|
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 17 2013 01:09 Oleo wrote:
Its funny, in this thread whenever something is not entirely 100% proven the circumstanial evidence is twisted in a scenario favoring GZ and disfavouring TM, ignoring evidence which shows GZ is doing something wrong, interpretting any circumstantial evidence to show TM did a lot wrong. There is too much bias so enjoy your sorry selves.
Well there's really no alternative since:
- Benefit of the doubt goes to the defense
- The evidence and eye witness testimony has been almost unanimously in favor of Zimmerman's story
For every argument against Zimmerman, there are at least two to counter it. Ultimately it created a ton of reasonable doubt that got him acquitted. At most you can argue that Zimmerman should be convicted for taking risky behavior in following Trayvon, but there's nothing pointing to murder or manslaughter.
|
|
|
Well, inviting the juror looks like an incredibly risky maneuver by Mr. Cooper and his staff (or whoever came up with that idea). I would not be surprised if something happened to her.
|
We are going to watch the outcry and response from the ruling slowly drive up the 'race' topic, even though it likely was only a minor factor in the shooting itself. We can only hope that rational people get burned out quickly and start tuning it out.
On July 17 2013 01:15 Dagobert wrote:
Well, inviting the juror looks like an incredibly risky maneuver by Mr. Cooper and his staff (or whoever came up with that idea). I would not be surprised if something happened to her.
If something does, the entire case will be turned on its head. There are a ton of people(likely the majority) who just want to let the ruling stand and are not outraged at all. Those people will get outraged very quickly if a juror is hurt or killed because one minority community did not like the ruling.
|
On July 17 2013 00:57 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2013 00:43 ZasZ. wrote:On July 17 2013 00:24 Leporello wrote:
Again, I'm not arguing that GZ actually did racially profile Trayvon, only that it's one of so many possibilities surrounding this case. We give him that benefit of the doubt, not just in the courtroom, but pretty heavily in this thread...
And yet, I was reading posts essentially blaming Trayvon for his own death, saying he "should've just walked home" like he doesn't have the right to walk down a public street when he's under suspicion by the local gun-wielding busybody. "He should've walked home," can be a perfectly true statement without blaming Trayvon Martin for his own death. Those people are right, if he had gone straight home he would still be alive. It's one of many contributing factors that evening, in that if it had gone a bit differently he would still be alive. That said, I do think that Trayvon shares part of the blame in his own death, as without the altercation requiring Zimmerman to fire the gun he would still be alive. It is not against the law to follow someone, it is against the law to assault them. He absolutely has the right to walk down a public street, just like George Zimmerman has the right to be suspicious of him. In fact, as neighborhood watch, I'd argue that it's his responsibility to be suspicious. The gun is obviously excessive for neighborhood watch duties, but if he has a license to carry it and doesn't just take it around his neighborhood I see no reason why it is unusual that he was carrying. What Trayvon Martin didn't have the right to do was assault Zimmerman, which from all the evidence presented in this case, looks like the way it happened. It seems people are unfamiliar with the concept of a neighborhood watch. Your bias is showing when you call him a "gun-wielding busybody," but being a busybody is the entire point of the volunteer position. Up until the point where the fight broke out, Zimmerman was doing his job, so to speak, in keeping an eye on a suspicious character when there had been a problem with break-ins. If he shrugs off a suspicious character, for fear of racial profiling, that makes him a bad neighborhood watch and defeats the whole purpose of the initiative. It's absolutely no better than making the assumption that Trayvon was racially profiled. I get argued with for simply suggesting that it's possible Trayvon was racially profiled, but people want to tell me how obvious it is that Trayvon was the initial aggressor, despite no hard evidence. M'kay. I sense a double-standard.
You will never prove GZ was racially profiling TM because there is just not enough evidence, prosecution would have proved it if it was the case. But even it we assume he did. That because there were a lot of robberies in the neighborhood by blacks it was more reasonable to assume the black kid who looks a stranger to the neighborhood can be "up to no good". Is it reasonable racial profiling? Yes. I think we need to accept that not all of racial profiling is bad and unlogical. After all GZ was kind of right and TM had a solid criminal record by his 17 years. But that is a very sensitive and complicated matter of where to draw the line between reasonable profiling and unreasonable. Usually people solve it by banning all profiling.
|
This is disgusting. The race-baiters won. Congrats.
I wonder if the assailants will be brought to trial for hate crimes.
|
Indeed. Shows how ignorant and heartless people are. They think Zimmerman is a monster but they are a bigger problem.
|
Well the media got their story, didn't they? I hope they are punished for their irresponsible conduct that caused this.
|
Multiple people were beat up in LA last night. There was a group just walking up to people and beating the shit out of them. You know where there isn't a lot of violence right now? In Florida... because they will shoot you and kill you if you start beating the shit out of them... and then be found not guilty.
|
What if Trayvon had punched or head-slammed George Zimmerman harder than he did, and George Zimmerman died as a result?
Keep everything else the same, with all the facts, evidence, and testimony presented in this case. Would Trayvon not be the one walking free out of the courtroom, having been found Not Guilty on grounds of self-defense?
All he has to do is claim GZ threatened his life directly and reached for his gun, so Trayvon felt he had to tackle him and assault GZ until he was certain he wasn't going to get shot at. None of the evidence would refute his claim, GZ's gun and phone dispatch recording would both confirm Trayvon's story. You'd have to give Trayvon the benefit of the doubt, that he was defending himself with what he had against a man with a gun (and an actually clear motive), and he'd walk free.
It's a sad and unfortunate fact that, given our justice system, once the fight had started, Trayvon would've been better off not in just subduing George Zimmerman or beating him up, but in actually beating George Zimmerman to death, Trayvon would've ensured himself the best outcome, legally speaking.
It's an unavoidable circumstance of a wonderful premise -- that we don't punish anyone who could at all possibly be innocent. But it's just something to keep in mind.
|
On July 17 2013 01:36 Leporello wrote:
What if Trayvon had punched or head-slammed George Zimmerman harder than he did, and George Zimmerman died as a result?
Keep everything else the same, with all the facts, evidence, and testimony presented in this case. Would Trayvon not be the one walking free out of the courtroom, having been found Not Guilty on grounds of self-defense?
All he has to do is claim GZ threatened his life directly and reached for his gun, so Trayvon felt he had to tackle him and assault GZ until he was certain he wasn't going to get shot at. None of the evidence would refute his claim, GZ's gun and phone dispatch recording would both confirm Trayvon's story. You'd have to give Trayvon the benefit of the doubt, that he was defending himself with what he had against a man with a gun, and he'd walk free.
It's a sad and unfortunate fact that, given our justice system, once the fight had started, Trayvon would've been better off not in just subduing George Zimmerman or beating him up, but in actually beating George Zimmerman to death, Trayvon would've ensured himself the best outcome, legally speaking.
It's an unavoidable circumstance of a wonderful premise -- that we don't punish anyone who could at all possibly be innocent. But it's just something to keep in mind.
Nope.
When there is an eye witness that says the guy on the bottom was screaming for help while the guy on top was beating the shit out of him, and all evidence points towards the guy on top initiating the confrontation, it's pretty unlikely that he would be able to claim self defense.
|
On July 17 2013 01:36 Leporello wrote:
What if Trayvon had punched or head-slammed George Zimmerman harder than he did, and George Zimmerman died as a result?
Keep everything else the same, with all the facts, evidence, and testimony presented in this case. Would Trayvon not be the one walking free out of the courtroom, having been found Not Guilty on grounds of self-defense?
All he has to do is claim GZ threatened his life directly and reached for his gun, so Trayvon felt he had to tackle him and assault GZ until he was certain he wasn't going to get shot at. None of the evidence would refute his claim, GZ's gun and phone dispatch recording would both confirm Trayvon's story. You'd have to give Trayvon the benefit of the doubt, that he was defending himself with what he had against a man with a gun, and he'd walk free.
It's a sad and unfortunate fact that, given our justice system, once the fight had started, Trayvon would've been better off not in just subduing George Zimmerman or beating him up, but in actually beating George Zimmerman to death, Trayvon would've ensured himself the best outcome, legally speaking.
It's an unavoidable circumstance of a wonderful premise -- that we don't punish anyone who could at all possibly be innocent. But it's just something to keep in mind.
That's actually a decent possibility. Although at the same time, self-defense doesn't apply if the person you're beating up makes an effort to retreat. The general idea of self-defense is that you can no longer claim it if the person who is threatening you tries to withdraw from the fight. Since we know that Trayvon was on top and that there were cries of help, it's possible that Trayvon would still be guilty.
Then again, this is all hypothetical, but it does show how the law can be twisted pretty much any way you want.
|
On July 17 2013 01:36 Leporello wrote:
What if Trayvon had punched or head-slammed George Zimmerman harder than he did, and George Zimmerman died as a result?
Keep everything else the same, with all the facts, evidence, and testimony presented in this case. Would Trayvon not be the one walking free out of the courtroom, having been found Not Guilty on grounds of self-defense?
All he has to do is claim GZ threatened his life directly and reached for his gun, so Trayvon felt he had to tackle him and assault GZ until he was certain he wasn't going to get shot at. None of the evidence would refute his claim, GZ's gun and phone dispatch recording would both confirm Trayvon's story. You'd have to give Trayvon the benefit of the doubt, that he was defending himself with what he had against a man with a gun, and he'd walk free.
It's a sad and unfortunate fact that, given our justice system, once the fight had started, Trayvon would've been better off not in just subduing George Zimmerman or beating him up, but in actually beating George Zimmerman to death, Trayvon would've ensured himself the best outcome, legally speaking.
It's an unavoidable circumstance of a wonderful premise -- that we don't punish anyone who could at all possibly be innocent. But it's just something to keep in mind.
When GZ shouted for help, he should have stopped punching him, when John Good yelled to stop, if Trayvon would have stopped it would have been over. If GZ would have shot him then, he would be in prison now for murder. It's the fact that Trayvon didn't stop slamming his head in to the ground, even when he had won, and there were people telling him to stop. That's what makes it self defense
|
On July 17 2013 01:36 Leporello wrote:
What if Trayvon had punched or head-slammed George Zimmerman harder than he did, and George Zimmerman died as a result?
Keep everything else the same, with all the facts, evidence, and testimony presented in this case. Would Trayvon not be the one walking free out of the courtroom, having been found Not Guilty on grounds of self-defense?
All he has to do is claim GZ threatened his life directly and reached for his gun, so Trayvon felt he had to tackle him and assault GZ until he was certain he wasn't going to get shot at. None of the evidence would refute his claim, GZ's gun and phone dispatch recording would both confirm Trayvon's story. You'd have to give Trayvon the benefit of the doubt, that he was defending himself with what he had against a man with a gun, and he'd walk free.
It's a sad and unfortunate fact that, given our justice system, once the fight had started, Trayvon would've been better off not in just subduing George Zimmerman or beating him up, but in actually beating George Zimmerman to death, Trayvon would've ensured himself the best outcome, legally speaking.
It's an unavoidable circumstance of a wonderful premise -- that we don't punish anyone who could at all possibly be innocent. But it's just something to keep in mind.
That entire post is baseless crap you made up for an argument that isn't even made because literally not a word of what you just said applies to the scene or to the situation.
You do not win arguments about a case by making up would could have happened and then having us all imagine your dream world. You do it with facts of the situation.
These people who keep saying IF TRAYVON HAD X IF ZIMMERMAN HAD Y IF IF IF are just so devoid of any intellectual capacity, so unequipped to have this conversation that they should be disregarded off-hand. It's so pathetic to attempt to paint a scenario that doesn't even come close to what we know happened and then somehow apply it to what actually happened.
How about you discuss the actual events and stop with all this "what if" nonsense.
What if Trayvon actually attacked Zimmerman, unprovoked? What if. Discuss that.
|
On July 17 2013 01:40 SKC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2013 01:36 Leporello wrote:
What if Trayvon had punched or head-slammed George Zimmerman harder than he did, and George Zimmerman died as a result?
Keep everything else the same, with all the facts, evidence, and testimony presented in this case. Would Trayvon not be the one walking free out of the courtroom, having been found Not Guilty on grounds of self-defense?
All he has to do is claim GZ threatened his life directly and reached for his gun, so Trayvon felt he had to tackle him and assault GZ until he was certain he wasn't going to get shot at. None of the evidence would refute his claim, GZ's gun and phone dispatch recording would both confirm Trayvon's story. You'd have to give Trayvon the benefit of the doubt, that he was defending himself with what he had against a man with a gun, and he'd walk free.
It's a sad and unfortunate fact that, given our justice system, once the fight had started, Trayvon would've been better off not in just subduing George Zimmerman or beating him up, but in actually beating George Zimmerman to death, Trayvon would've ensured himself the best outcome, legally speaking.
It's an unavoidable circumstance of a wonderful premise -- that we don't punish anyone who could at all possibly be innocent. But it's just something to keep in mind. Nope. When there is an eye witness that says the guy on the bottom was screaming for help while the guy on top was beating the shit out of him, and all evidence points towards the guy on top initiating the confrontation, it's pretty unlikely that he would be able to claim self defense.
Really, you think so? The guy had a gun, how would you convict Trayvon for defending himself against someone who he claims threatened him with a gun? Can you dispute it? Can you prove Trayvon didn't see the gun, and that Zimmerman threatened him and reached for it before being tackled?
Or does your reasonable doubt just have its limits? Or biases?
Is that you just have no problem assuming that Trayvon initially assaulted George Zimmerman, but do have a problem believing that George Zimmerman could've actually threatened Trayvon?
|
On July 17 2013 01:36 Leporello wrote:
What if Trayvon had punched or head-slammed George Zimmerman harder than he did, and George Zimmerman died as a result?
Keep everything else the same, with all the facts, evidence, and testimony presented in this case. Would Trayvon not be the one walking free out of the courtroom, having been found Not Guilty on grounds of self-defense?
All he has to do is claim GZ threatened his life directly and reached for his gun, so Trayvon felt he had to tackle him and assault GZ until he was certain he wasn't going to get shot at. None of the evidence would refute his claim, GZ's gun and phone dispatch recording would both confirm Trayvon's story. You'd have to give Trayvon the benefit of the doubt, that he was defending himself with what he had against a man with a gun (and an actually clear motive), and he'd walk free.
It's a sad and unfortunate fact that, given our justice system, once the fight had started, Trayvon would've been better off not in just subduing George Zimmerman or beating him up, but in actually beating George Zimmerman to death, Trayvon would've ensured himself the best outcome, legally speaking.
It's an unavoidable circumstance of a wonderful premise -- that we don't punish anyone who could at all possibly be innocent. But it's just something to keep in mind.
I don't know how solid the "he reached for his gun" defense is.
The best thing for Trayvon to do, once the fight started, is to do what you are supposed to do - meet force with force. Knock Zimmerman on his ass, sure, but then don't go in to finish him off.
|
On July 17 2013 01:43 Felnarion wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2013 01:36 Leporello wrote:
What if Trayvon had punched or head-slammed George Zimmerman harder than he did, and George Zimmerman died as a result?
Keep everything else the same, with all the facts, evidence, and testimony presented in this case. Would Trayvon not be the one walking free out of the courtroom, having been found Not Guilty on grounds of self-defense?
All he has to do is claim GZ threatened his life directly and reached for his gun, so Trayvon felt he had to tackle him and assault GZ until he was certain he wasn't going to get shot at. None of the evidence would refute his claim, GZ's gun and phone dispatch recording would both confirm Trayvon's story. You'd have to give Trayvon the benefit of the doubt, that he was defending himself with what he had against a man with a gun, and he'd walk free.
It's a sad and unfortunate fact that, given our justice system, once the fight had started, Trayvon would've been better off not in just subduing George Zimmerman or beating him up, but in actually beating George Zimmerman to death, Trayvon would've ensured himself the best outcome, legally speaking.
It's an unavoidable circumstance of a wonderful premise -- that we don't punish anyone who could at all possibly be innocent. But it's just something to keep in mind. That entire post is baseless crap you made up for an argument that isn't even made because literally not a word of what you just said applies to the scene or to the situation. You do not win arguments about a case by making up would could have happened and then having us all imagine your dream world. You do it with facts of the situation. These people who keep saying IF TRAYVON HAD X IF ZIMMERMAN HAD Y IF IF IF are just so devoid of any intellectual capacity, so unequipped to have this conversation that they should be disregarded off-hand. It's so pathetic to attempt to paint a scenario that doesn't even come close to what we know happened and then somehow apply it to what actually happened. How about you discuss the actual events and stop with all this "what if" nonsense. What if Trayvon actually attacked Zimmerman, unprovoked? What if. Discuss that.
I'm not arguing against the case at all, before you seek to mansplain the justice system to me. Thanks.
I am, however, discussing the actual events, as you say.
If Trayvon had killed George Zimmerman on that sidewalk -- would he be convicted of murder? Gee, what an upsetting question...
TL was better than this.
|
On July 17 2013 01:44 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2013 01:40 SKC wrote:On July 17 2013 01:36 Leporello wrote:
What if Trayvon had punched or head-slammed George Zimmerman harder than he did, and George Zimmerman died as a result?
Keep everything else the same, with all the facts, evidence, and testimony presented in this case. Would Trayvon not be the one walking free out of the courtroom, having been found Not Guilty on grounds of self-defense?
All he has to do is claim GZ threatened his life directly and reached for his gun, so Trayvon felt he had to tackle him and assault GZ until he was certain he wasn't going to get shot at. None of the evidence would refute his claim, GZ's gun and phone dispatch recording would both confirm Trayvon's story. You'd have to give Trayvon the benefit of the doubt, that he was defending himself with what he had against a man with a gun, and he'd walk free.
It's a sad and unfortunate fact that, given our justice system, once the fight had started, Trayvon would've been better off not in just subduing George Zimmerman or beating him up, but in actually beating George Zimmerman to death, Trayvon would've ensured himself the best outcome, legally speaking.
It's an unavoidable circumstance of a wonderful premise -- that we don't punish anyone who could at all possibly be innocent. But it's just something to keep in mind. Nope. When there is an eye witness that says the guy on the bottom was screaming for help while the guy on top was beating the shit out of him, and all evidence points towards the guy on top initiating the confrontation, it's pretty unlikely that he would be able to claim self defense. Really, you think so? The guy had a gun, how would you convict Trayvon for defending himself against someone who he claims threatened him with a gun? Can you dispute it? Can you prove Trayvon didn't see the gun, and that Zimmerman threatened him and reached for it before being tackled? Or does your reasonable doubt just have its limits? Or biases? Is that you just have no problem assuming that Trayvon initially assaulted George Zimmerman, but do have a problem believing that George Zimmerman could've actually threatened Trayvon?
I'm pretty damn sure he wouldn't, if the remaining evidence remained the same. That's not how it works, you can't just say something and it is true unless there is 100% proof that it is a lie. Reasonable doubt is a diferent concept. The fact he kept punching him while he had the ability to retreat, Zimmermann was screaming for help and even a neighbour told them to stop makes it a pretty obvious case of not self defense. There is also no reason for Zimmermann to threaten him, he had no reasonable motive to just go up to him and kill him. It's not a situation people would believe without any evidence supporting it.
|
On July 17 2013 01:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2013 01:36 Leporello wrote:
What if Trayvon had punched or head-slammed George Zimmerman harder than he did, and George Zimmerman died as a result?
Keep everything else the same, with all the facts, evidence, and testimony presented in this case. Would Trayvon not be the one walking free out of the courtroom, having been found Not Guilty on grounds of self-defense?
All he has to do is claim GZ threatened his life directly and reached for his gun, so Trayvon felt he had to tackle him and assault GZ until he was certain he wasn't going to get shot at. None of the evidence would refute his claim, GZ's gun and phone dispatch recording would both confirm Trayvon's story. You'd have to give Trayvon the benefit of the doubt, that he was defending himself with what he had against a man with a gun (and an actually clear motive), and he'd walk free.
It's a sad and unfortunate fact that, given our justice system, once the fight had started, Trayvon would've been better off not in just subduing George Zimmerman or beating him up, but in actually beating George Zimmerman to death, Trayvon would've ensured himself the best outcome, legally speaking.
It's an unavoidable circumstance of a wonderful premise -- that we don't punish anyone who could at all possibly be innocent. But it's just something to keep in mind. I don't know how solid the "he reached for his gun" defense is. The best thing for Trayvon to do, once the fight started, is to do what you are supposed to do - meet force with force. Knock Zimmerman on his ass, sure, but then don't go in to finish him off.
But would he get convicted of murder? I mean, wouldn't he have that sliver of plausible doubt?
Would he not have been better off killing Zimmerman?
Thanks for a polite reply.
|
On July 17 2013 01:44 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2013 01:40 SKC wrote:On July 17 2013 01:36 Leporello wrote:
What if Trayvon had punched or head-slammed George Zimmerman harder than he did, and George Zimmerman died as a result?
Keep everything else the same, with all the facts, evidence, and testimony presented in this case. Would Trayvon not be the one walking free out of the courtroom, having been found Not Guilty on grounds of self-defense?
All he has to do is claim GZ threatened his life directly and reached for his gun, so Trayvon felt he had to tackle him and assault GZ until he was certain he wasn't going to get shot at. None of the evidence would refute his claim, GZ's gun and phone dispatch recording would both confirm Trayvon's story. You'd have to give Trayvon the benefit of the doubt, that he was defending himself with what he had against a man with a gun, and he'd walk free.
It's a sad and unfortunate fact that, given our justice system, once the fight had started, Trayvon would've been better off not in just subduing George Zimmerman or beating him up, but in actually beating George Zimmerman to death, Trayvon would've ensured himself the best outcome, legally speaking.
It's an unavoidable circumstance of a wonderful premise -- that we don't punish anyone who could at all possibly be innocent. But it's just something to keep in mind. Nope. When there is an eye witness that says the guy on the bottom was screaming for help while the guy on top was beating the shit out of him, and all evidence points towards the guy on top initiating the confrontation, it's pretty unlikely that he would be able to claim self defense. Really, you think so? The guy had a gun, how would you convict Trayvon for defending himself against someone who he claims threatened him with a gun? Can you dispute it? Can you prove Trayvon didn't see the gun, and that Zimmerman threatened him and reached for it before being tackled? Or does your reasonable doubt just have its limits? Or biases? Is that you just have no problem assuming that Trayvon initially assaulted George Zimmerman, but do have a problem believing that George Zimmerman could've actually threatened Trayvon?
The difficulty I have is that in your scenario Zimmerman didn't pull out his gun so it would still be in the holster. Plus Trayvon was seen on top and in control of the fight. So proving that Trayvon felt in fear of mortal danger would be fairly difficult to pass the "reasonableness" test.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
