|
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 16 2013 21:32 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2013 21:18 Leporello wrote:
I don't assume Zimmerman chased after Trayvon -- it's in the phone transcript. It happened. No offense, but did you even read the part of the transcript I posted? It's perfectly apparent, in that transcript, and in Zimmerman's words on other occasions, that he pursued Zimmerman. That is a fact. Trayvon ran from Zimmerman, and Zimmerman pursued, by Zimmerman's own recorded admission...
Yes he chased after Trayvon. Yes Trayvon ran but then you eagerly forget what we know happend after. We know Zimmerman lost sight of Trayvon. We know Zimmerman stopped following him after the dispatcher told him not to. There is a 4 minute gap between Zimmerman losing sight of Trayvon after he started running and the fight happening. Trayvon wasnt far away from his gf's home which I believe he was going to. So why again did Trayvon and Zimmerman get into a fight? He got away. He was almost home and yet he didnt. he purposefully turned around to confront Zimmerman. Stop ignoring half the facts to paint the picture that you want to see.
I'm not ignoring the fact that there is a 4 minute gap between the phone call and the fight. I'm well aware that things may have happened exactly as GZ says they did. You're the one saying, rather definitively, that Trayvon turned around to pick a fight.
So we give Zimmerman every benefit of the doubt in the courtroom, but here, just casually discussing, we give Trayvon no benefit of the doubt.
It's wrong to assume that Zimmerman profiled Trayvon based on race, even though we know of Trayvon doing absolutely nothing illegal or suspicious that night. But we'll just assume that Trayvon started the fight, based mostly just on a verdict of reasonable doubt.
It's hypocrisy.
|
On July 16 2013 21:38 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2013 21:32 Gorsameth wrote:On July 16 2013 21:18 Leporello wrote:
I don't assume Zimmerman chased after Trayvon -- it's in the phone transcript. It happened. No offense, but did you even read the part of the transcript I posted? It's perfectly apparent, in that transcript, and in Zimmerman's words on other occasions, that he pursued Zimmerman. That is a fact. Trayvon ran from Zimmerman, and Zimmerman pursued, by Zimmerman's own recorded admission...
Yes he chased after Trayvon. Yes Trayvon ran but then you eagerly forget what we know happend after. We know Zimmerman lost sight of Trayvon. We know Zimmerman stopped following him after the dispatcher told him not to. There is a 4 minute gap between Zimmerman losing sight of Trayvon after he started running and the fight happening. Trayvon wasnt far away from his gf's home which I believe he was going to. So why again did Trayvon and Zimmerman get into a fight? He got away. He was almost home and yet he didnt. he purposefully turned around to confront Zimmerman. Stop ignoring half the facts to paint the picture that you want to see. I'm not ignoring the fact that there is a 4 minute gap between the phone call and the fight. I'm well aware that things may have happened exactly as GZ says they did. You're the one saying, rather definitively, that Trayvon turned around to pick a fight. So we give Zimmerman every benefit of the doubt in the courtroom, but here, just casually discussing, we give Trayvon no benefit of the doubt, you say he picked the fight without really knowing. It's hypocrisy.
Honestly, you pretty much have to give Zimmerman every benefit of the doubt, because he's accused of murder, and the whole innocent until proven guilty aspect is in effect. The whole point of a fair trial is to judge people by evidence, and if the evidence isn't strong enough, you simply have to deal with that. You can't decide to doubt someone just because it's fairer to the victim.
|
On July 16 2013 21:35 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2013 21:27 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 16 2013 21:18 Leporello wrote:On July 16 2013 21:12 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 16 2013 21:05 Leporello wrote:On July 16 2013 12:10 Taf the Ghost wrote:
The only person involved in the case that might be a racist was Trayvon, Trayvon wasn't in the business of calling the cops on people for no reason, or calling them a-holes, or accusing "them" of "always getting away with it". Calling the cops... so heinous, so disgusting... so horrible. I can't believe anyone would have the nerve to call the cops. It's a sign of the times I suppose. That dismal tide...
We do not have to believe this story that Trayvon simply jumped and assaulted Zimmerman without provocation, or without even being assaulted himself, anymore than we have to believe any other story about that evening coming from a biased source. No one saw this fight start. It could have happened exactly as GZ said it did -- but it could also have been something else. Did GZ try to restrain Zimmerman, or worse? Even if Zimmerman was just trying to restrain him, that could be disturbing to a highschool boy to be restrained by some stranger following you in the night. Then maybe Trayvon either sees or feels GZ's gun tucked behind his back, and decides he needs to fight for his life.
We don't know. Let's not assume either way.
You assumed that Zimmerman was calling the cops for no reason, you assumed that he chased Trayvon, and then you came up with all kinds of ridiculous scenarios that do not fit with the evidence. Yes... let's stop assuming. Then please tell me what Trayvon did that Zimmerman called the cops on him for. We have the whole phone transcript -- we KNOW why Zimmerman called the cops -- he saw a guy wearing a hoodie. That's it. So either wearing a hoodie is a sure-sign of criminality, or Zimmerman has other criteria for calling people suspicious which he doesn't like to mention even to the police. He saw a guy wearing a hoodie, walking slowly and seemingly without purpose, looking around at the houses, walking in between houses, and it was raining. He felt the guy was suspicious so he did his job (neighborhood watch) and called the cops. How is that a problem? I don't assume Zimmerman chased after Trayvon -- it's in the phone transcript. It happened. No offense, but did you even read the part of the transcript I posted? It's perfectly apparent, in that transcript, and in Zimmerman's words on other occasions, that he pursued Zimmerman. That is a fact. Trayvon ran from Zimmerman, and Zimmerman pursued, by Zimmerman's own recorded admission... He followed Trayvon for like... five seconds. You're acting like it was some ten minute chase where Trayvon just couldn't outrun fat Zimmerman and finally had to give up when he could run no more. Zimmerman saw Trayvon dart away and he got out of his car to see where he went: what the operator testified it was possible he thought he had been asked to do.And yes, I make an alternative scenario, as is obvious. You may not like or believe that scenario, but it's a possible series of events, just as GZ's take of what happened is a possible series of events. I see several people in this thread blaming Trayvon for events that we don't know actually happened. You don't know what the word "assume" means.
Your scenarios are so unlikely, given the evidence, that they can be rejected out of hand. You assume Zimmerman certainly didn't racially profile Trayvon, Trayvon was just being obviously suspicious to the point that police needed to be called. Because he was walking in the rain. I mean, who walks in the rain?? After all, we all have cars, don't we?
1) Zimmerman didn't call 9-11, he called 3-11.
2) Zimmerman wasn't aware of Trayvon's race when he called the police (no racial profiling).
3) Walking slowly in the rain, in the middle of the night... yeah, that's kind of suspicious.
You assume Trayvon assaulted Zimmerman without provocation, or that Trayvon was never in any fear for his own safety at any point leading to the fight. He just wanted to fight.
Sorry, but I don't find the scenario I put forth much more implausible than the stuff you're suggesting.
There is no evidence of provocation on Zimmerman's part, nor that Trayvon was in fear for his life at any point leading up to the fight.
|
On July 16 2013 21:42 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2013 21:38 Leporello wrote:On July 16 2013 21:32 Gorsameth wrote:On July 16 2013 21:18 Leporello wrote:
I don't assume Zimmerman chased after Trayvon -- it's in the phone transcript. It happened. No offense, but did you even read the part of the transcript I posted? It's perfectly apparent, in that transcript, and in Zimmerman's words on other occasions, that he pursued Zimmerman. That is a fact. Trayvon ran from Zimmerman, and Zimmerman pursued, by Zimmerman's own recorded admission...
Yes he chased after Trayvon. Yes Trayvon ran but then you eagerly forget what we know happend after. We know Zimmerman lost sight of Trayvon. We know Zimmerman stopped following him after the dispatcher told him not to. There is a 4 minute gap between Zimmerman losing sight of Trayvon after he started running and the fight happening. Trayvon wasnt far away from his gf's home which I believe he was going to. So why again did Trayvon and Zimmerman get into a fight? He got away. He was almost home and yet he didnt. he purposefully turned around to confront Zimmerman. Stop ignoring half the facts to paint the picture that you want to see. I'm not ignoring the fact that there is a 4 minute gap between the phone call and the fight. I'm well aware that things may have happened exactly as GZ says they did. You're the one saying, rather definitively, that Trayvon turned around to pick a fight. So we give Zimmerman every benefit of the doubt in the courtroom, but here, just casually discussing, we give Trayvon no benefit of the doubt, you say he picked the fight without really knowing. It's hypocrisy. Honestly, you pretty much have to give Zimmerman every benefit of the doubt, because he's accused of murder, and the whole innocent until proven guilty aspect is in effect. The whole point of a fair trial is to judge people by evidence, and if the evidence isn't strong enough, you simply have to deal with that. You can't decide to doubt someone just because it's fairer to the victim.
In the trial, we are simply deciding the guilt of one man. We give that man every benefit of the doubt, as we should.
This isn't a trial, this is a thread. We can just as well give Trayvon some benefit of the doubt.
My responses, in the last page, were to people who were making assumptions about Trayvon's actions that night that are presumptuous and not fair.
|
On July 16 2013 21:35 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2013 21:27 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 16 2013 21:18 Leporello wrote:On July 16 2013 21:12 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 16 2013 21:05 Leporello wrote:On July 16 2013 12:10 Taf the Ghost wrote:
The only person involved in the case that might be a racist was Trayvon, Trayvon wasn't in the business of calling the cops on people for no reason, or calling them a-holes, or accusing "them" of "always getting away with it". Calling the cops... so heinous, so disgusting... so horrible. I can't believe anyone would have the nerve to call the cops. It's a sign of the times I suppose. That dismal tide...
We do not have to believe this story that Trayvon simply jumped and assaulted Zimmerman without provocation, or without even being assaulted himself, anymore than we have to believe any other story about that evening coming from a biased source. No one saw this fight start. It could have happened exactly as GZ said it did -- but it could also have been something else. Did GZ try to restrain Zimmerman, or worse? Even if Zimmerman was just trying to restrain him, that could be disturbing to a highschool boy to be restrained by some stranger following you in the night. Then maybe Trayvon either sees or feels GZ's gun tucked behind his back, and decides he needs to fight for his life.
We don't know. Let's not assume either way.
You assumed that Zimmerman was calling the cops for no reason, you assumed that he chased Trayvon, and then you came up with all kinds of ridiculous scenarios that do not fit with the evidence. Yes... let's stop assuming. Then please tell me what Trayvon did that Zimmerman called the cops on him for. We have the whole phone transcript -- we KNOW why Zimmerman called the cops -- he saw a guy wearing a hoodie. That's it. So either wearing a hoodie is a sure-sign of criminality, or Zimmerman has other criteria for calling people suspicious which he doesn't like to mention even to the police. He saw a guy wearing a hoodie, walking slowly and seemingly without purpose, looking around at the houses, walking in between houses, and it was raining. He felt the guy was suspicious so he did his job (neighborhood watch) and called the cops. How is that a problem? I don't assume Zimmerman chased after Trayvon -- it's in the phone transcript. It happened. No offense, but did you even read the part of the transcript I posted? It's perfectly apparent, in that transcript, and in Zimmerman's words on other occasions, that he pursued Zimmerman. That is a fact. Trayvon ran from Zimmerman, and Zimmerman pursued, by Zimmerman's own recorded admission... He followed Trayvon for like... five seconds. You're acting like it was some ten minute chase where Trayvon just couldn't outrun fat Zimmerman and finally had to give up when he could run no more. Zimmerman saw Trayvon dart away and he got out of his car to see where he went: what the operator testified it was possible he thought he had been asked to do.And yes, I make an alternative scenario, as is obvious. You may not like or believe that scenario, but it's a possible series of events, just as GZ's take of what happened is a possible series of events. I see several people in this thread blaming Trayvon for events that we don't know actually happened. You don't know what the word "assume" means.
Your scenarios are so unlikely, given the evidence, that they can be rejected out of hand. You assume Zimmerman certainly didn't racially profile Trayvon, Trayvon was just being obviously suspicious to the point that police needed to be called. Because he was walking in the rain. I mean, who walks in the rain?? After all, we all have cars, don't we? You assume Trayvon assaulted Zimmerman without provocation, or that Trayvon was never in any fear for his own safety at any point leading to the fight. He just wanted to fight. Sorry, but I don't find the scenario I put forth much more implausible than the stuff you're suggesting.
If I lived in an area with that much crime, I would report anything out of the ordinary as well. You can talk so much crap about him being paranoid, yet he had every reason to be just that. He didn't know Trayvon, so he called it in.
As far as the evidence suggests, Trayvon did just want to fight. He had a lifetime to get home, but decided it was a better decision to confront Zimmerman. There is no disputing that Trayvon decided NOT to go home. The time gap from the last 911 call and ear witness is all the evidence you need of that.
|
On July 16 2013 21:46 sc2superfan101 wrote:
2) Zimmerman wasn't aware of Trayvon's race when he called the police (no racial profiling).
You should sell your psychic services for money.
|
Am I correctly understanding the laws around self defense in the OP? The response to an attack does NOT have to be "proportionate" to the attack in any way? I'm guessing this is true, as Zimmerman is free, but it's kind of hard to believe... Is this only this state, or is this the case in all states?
|
On July 16 2013 21:52 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2013 21:46 sc2superfan101 wrote:
2) Zimmerman wasn't aware of Trayvon's race when he called the police (no racial profiling). You should sell your psychic services for money.
Do you have any evidence that he did?
|
On July 16 2013 21:59 Douillos wrote:
Am I correctly understanding the laws around self defense in the OP? The response to an attack does NOT have to be "proportionate" to the attack in any way? I'm guessing this is true, as Zimmerman is free, but it's kind of hard to believe... Is this only this state, or is this the case in all states?
He feared for his life or great bodily harm so he had the right to shoot him. Yes that can be a little hard to understand for us Europeans but i believe its pretty normal in most if not all of America.
|
On July 16 2013 22:05 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2013 21:59 Douillos wrote:
Am I correctly understanding the laws around self defense in the OP? The response to an attack does NOT have to be "proportionate" to the attack in any way? I'm guessing this is true, as Zimmerman is free, but it's kind of hard to believe... Is this only this state, or is this the case in all states? He feared for his life or great bodily harm so he had the right to shoot him. Yes that can be a little hard to understand for us Europeans but i believe its pretty normal in most if not all of America.
To my understanding, it is the same across all states. As for the first poster's original comment, he did fear for either his life or some great bodily harm, which certainly seems "proportionate" to his action.
EDIT: Is this different in your respective countries?
|
What is with the ¨FUCK THE POLICE¨ stuff? Did the police do something?
|
On July 16 2013 22:09 AgentW wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2013 22:05 Gorsameth wrote:On July 16 2013 21:59 Douillos wrote:
Am I correctly understanding the laws around self defense in the OP? The response to an attack does NOT have to be "proportionate" to the attack in any way? I'm guessing this is true, as Zimmerman is free, but it's kind of hard to believe... Is this only this state, or is this the case in all states? He feared for his life or great bodily harm so he had the right to shoot him. Yes that can be a little hard to understand for us Europeans but i believe its pretty normal in most if not all of America. To my understanding, it is the same across all states. As for the first poster's original comment, he did fear for either his life or some great bodily harm, which certainly seems "proportionate" to his action. EDIT: Is this different in your respective countries?
Netherlands for example your only allowed to use proportional violence to defend yourself. So im not allowed to stab someone if hes beating me with his fists.
The biggest deal tho is that were not allowed to walk around with knives/guns so it is much less likely that a situation of self defense results in a death.
|
On July 16 2013 22:09 AgentW wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2013 22:05 Gorsameth wrote:On July 16 2013 21:59 Douillos wrote:
Am I correctly understanding the laws around self defense in the OP? The response to an attack does NOT have to be "proportionate" to the attack in any way? I'm guessing this is true, as Zimmerman is free, but it's kind of hard to believe... Is this only this state, or is this the case in all states? He feared for his life or great bodily harm so he had the right to shoot him. Yes that can be a little hard to understand for us Europeans but i believe its pretty normal in most if not all of America. To my understanding, it is the same across all states. As for the first poster's original comment, he did fear for either his life or some great bodily harm, which certainly seems "proportionate" to his action. EDIT: Is this different in your respective countries?
Not quite. Many states have a "duty to retreat", and some do even if you are in your own home. Florida's always a... "special" case with things like this...
|
On July 16 2013 22:13 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2013 22:09 AgentW wrote:On July 16 2013 22:05 Gorsameth wrote:On July 16 2013 21:59 Douillos wrote:
Am I correctly understanding the laws around self defense in the OP? The response to an attack does NOT have to be "proportionate" to the attack in any way? I'm guessing this is true, as Zimmerman is free, but it's kind of hard to believe... Is this only this state, or is this the case in all states? He feared for his life or great bodily harm so he had the right to shoot him. Yes that can be a little hard to understand for us Europeans but i believe its pretty normal in most if not all of America. To my understanding, it is the same across all states. As for the first poster's original comment, he did fear for either his life or some great bodily harm, which certainly seems "proportionate" to his action. EDIT: Is this different in your respective countries? Netherlands for example your only allowed to use proportional violence to defend yourself. So im not allowed to stab someone if hes beating me with his fists. The biggest deal tho is that were not allowed to walk around with knives/guns so it is much less likely that a situation of self defense results in a death.
I suppose that would make the discussion at hand pretty simple. Is there any way to respond non-proportionally then?
On July 16 2013 22:15 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2013 22:09 AgentW wrote:On July 16 2013 22:05 Gorsameth wrote:On July 16 2013 21:59 Douillos wrote:
Am I correctly understanding the laws around self defense in the OP? The response to an attack does NOT have to be "proportionate" to the attack in any way? I'm guessing this is true, as Zimmerman is free, but it's kind of hard to believe... Is this only this state, or is this the case in all states? He feared for his life or great bodily harm so he had the right to shoot him. Yes that can be a little hard to understand for us Europeans but i believe its pretty normal in most if not all of America. To my understanding, it is the same across all states. As for the first poster's original comment, he did fear for either his life or some great bodily harm, which certainly seems "proportionate" to his action. EDIT: Is this different in your respective countries? Not quite. Many states have a "duty to retreat", and some do even if you are in your own home. Florida's always a... "special" case with things like this...
I believe this is only in the case of the "stand your ground" business. I was talking about after Martin was already beating on Zimmerman. I apologize, I should I have made that more clear.
|
It certainly seems like a disproportionate amount of "fucked up" and "sad but true" news stories come out of Florida...
|
On July 16 2013 22:09 AgentW wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2013 22:05 Gorsameth wrote:On July 16 2013 21:59 Douillos wrote:
Am I correctly understanding the laws around self defense in the OP? The response to an attack does NOT have to be "proportionate" to the attack in any way? I'm guessing this is true, as Zimmerman is free, but it's kind of hard to believe... Is this only this state, or is this the case in all states? He feared for his life or great bodily harm so he had the right to shoot him. Yes that can be a little hard to understand for us Europeans but i believe its pretty normal in most if not all of America. To my understanding, it is the same across all states. As for the first poster's original comment, he did fear for either his life or some great bodily harm, which certainly seems "proportionate" to his action. EDIT: Is this different in your respective countries?
The law focuses more on if the person had a reasonable fear for their life, rather than the physics of the force being used. Of course, both are importnat, but the reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm is a core part to self defense. An example is if someone threatens you with a fake gun and you shoot them in response, it is still self defense even though the fake gun was harmless. This of course assumes that the shooter was never aware the gun was fake. Also, threatening someone with a fake gun is normally treated in law like threatening someone with a real gun.
Law is very nuanced in this way and a lot of people have trouble with that. Law isn't about making a specific thing illegal or legal, but finding out which law is best applied to specific set of facts.
|
On July 16 2013 22:15 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2013 22:09 AgentW wrote:On July 16 2013 22:05 Gorsameth wrote:On July 16 2013 21:59 Douillos wrote:
Am I correctly understanding the laws around self defense in the OP? The response to an attack does NOT have to be "proportionate" to the attack in any way? I'm guessing this is true, as Zimmerman is free, but it's kind of hard to believe... Is this only this state, or is this the case in all states? He feared for his life or great bodily harm so he had the right to shoot him. Yes that can be a little hard to understand for us Europeans but i believe its pretty normal in most if not all of America. To my understanding, it is the same across all states. As for the first poster's original comment, he did fear for either his life or some great bodily harm, which certainly seems "proportionate" to his action. EDIT: Is this different in your respective countries? Not quite. Many states have a "duty to retreat", and some do even if you are in your own home. Florida's always a... "special" case with things like this...
I don't really see that being much of a special case. You want special case? Go fuck with someone in Texas 
|
On July 16 2013 22:13 Zinnwaldite wrote:
What is with the ¨FUCK THE POLICE¨ stuff? Did the police do something?
It was a popular song by the gangster rap group N.W.A. (Niggas With Attitude), it has kind of become an anthem for young people in the United States. They were also shouting No Justice, No Peace, No Racist, Police, and "This is what Democracy looks like". They clearly know nothing about the case itself, the American legal system, or what the definition of Democracy is.
Corrupt cops, and racism isn't the problem here. 7% of all black people are killed by non blacks, less than .1% are killed by cops. However 93% are killed by other people of the same race.
I don't know if it's because of guilt, or shame, but avoiding the giant elephant in the room is never going to do anything to help save black youth in America.
|
On July 16 2013 22:05 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2013 21:59 Douillos wrote:
Am I correctly understanding the laws around self defense in the OP? The response to an attack does NOT have to be "proportionate" to the attack in any way? I'm guessing this is true, as Zimmerman is free, but it's kind of hard to believe... Is this only this state, or is this the case in all states? He feared for his life or great bodily harm so he had the right to shoot him. Yes that can be a little hard to understand for us Europeans but i believe its pretty normal in most if not all of America.
Ok thank you!
I really believe that a lot of the feeling of injustice revolves around the fact that Zimmermann probably feared for his life, but his life was actually never in danger.
Even if there was no actual profiling, there is a possibility in my opinion that he thought to himself: "Oh my god, a black guy lurking in my neighbourhood, that means trouble", is that enough to call him a racist? I'm not quite sure how the racial laws work in the US, but the Racist vigilante thing seems very far fetched for me... Even after reading the transcripts of the calls, where it probably was 90 % adrenaline speaking.
For me, this proves once again that giving ANYONE a gun is the real deal. This guy is probably a pussy, with probably as much self control as my Girlfriend in front of -50% sales... How the fuck did this guy get a loaded gun and be allowed to serve as militia? You can't ask the average Joe to act like a well trained Policeman and then try to give the guy the chair when an accident happens.
Because this is really what is seems to be... an Accident and I firmly believe that Zimmermann is no stone cold killer and that he is going to suffer enough from having killed a 17 year old kid for no reason (I didn't really like his smile at the verdict, but thats just human nature...)
All of this being said, I can't even imagine what the family has gone through and the suffering that is still to come. How unfair it must seem that someone is allowed to shoot an unarmed teenager and get away with it.
But Zimmermann DOES actually have the law on his side... So if there is anything to do now, it's use this injustice as fuel for protest against the laws themselves.
EDIT: By accident I mean that there was no premeditation. I could imagine involuntary manslaughter here, but I guess that would have been a whole other story...
|
On July 16 2013 22:04 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2013 21:52 Leporello wrote:On July 16 2013 21:46 sc2superfan101 wrote:
2) Zimmerman wasn't aware of Trayvon's race when he called the police (no racial profiling). You should sell your psychic services for money. Do you have any evidence that he did?
Operators first question: Is he white, black or hispanic?
Answer: He looks black.
He is aware of TM's race.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
