|
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 01:49 SKC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2013 01:44 Leporello wrote: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.
0.0
Wow.
I'm paralyzed by that, I mean I need a break now. Hello complete and total double-standard. I'm done here.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On July 17 2013 01:51 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2013 01:45 JonnyBNoHo 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 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.
The evidence wouldn't point in his favor. Not to mention you don't have to kill someone to stop them from shooting you.
|
On July 17 2013 01:52 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2013 01:49 SKC wrote:On July 17 2013 01:44 Leporello wrote: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. 0.0 Wow.
What? Do you know the diference between reasonable doubt and absolute proof?
|
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?
Yeah, a question, you definitely posed it as a question, and not a claim. You asked a rhetorical question and then immediately went into justifying why you felt that way.
And your stupid assumption is that the entire scene is the same, but Trayvon would be able to beat Zimmerman to death, literally to death with his fists, and get away with it because Zimmerman had a gun.
It's one thing to fire once at someone who is on top of you and, by chance angle, hit their heart, killing them.
It's entirely another thing to literally punch and slam someone past unconsciousness, into death.
If you can't see the difference, the conversation isn't worth having. Nevermind that it's totally irrelevant because there is nothing that says the situation happened this way.
If you wanna discuss the Magical Unicorn Shooting you've made up in your mind, there's other threads for that, go make one, stop mucking this one up with this baseless crap.
|
On July 17 2013 01:53 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2013 01:51 Leporello wrote:On July 17 2013 01:45 JonnyBNoHo 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 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. The evidence wouldn't point in his favor. Not to mention you don't have to kill someone to stop them from shooting you.
Accidental killing blow.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On July 17 2013 01:54 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2013 01:53 LegalLord wrote:On July 17 2013 01:51 Leporello wrote:On July 17 2013 01:45 JonnyBNoHo 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 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. The evidence wouldn't point in his favor. Not to mention you don't have to kill someone to stop them from shooting you. Accidental killing blow.
Excessive force.
If Trayvon were alive, he could very well have served time for assault.
|
On July 17 2013 01:51 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2013 01:45 JonnyBNoHo 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 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.
Maybe not murder, could be manslaughter. You could make an argument that he would have been better off killing Zimmermann anyway, since being convicted is better than being dead. He would be better off if he didn't attack Zimmermann and had gone straight home.
|
"People have been obsessed with the George Zimmerman murder trial. People are tracking it like it was a black teenager in a gated community."
|
On July 17 2013 02:03 SKC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2013 01:51 Leporello wrote:On July 17 2013 01:45 JonnyBNoHo 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 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. Maybe not murder, could be manslaughter. You could make an argument that he would have been better off killing Zimmermann anyway, since being convicted is better than being dead. He would be better off if he didn't attack Zimmermann and had gone straight home.
Or even if he hadn't gone straight home, or had done literally anything but attack someone.
|
On July 17 2013 01:54 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2013 01:53 LegalLord wrote:On July 17 2013 01:51 Leporello wrote:On July 17 2013 01:45 JonnyBNoHo 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 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. The evidence wouldn't point in his favor. Not to mention you don't have to kill someone to stop them from shooting you. Accidental killing blow.
If you are talking about the exact case, he would likely still be guilty of manslaughter. He was on top of Zimmerman and we assume not aware he had a gun(because we assume if Martin was aware, he woudl have tried to get control of the gun). At that point being on top of GZ, Trayvon had no reasonable fear of death or harm and even an "Accidental killing blow." would be manslaughter. Due to the witness, John Good, he could not lie about self defense.
This assumes that Trayvon was not aware of the gun. If he was, that maybe different.
|
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?
Funny enough, the mirror case that no one has even heard about (Black man shoots white teen) the black man happened upon a group of teens and DID threaten them with a gun saying "Stay there I have a gun and am calling the cops" The teen then rushed at the man and the man shot him. The verdict was the same exact thing as the GZ trial. So your baseless hypothetical would still result in the teen being the aggressor regardless of being "threatened" with a gun.
|
On July 17 2013 02:14 Dosey wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2013 01:44 Leporello wrote: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? Funny enough, the mirror case that no one has even heard about (Black man shoots white teen) the black man happened upon a group of teens and DID threaten them with a gun saying "Stay there I have a gun and am calling the cops" The teen then rushed at the man and the man shot him. The verdict was the same exact thing as the GZ trial. So your baseless hypothetical would still result in the teen being the aggressor regardless of being "threatened" with a gun.
Out of curiosity, what case are you referring to?
|
This case really brings out the stupid in people. The leaps people go to to protect their convictions from facts.
|
On July 17 2013 02:18 Spawkuring wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2013 02:14 Dosey wrote:On July 17 2013 01:44 Leporello wrote: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? Funny enough, the mirror case that no one has even heard about (Black man shoots white teen) the black man happened upon a group of teens and DID threaten them with a gun saying "Stay there I have a gun and am calling the cops" The teen then rushed at the man and the man shot him. The verdict was the same exact thing as the GZ trial. So your baseless hypothetical would still result in the teen being the aggressor regardless of being "threatened" with a gun. Out of curiosity, what case are you referring to?
http://rochester.ynn.com/content/top_stories/490926/jury-finds-roderick-scott-not-guilty/
|
On July 17 2013 02:22 Ferrose wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2013 02:18 Spawkuring wrote:On July 17 2013 02:14 Dosey wrote:On July 17 2013 01:44 Leporello wrote: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? Funny enough, the mirror case that no one has even heard about (Black man shoots white teen) the black man happened upon a group of teens and DID threaten them with a gun saying "Stay there I have a gun and am calling the cops" The teen then rushed at the man and the man shot him. The verdict was the same exact thing as the GZ trial. So your baseless hypothetical would still result in the teen being the aggressor regardless of being "threatened" with a gun. Out of curiosity, what case are you referring to? http://rochester.ynn.com/content/top_stories/490926/jury-finds-roderick-scott-not-guilty/
Thank you, I couldn't remember the mans name. Just remember clicking it in a facebook link.
|
On July 17 2013 02:24 Dosey wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2013 02:22 Ferrose wrote:On July 17 2013 02:18 Spawkuring wrote:On July 17 2013 02:14 Dosey wrote:On July 17 2013 01:44 Leporello wrote: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? Funny enough, the mirror case that no one has even heard about (Black man shoots white teen) the black man happened upon a group of teens and DID threaten them with a gun saying "Stay there I have a gun and am calling the cops" The teen then rushed at the man and the man shot him. The verdict was the same exact thing as the GZ trial. So your baseless hypothetical would still result in the teen being the aggressor regardless of being "threatened" with a gun. Out of curiosity, what case are you referring to? http://rochester.ynn.com/content/top_stories/490926/jury-finds-roderick-scott-not-guilty/ Thank you, I couldn't remember the mans name. Just remember clicking it in a facebook link.
I've been showing it to all the people on my Facebook saying that Zimmerman would be easily convicted if he were black and Trayvon were white : D
|
On July 17 2013 02:04 shuttledance wrote:
"People have been obsessed with the George Zimmerman murder trial. People are tracking it like it was a black teenager in a gated community."
where did you find this quote this is the funniest thing yet.
|
On July 17 2013 02:22 Ferrose wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2013 02:18 Spawkuring wrote:On July 17 2013 02:14 Dosey wrote:On July 17 2013 01:44 Leporello wrote: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? Funny enough, the mirror case that no one has even heard about (Black man shoots white teen) the black man happened upon a group of teens and DID threaten them with a gun saying "Stay there I have a gun and am calling the cops" The teen then rushed at the man and the man shot him. The verdict was the same exact thing as the GZ trial. So your baseless hypothetical would still result in the teen being the aggressor regardless of being "threatened" with a gun. Out of curiosity, what case are you referring to? http://rochester.ynn.com/content/top_stories/490926/jury-finds-roderick-scott-not-guilty/
what you all fail to realize is the moment zimmerman "stalked" treyvon, was the moment he was the aggressor. The argument is such that treyvon could have simply just "walked away", well he was actively walking away the whole time.
It a pretty f***** up world when I can run down someone, confront them, begin to defend/attack rather then avoiding confrontation, begin to lose the mutual combat, then shoot the person to death 300 meters away from where I started running after the kid.
^
and get acquitted saying that the victim was in fact the aggressor.
|
On July 17 2013 02:29 Ferrose wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2013 02:24 Dosey wrote:On July 17 2013 02:22 Ferrose wrote:On July 17 2013 02:18 Spawkuring wrote:On July 17 2013 02:14 Dosey wrote:On July 17 2013 01:44 Leporello wrote: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? Funny enough, the mirror case that no one has even heard about (Black man shoots white teen) the black man happened upon a group of teens and DID threaten them with a gun saying "Stay there I have a gun and am calling the cops" The teen then rushed at the man and the man shot him. The verdict was the same exact thing as the GZ trial. So your baseless hypothetical would still result in the teen being the aggressor regardless of being "threatened" with a gun. Out of curiosity, what case are you referring to? http://rochester.ynn.com/content/top_stories/490926/jury-finds-roderick-scott-not-guilty/ Thank you, I couldn't remember the mans name. Just remember clicking it in a facebook link. I've been showing it to all the people on my Facebook saying that Zimmerman would be easily convicted if he were black and Trayvon were white : D
Yeah, that thing case is an awesome bookend to this one. The kid clearly wasn't trying to kill Roderick, but how would Roderick know that.
|
On July 17 2013 02:33 Fusa wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2013 02:22 Ferrose wrote:On July 17 2013 02:18 Spawkuring wrote:On July 17 2013 02:14 Dosey wrote:On July 17 2013 01:44 Leporello wrote: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? Funny enough, the mirror case that no one has even heard about (Black man shoots white teen) the black man happened upon a group of teens and DID threaten them with a gun saying "Stay there I have a gun and am calling the cops" The teen then rushed at the man and the man shot him. The verdict was the same exact thing as the GZ trial. So your baseless hypothetical would still result in the teen being the aggressor regardless of being "threatened" with a gun. Out of curiosity, what case are you referring to? http://rochester.ynn.com/content/top_stories/490926/jury-finds-roderick-scott-not-guilty/ what you all fail to realize is the moment zimmerman "stalked" treyvon, was the moment he was the aggressor. The argument is such that treyvon could have simply just "walked away", well he was actively walking away the whole time. It a pretty f***** up world when I can run down someone, confront them, begin to defend/attack rather then avoiding confrontation, begin to lose the mutual combat, then shoot the person to death 300 meters away from where I started running after the kid.
Did you just make all that up as you went? That isn't the facts of the case at all. You need to read up on it, rather than just believing what other people tell you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
