|
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 02:30 ComaDose wrote:Show nested quote +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.
I think this is colbert report but I'm not 100% sure lol
|
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.
He wasn't. If Trayvon was walking home at any reasonable speed he would have time to go home, go back to the store and even repeat the process. The timeline doesn't fit the theory that he went straight home, specially not if you are in a hurry because a creepy guy is following you.
|
On July 17 2013 02:30 ComaDose wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Just saw it on Comedy Central, and I am pretty sure it was not John Oliver, so Colbert.
|
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. ^ and get acquitted saying that the victim was in fact the aggressor.
Wow. Did you just stumble upon this thread (or story) and start typing?
|
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?
that is not correct. it has to be proportional. however, its proportional to the fear; there does not have to be actual injury (i.e., you dont have to wait for him to inflict great bodily harm before you kill him; you just have to reasonably fear it).
|
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.
self defense law originally comes from europe. america got it from england--although it has been slightly modified over hundreds of years.
i am really curious about how self defense works in other countries because people seem to think america has weird laws, but my understanding is that its pretty universal.
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.
same in america. you cant escalate, only react proportionally.
|
On July 17 2013 02:35 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2013 02:33 Fusa 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/ 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.
"About two minutes into the call, Zimmerman said, "he's running."[13] The dispatcher asked, "He's running? Which way is he running?"[74] The sound of a car door chime is heard, indicating Zimmerman opened his car door.[75] Zimmerman followed Martin, eventually losing sight of him.[13] The dispatcher asked Zimmerman if he was following him. When Zimmerman answered, "yeah," the dispatcher said, "We don't need you to do that." Zimmerman responded, "Okay."[76] Zimmerman asked that police call him upon their arrival so he could provide his location.[13] Zimmerman ended the call at 7:15 p.m.[13]"
Sounds pretty much like Zimmerman followed Trayvon.
Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin#Shooting_and_investigation
|
On July 17 2013 03:13 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2013 02:35 Plansix wrote:On July 17 2013 02:33 Fusa 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/ 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. "About two minutes into the call, Zimmerman said, "he's running."[13] The dispatcher asked, "He's running? Which way is he running?"[74] The sound of a car door chime is heard, indicating Zimmerman opened his car door.[75] Zimmerman followed Martin, eventually losing sight of him.[13] The dispatcher asked Zimmerman if he was following him. When Zimmerman answered, "yeah," the dispatcher said, "We don't need you to do that." Zimmerman responded, "Okay."[76] Zimmerman asked that police call him upon their arrival so he could provide his location.[13] Zimmerman ended the call at 7:15 p.m.[13]" Sounds pretty much like Zimmerman followed Trayvon. Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin#Shooting_and_investigation
Your own quote says Zimmermann lost him at some point. It doesn't have a timeline. It in no way disproves the fact that Trayvon could have just walked away to his house, and if he did so the conflict wouldn't have happened. If you want more detailed information you need something better than Wikipedia.
|
On July 17 2013 03:13 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2013 02:35 Plansix wrote:On July 17 2013 02:33 Fusa 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/ 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. "About two minutes into the call, Zimmerman said, "he's running."[13] The dispatcher asked, "He's running? Which way is he running?"[74] The sound of a car door chime is heard, indicating Zimmerman opened his car door.[75] Zimmerman followed Martin, eventually losing sight of him.[13] The dispatcher asked Zimmerman if he was following him. When Zimmerman answered, "yeah," the dispatcher said, "We don't need you to do that." Zimmerman responded, "Okay."[76] Zimmerman asked that police call him upon their arrival so he could provide his location.[13] Zimmerman ended the call at 7:15 p.m.[13]" Sounds pretty much like Zimmerman followed Trayvon. Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin#Shooting_and_investigation
OMG, the entire case is detailed in the OP. We are not doing this again. He did follow Trayvon, which is not illegal. We know what happened and that self defense was justified.
|
On July 17 2013 03:16 SKC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2013 03:13 Nyxisto wrote:On July 17 2013 02:35 Plansix wrote:On July 17 2013 02:33 Fusa 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/ 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. "About two minutes into the call, Zimmerman said, "he's running."[13] The dispatcher asked, "He's running? Which way is he running?"[74] The sound of a car door chime is heard, indicating Zimmerman opened his car door.[75] Zimmerman followed Martin, eventually losing sight of him.[13] The dispatcher asked Zimmerman if he was following him. When Zimmerman answered, "yeah," the dispatcher said, "We don't need you to do that." Zimmerman responded, "Okay."[76] Zimmerman asked that police call him upon their arrival so he could provide his location.[13] Zimmerman ended the call at 7:15 p.m.[13]" Sounds pretty much like Zimmerman followed Trayvon. Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin#Shooting_and_investigation Your own quote says Zimmermann lost him at some point. It doesn't have a timeline. It in no way disproves the fact that Trayvon could have just walked away to his house. If you want more detailed information you need something better than Wikipedia.
Trayvon is running and Zimmeran is following him. Zimmerman even confirms this. Then the police advices him to not follow anymore. Then the call ends. Next thing we know is a confrontation happend and one guy is dead. And these are direct parts from the conversations. What exactly is your point?
|
On July 17 2013 03:18 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2013 03:16 SKC wrote:On July 17 2013 03:13 Nyxisto wrote:On July 17 2013 02:35 Plansix wrote:On July 17 2013 02:33 Fusa 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:
[quote]
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. "About two minutes into the call, Zimmerman said, "he's running."[13] The dispatcher asked, "He's running? Which way is he running?"[74] The sound of a car door chime is heard, indicating Zimmerman opened his car door.[75] Zimmerman followed Martin, eventually losing sight of him.[13] The dispatcher asked Zimmerman if he was following him. When Zimmerman answered, "yeah," the dispatcher said, "We don't need you to do that." Zimmerman responded, "Okay."[76] Zimmerman asked that police call him upon their arrival so he could provide his location.[13] Zimmerman ended the call at 7:15 p.m.[13]" Sounds pretty much like Zimmerman followed Trayvon. Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin#Shooting_and_investigation Your own quote says Zimmermann lost him at some point. It doesn't have a timeline. It in no way disproves the fact that Trayvon could have just walked away to his house. If you want more detailed information you need something better than Wikipedia. Trayvon is running and Zimmeran is following him. Zimmerman even confirms this. Then the police advices him to not follow anymore. Then the call ends. Next thing we know is a confrontation happend and one guy is dead. And these are direct parts from the conversations. What exactly is your point?
That there is other evidence that Trayvon got into a conflict with Zimmerman, got the upper hand and was beating Zimmerman against the ground. This was backed up by an eye witness and the police reports. The jury members said that they believed Trayvon attacked Zimmerman and he defended himself.
The stuff how provided doesn't prove anything except that Zimmerman followed Martin, which isn't illegal.
|
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.
i am not sure if you are referring to my post, but that was in response to suppy asking what trayvon could have done to avoid the situation. he had plenty of time to walk home if he wanted, but for whatever reason chose not to. i certainly didnt blame trayvon for his own death because he walked slowly.
|
On July 17 2013 03:22 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2013 03:18 Nyxisto wrote:On July 17 2013 03:16 SKC wrote:On July 17 2013 03:13 Nyxisto wrote:On July 17 2013 02:35 Plansix wrote:On July 17 2013 02:33 Fusa 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:
[quote]
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. "About two minutes into the call, Zimmerman said, "he's running."[13] The dispatcher asked, "He's running? Which way is he running?"[74] The sound of a car door chime is heard, indicating Zimmerman opened his car door.[75] Zimmerman followed Martin, eventually losing sight of him.[13] The dispatcher asked Zimmerman if he was following him. When Zimmerman answered, "yeah," the dispatcher said, "We don't need you to do that." Zimmerman responded, "Okay."[76] Zimmerman asked that police call him upon their arrival so he could provide his location.[13] Zimmerman ended the call at 7:15 p.m.[13]" Sounds pretty much like Zimmerman followed Trayvon. Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin#Shooting_and_investigation Your own quote says Zimmermann lost him at some point. It doesn't have a timeline. It in no way disproves the fact that Trayvon could have just walked away to his house. If you want more detailed information you need something better than Wikipedia. Trayvon is running and Zimmeran is following him. Zimmerman even confirms this. Then the police advices him to not follow anymore. Then the call ends. Next thing we know is a confrontation happend and one guy is dead. And these are direct parts from the conversations. What exactly is your point? That there is other evidence that Trayvon got into a conflict with Zimmerman, got the upper hand and was beating Zimmerman against the ground. This was backed up by an eye witness and the police reports. The jury members said that they believed Trayvon attacked Zimmerman and he defended himself. The stuff how provided doesn't prove anything except that Zimmerman followed Martin, which isn't illegal.
But it should be. Why is an untrained person allowed to play police? For me that sounds like climbing into a tiger cage, killing the tiger when he attacks you and saying: "I didn't do anything wrong, it attacked me!"
Of course it's true, but Zimmerman got himself into a dangerous confrontation that escalated because both people didn't know how to handle the situation. I don't see why something like this is not illegal.
If the situation could be avoided that should be the first option. If the "defender" willingly engages in the confrontation, he risks the health of himself and others involved.
|
Even after knowing all the facts, I feel as if Zimmerman should have gotten involuntary manslaughter. I honestly feel bad for him because no matter what the verdict was, his life is going to suck pretty hard. However, the way these laws regarding self defense are, you see multiple cases like this where the outcome differs every time based on how facts are interpreted. You can spin these incidents so many different ways and make it seem justifiable that you were defending yourself and there were no other options, when in reality there were.
This is a hypothetical situation, but imagine if person x was following person y at night. Person y turns around, feeling threatened, and confronts x. Each person pulls out a gun at the same time, and person y shoots x without any further verbal communication. Does person y get away with it on grounds of self defense? Couldn't he say that his life felt threatened after he saw the gun and was simply reacting?
And yes I realized Martin attacked Zimmerman first, but couldn't one say that Martin was just acting in his own self defense after feeling threatened from Zimmerman following him? I guess I just don't fully understand all the details regarding the self-defense laws and who is in the right with these types of confrontations.
|
On July 17 2013 03:18 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2013 03:16 SKC wrote:On July 17 2013 03:13 Nyxisto wrote:On July 17 2013 02:35 Plansix wrote:On July 17 2013 02:33 Fusa 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:
[quote]
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. "About two minutes into the call, Zimmerman said, "he's running."[13] The dispatcher asked, "He's running? Which way is he running?"[74] The sound of a car door chime is heard, indicating Zimmerman opened his car door.[75] Zimmerman followed Martin, eventually losing sight of him.[13] The dispatcher asked Zimmerman if he was following him. When Zimmerman answered, "yeah," the dispatcher said, "We don't need you to do that." Zimmerman responded, "Okay."[76] Zimmerman asked that police call him upon their arrival so he could provide his location.[13] Zimmerman ended the call at 7:15 p.m.[13]" Sounds pretty much like Zimmerman followed Trayvon. Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin#Shooting_and_investigation Your own quote says Zimmermann lost him at some point. It doesn't have a timeline. It in no way disproves the fact that Trayvon could have just walked away to his house. If you want more detailed information you need something better than Wikipedia. Trayvon is running and Zimmeran is following him. Zimmerman even confirms this. Then the police advices him to not follow anymore. Then the call ends. Next thing we know is a confrontation happend and one guy is dead. And these are direct parts from the conversations. What exactly is your point?
Following Trayvon doesn't automatically make Zimmerman the aggressor in the ensuing fight.
If I'm remembering right, even if Zimmerman was the initial aggressor he could stop being the aggressor by effectively surrendering (screams for help).
|
On July 17 2013 03:29 LeafBlower wrote:
Even after knowing all the facts, I feel as if Zimmerman should have gotten involuntary manslaughter. I honestly feel bad for him because no matter what the verdict was, his life is going to suck pretty hard. However, the way these laws regarding self defense are, you see multiple cases like this where the outcome differs every time based on how facts are interpreted. You can spin these incidents so many different ways and make it seem justifiable that you were defending yourself and there were no other options, when in reality there were.
This is a hypothetical situation, but imagine if person x was following person y at night. Person y turns around, feeling threatened, and confronts x. Each person pulls out a gun at the same time, and person y shoots x without any further verbal communication. Does person y get away with it on grounds of self defense? Couldn't he say that his life felt threatened after he saw the gun and was simply reacting?
And yes I realized Martin attacked Zimmerman first, but couldn't one say that Martin was just acting in his own self defense after feeling threatened from Zimmerman following him? I guess I just don't fully understand all the details regarding the self-defense laws and who is in the right with these types of confrontations.
Florida doesnt have involuntary manslaughter.
|
On July 17 2013 03:09 dAPhREAk 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. self defense law originally comes from europe. america got it from england--although it has been slightly modified over hundreds of years. i am really curious about how self defense works in other countries because people seem to think america has weird laws, but my understanding is that its pretty universal. Show nested quote +On July 16 2013 22:13 Gorsameth wrote: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. same in america. you cant escalate, only react proportionally.
You can't use a gun on an unarmed individual. That is not considered self defense in most of Europe.
|
On July 17 2013 03:28 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2013 03:22 Plansix wrote:On July 17 2013 03:18 Nyxisto wrote:On July 17 2013 03:16 SKC wrote:On July 17 2013 03:13 Nyxisto wrote:On July 17 2013 02:35 Plansix wrote:On July 17 2013 02:33 Fusa 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:
[quote]
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. "About two minutes into the call, Zimmerman said, "he's running."[13] The dispatcher asked, "He's running? Which way is he running?"[74] The sound of a car door chime is heard, indicating Zimmerman opened his car door.[75] Zimmerman followed Martin, eventually losing sight of him.[13] The dispatcher asked Zimmerman if he was following him. When Zimmerman answered, "yeah," the dispatcher said, "We don't need you to do that." Zimmerman responded, "Okay."[76] Zimmerman asked that police call him upon their arrival so he could provide his location.[13] Zimmerman ended the call at 7:15 p.m.[13]" Sounds pretty much like Zimmerman followed Trayvon. Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin#Shooting_and_investigation Your own quote says Zimmermann lost him at some point. It doesn't have a timeline. It in no way disproves the fact that Trayvon could have just walked away to his house. If you want more detailed information you need something better than Wikipedia. Trayvon is running and Zimmeran is following him. Zimmerman even confirms this. Then the police advices him to not follow anymore. Then the call ends. Next thing we know is a confrontation happend and one guy is dead. And these are direct parts from the conversations. What exactly is your point? That there is other evidence that Trayvon got into a conflict with Zimmerman, got the upper hand and was beating Zimmerman against the ground. This was backed up by an eye witness and the police reports. The jury members said that they believed Trayvon attacked Zimmerman and he defended himself. The stuff how provided doesn't prove anything except that Zimmerman followed Martin, which isn't illegal. But it should be. Why is an untrained person allowed to play police? For me that sounds like climbing into a tiger cage, killing the tiger when he attacks you and saying: "I didn't do anything wrong, it attacked me!" Of course it's true, but Zimmerman got himself into a dangerous confrontation that escalated because both people didn't know how to handle the situation. I don't see why something like this is not illegal.
That's about the worst comparison I've ever heard. Ever. It does not represent the situation properly in the slightest.
Zimmerman was the neighbourhood watch. It's perfectly reasonable for him to watch and follow suspicious people to make sure they don't do anything.
|
On July 17 2013 03:18 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2013 03:16 SKC wrote:On July 17 2013 03:13 Nyxisto wrote:On July 17 2013 02:35 Plansix wrote:On July 17 2013 02:33 Fusa 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:
[quote]
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. "About two minutes into the call, Zimmerman said, "he's running."[13] The dispatcher asked, "He's running? Which way is he running?"[74] The sound of a car door chime is heard, indicating Zimmerman opened his car door.[75] Zimmerman followed Martin, eventually losing sight of him.[13] The dispatcher asked Zimmerman if he was following him. When Zimmerman answered, "yeah," the dispatcher said, "We don't need you to do that." Zimmerman responded, "Okay."[76] Zimmerman asked that police call him upon their arrival so he could provide his location.[13] Zimmerman ended the call at 7:15 p.m.[13]" Sounds pretty much like Zimmerman followed Trayvon. Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin#Shooting_and_investigation Your own quote says Zimmermann lost him at some point. It doesn't have a timeline. It in no way disproves the fact that Trayvon could have just walked away to his house. If you want more detailed information you need something better than Wikipedia. Trayvon is running and Zimmeran is following him. Zimmerman even confirms this. Then the police advices him to not follow anymore. Then the call ends. Next thing we know is a confrontation happend and one guy is dead. And these are direct parts from the conversations. What exactly is your point?
I'll just quote Daphreaks post in this.
On July 16 2013 09:19 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2013 09:16 Superiorwolf wrote:
So my question is: What was Trayvon Martin supposed to do in that scenario?
Stranger is pursuing you and ends up fighting you. Do you fight back and get executed, then get blamed for fighting back? Or do you not fight back and just hope that whoever this crazy person is doesn't kill you anyways? I don't see how this is the fault of Trayvon in any manner whatsoever. Zimmerman was completely at fault for beginning the altercation in the first place - it was wrongly started, and ended up with him taking someone's life. How does he not get punished for this? he could have just gone home. there was like a, what, 4:00 minute time frame in which he could have walked to his home, back to the store, back to his home, back to the store and then home again. i guess he walks really, really, really slow though.
He didn't go straight home. He could have went straight home. You said Zimmermann "ran him down", that didn't happen. Noone actually ran in this scenario, if Martin had ran away nothing would have happened. If Zimmermann ran after him, he would have reached him much sooner. Zimmermann followed him at first, probally lost him, and then the confrontation happened. It's a very diferent scenario than the one you described.
|
On July 17 2013 03:28 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2013 03:22 Plansix wrote:On July 17 2013 03:18 Nyxisto wrote:On July 17 2013 03:16 SKC wrote:On July 17 2013 03:13 Nyxisto wrote:On July 17 2013 02:35 Plansix wrote:On July 17 2013 02:33 Fusa 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:
[quote]
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. "About two minutes into the call, Zimmerman said, "he's running."[13] The dispatcher asked, "He's running? Which way is he running?"[74] The sound of a car door chime is heard, indicating Zimmerman opened his car door.[75] Zimmerman followed Martin, eventually losing sight of him.[13] The dispatcher asked Zimmerman if he was following him. When Zimmerman answered, "yeah," the dispatcher said, "We don't need you to do that." Zimmerman responded, "Okay."[76] Zimmerman asked that police call him upon their arrival so he could provide his location.[13] Zimmerman ended the call at 7:15 p.m.[13]" Sounds pretty much like Zimmerman followed Trayvon. Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin#Shooting_and_investigation Your own quote says Zimmermann lost him at some point. It doesn't have a timeline. It in no way disproves the fact that Trayvon could have just walked away to his house. If you want more detailed information you need something better than Wikipedia. Trayvon is running and Zimmeran is following him. Zimmerman even confirms this. Then the police advices him to not follow anymore. Then the call ends. Next thing we know is a confrontation happend and one guy is dead. And these are direct parts from the conversations. What exactly is your point? That there is other evidence that Trayvon got into a conflict with Zimmerman, got the upper hand and was beating Zimmerman against the ground. This was backed up by an eye witness and the police reports. The jury members said that they believed Trayvon attacked Zimmerman and he defended himself. The stuff how provided doesn't prove anything except that Zimmerman followed Martin, which isn't illegal. But it should be. Why is a untrained person allowed to play police? For me that sounds like climbing into a tiger cage, killing the tiger when he attacks you and saying: "I didn't do anything wrong, it attacked me!" Of course it's true, but Zimmerman got himself into a dangerous confrontation that escalated because both people didn't know how to handle the situation. I don't see why something like this is not illegal.
Why would just it be illegal? If I think someone going to do something bad, why shouldn't I follow them? What if they are stalking a woman on the way home from the club? Should I back off and call the police to avoid esclating the issue. Also, there is no proof that Zimmerman did anything to esclate the issue. And if someone follows you, its still illegal to punch or attack them in response.
The argument he shouldn't have follwed Martin is good for common sense, but can't be made illegal or part of the case for self defense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
