, it's without all the context of what came before or what comes after. What did GZ actually say to TM when he approached him? Did TM really just go apeshit on GZ because he's "thug" or was it maybe because GZ, carrying a gun, threatened him in a serious way (because GZ certainly sounded determined to "take action" against TM judging by his phone call to the police)? We don't know. But that benefit of doubt really goes in one direction in this case.
We give GZ a lot of benefit of the doubt, but we give TM none really. TM wasn't defending himself when he reached for GZ's gun? How is it that self-defense works completely in GZ's favor based on the fact that a witness saw him losing the fight before the shooting actually happened?
There is a second before GZ pulled the trigger that no one but GZ saw, and to me it means everything. Either TM really started this fight and went for GZ's gun to kill GZ -- or just as easily GZ was the aggressor, instigated TM with accusations and threats, who upon losing the fight he started, shot at TM in bloody and murderous rage. Both of those scenarios are completely plausible in my eyes.
It's disturbing that eye-witness testimony -- really supposed to be the most unreliable form of evidence -- means so much in cases like these. We have a body, we have a deadly weapon, but since there was a fight those things don't matter anymore -- GZ is allowed any narrative that gives him the benefit of the doubt over TM, who isn't given the luxury of narrative and can't make claims of self-defense. I understand the verdict, but I just as easily understand people's frustration that GZ acted so foolishly, and is yet able to walk away from shooting an unarmed kid based on no more than his own word.
And I, personally, sincerely do believe that if TM was white, the police response to his case would've been different. Although that is really a separate matter entirely, it is nonetheless responsible for people's resentment over the verdict.
|
On July 15 2013 02:34 DemigodcelpH wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 02:21 ConGee wrote:On July 15 2013 02:18 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 15 2013 02:01 fezvez wrote:
What I read (the conclusion of the trial) left me floored. What, TM is a 17 year old, 160 pound teenager, who was on top of GZ and punching him? The description I got from major media outlets at the time of the event are so far from reality that I am simply flabbergasted. Yes. He was born in 1995. There's also nothing unusual about fighting back when a man has been chasing you at night with no attempt to hide the fact. There's a huge difference between fighting back and escalating the confrontation to the point where the other person fears for their life. Trayvon was defending himself, as the person who was pursuing him made no signs of stopping, even directly disobeying police orders, and had a dangerous weapon. This is the text-book scenario females are warned out (and all males to a lessor extent); it's only natural Trayvon fought when he realized he was in danger. Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 02:17 Taf the Ghost wrote:On July 15 2013 02:15 farvacola wrote:On July 15 2013 02:04 Boiler Bandsman wrote:On July 15 2013 02:00 slyboogie wrote:On July 15 2013 01:49 farvacola wrote:
Maybe this says something about the college I went to and the people I consort with, but where I come from, "getting your ass beat" looks way worse than what happened to Zimmerman, which looks more like, "got his nose broken and a few scrapes.". Oh well.
Perhaps we can all move on soon enough. I completely agree! I'm not someone to question a man's fear of his own life, but I've been ASS BEAT before and I woke up sore and without my wallet. This is how it goes. But if you're a mewling coward, yes, you just shoot him GZ's head was being beaten repeatedly into the goddamn concrete. There was physical evidence backing this up, if not outright confirming it. Martin was using lethal force. Those injuries are not consistent with lethal force. Not in the least. Having someone on the ground and taking swings at them is "lethal force". One solid connection to the head, which hits the pavement and you can quite easily kill someone. It's the same reason that using a knife is "lethal force", even if you have to connect to one of a few spots to actually kill someone. You must have a sheltered mindset, as this definitely isn't even remotely comparable to a "real beating". Do you know what a Mafia enforcer will do to you? Yazkua? Anyone with fighting experience? Even a bar confrontation between two grown men? Zimmerman's injuries were on the level of a playground shuffle compared to an actual deadly fight. Also, of course this is an anecdote, but being someone tall and skinny I can tell you that when I was 17 years old and 6'1 (150-160 pounds like Tray) there were probably girls at my high school that could take me yet alone a 29 year old guy. Ectomorphs have terrible centers of gravity, and the tall ones at that age especially aren't potent fighters because of small torso, long limbs, and low fat/muscle.
So it's defending yourself when you're pounding someone who's screaming for help? It's defending yourself to continue pummeling someone when a bystander is yelling for you to stop?
|
On July 15 2013 02:50 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 02:45 AgentW wrote:On July 15 2013 02:43 farvacola wrote:On July 15 2013 02:42 LegalLord wrote:On July 15 2013 02:37 farvacola wrote:On July 15 2013 02:29 LegalLord wrote:On July 15 2013 01:49 farvacola wrote:
Maybe this says something about the college I went to and the people I consort with, but where I come from, "getting your ass beat" looks way worse than what happened to Zimmerman, which looks more like, "got his nose broken and a few scrapes.". Oh well.
Perhaps we can all move on soon enough. Should he have waited to shoot until he was a bit more battered? In need of serious medical treatment, perhaps? In any case, Z said he shot because he thought Trayvon was reaching for his gun. That's as good a reason as any to shoot when your life is in danger. I'm not necessarily arguing that Zimmerman ought to have acted any differently given the situation, as it's clear he doesn't know how to fight nor know what to expect in a physical altercation. But, it would behoove those interested in policing their neighborhoods to have a bit more fighting experience and wherewithal to handle themselves in a physical altercation, and I hope this case serves as a lesson of that rather than "have your guns ready folks." He was learning MMA, and he did get better, but his instructor said that he still sucked. Well then that begs the question: Are there some people who ought to leave the protection of the neighborhood to others? I think we both know the answer to that. I'm going to copy this from an edit I just made, because I think it says something about the whole neighborhood watch thing. Is it mainly to act as a deterrent? Honest question: I suppose that Zimmerman's decision to pursue Martin was in the heat of the moment rather than calculated. What did he think he was going to do when he actually confronted Martin? Run him off? Fight him, when he should have known he wouldn't be able to "win"? Generally, neighborhood watch is the sort of thing you post signs all over the neighborhood about, have a few diligent window watchers ready, and do little else. Zimmerman was likely upset at the recent failings of the neighborhood watch in stopping petty theft, and that no doubt played into his willingness to pursue Martin.
Thanks for the clarification. I grew up in a suburb and had never heard of a neighborhood watch until I watched Dexter, but I didn't think that would a very accurate representation of reality so I thought I'd ask. I knew about the thefts (I have read/listened to most of the important testimony).
|
On July 15 2013 02:51 Leporello wrote:
When GZ was mounted with his head against the pavement, no doubt about it, that is extremely threatening.
You don't have to be a martial artist to ruin someone's spine. Simple punches from an amateur to the back of anyone's head can paralyze that person for life, all too easily.
The problem is GZ couldn't and didn't shoot TM when he was mounted. He had to have thrown TM off the mount to get his gun and pull it, and GZ even admits this happened. The problem is there GZ claims that TM reached for the gun, thus GZ had to shoot TM or lose his gun. Of course, another problem there is we aren't sure who started the fight (although GZ calling the kid a "punk" and lurking around him kind of leans me towards calling GZ the instigator). If GZ started the fight, lost it, and then pulled a gun, I'm not sure it isn't TM defending himself.
We give GZ a lot of benefit of the doubt, but we give TM none really. TM wasn't defending himself when he reached for GZ's gun? How is it that self-defense works completely in GZ's favor based on the fact that a witness saw him losing the fight before the shooting actually happened?
There is a second before GZ pulled the trigger that no one but GZ saw. It's disturbing that eye-witness testimony -- really supposed to be the most unreliable form of evidence -- means so much in cases like these. We have a body, we have a deadly weapon, but since there was a fight those things don't matter anymore -- GZ is allowed any narrative that gives him the benefit of the doubt over TM, who isn't given the luxury of narrative and can't make claims of self-defense. I understand the verdict, but I just as easily understand people's frustration that GZ acted so foolishly, and is yet able to walk away from shooting an unarmed kid based on no more than his own word.
George Zimmerman did not admit to throwing Trayvon off him before shooting him.
The forensics showed that the bullet came from beneath Trayvon and that his shirt and hoody were several inches away from his body at the time the shot was fired. The only logical explanation is that Trayvon was shot while on top of Zimmerman.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
