|
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 May 16 2012 21:52 Zaqwe wrote:
So, in light of the autopsy showing that Trayvon had no injuries aside from damaging his knuckles while viciously assaulting Zimmerman, does anyone wish to express regret for jumping to conclusions?
The silence of all the self-righteous social crusaders who were previously expressing their outrage is deafening.
Ironic that Zimmerman is the definition of a self-righteous social crusader. His overzealous actions accumulated into the death of Trayvon Martin. Trayvon probably wasn't being very smart in the situation, but that's a 17 year old for you - the body might grow, but the mind had yet to catch up.
Murder? Nah. Just incompetence. Going beyond your scope and training to do the job of professionals. Hell, even cops don't do what Zimmerman did without backup.
That has always been my conclusion. Your conclusion? That Zimmerman is 'good'? 'Innocent'? Bahaha.
|
On May 18 2012 12:58 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2012 21:52 Zaqwe wrote:
So, in light of the autopsy showing that Trayvon had no injuries aside from damaging his knuckles while viciously assaulting Zimmerman, does anyone wish to express regret for jumping to conclusions?
The silence of all the self-righteous social crusaders who were previously expressing their outrage is deafening. Ironic that Zimmerman is the definition of a self-righteous social crusader. His overzealous actions accumulated into the death of Trayvon Martin. Trayvon probably wasn't being very smart in the situation, but that's a 17 year old for you - the body might grow, but the mind had yet to catch up. Murder? Nah. Just incompetence. Going beyond your scope and training to do the job of professionals. Hell, even cops don't do what Zimmerman did without backup. That has always been my conclusion. Your conclusion? That Zimmerman is 'good'? 'Innocent'? Bahaha.
QFT.
Zimmerman might be not be guilty of murder. But he's guilty of endangering himself and the lives of others needlessly. He's a fucking idiot, not 'a good samaritan', and I have no sympathy for him whatsoever.
|
On second degree murder it says:
The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind
You seem to have serious writing/reading comprehension problems. How do you interpret an act which is imminently dangerous to another?. What did Zimmerman do that was 'imminently' dangerous to Martin, before being beaten down to a pulp? the evidence seems to indicate he wasn't carrying the gun in his hand and he didn't throw the first punch. As I said it's not enough to proof irrationality or depravity, you have to show clear aggressive, physical, dangerous behavior prior to the confrontation.
|
On May 18 2012 15:59 s4life wrote:On second degree murder it says: Show nested quote +
The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind
You seem to have serious writing/reading comprehension problems. How do you interpret an act which is imminently dangerous to another?. What did Zimmerman do that was 'imminently' dangerous to Martin, before being beaten down to a pulp? the evidence seems to indicate he wasn't carrying the gun in his hand and he didn't throw the first punch. As I said it's not enough to proof irrationality or depravity, you have to show clear aggressive, physical, dangerous behavior prior to the confrontation.
He was following and confronting a in his eyes criminal person with a gun, how is that NOT imminently dangerous?
|
It's a shame that THC was found in his system because we all know the ridiculous response that your typical American jury would have: "A drugged-up black kid, he must have been dangerous or at least in a bad state of mind." When in actuality cannabis would make you less confrontational or violent.
|
On May 18 2012 21:44 Silvertine wrote:
It's a shame that THC was found in his system because we all know the ridiculous response that your typical American jury would have: "A drugged-up black kid, he must have been dangerous or at least in a bad state of mind." When in actuality cannabis would make you less confrontational or violent.
Sorry to tell you bro, but not everyone has the same mindset after smoking cannabis. Especially the varieties of kinds you may smoke....And finding someone who likes to alter their mind through drugs (weed in this case) is a pretty big disadvantage in any court case. I 100% understand why and 100% agree. No matter how strong the substance is.
You have no idea what your talking about and im glad Zimmerman is free'd. The evidence shows very clearly that he was doing nothing but defending himself. Sadly, without this evidence people like you would have put this innocent mans life in the Death Chair. We have much to learn from this case as a society, and the dangers a big group of "hypnotized" people can cause in other peoples lives. Many people every year die from the electric chair innocently, and im glad this one will not be the case.
|
On May 18 2012 21:53 NaEjeOn88 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2012 21:44 Silvertine wrote:
It's a shame that THC was found in his system because we all know the ridiculous response that your typical American jury would have: "A drugged-up black kid, he must have been dangerous or at least in a bad state of mind." When in actuality cannabis would make you less confrontational or violent. A prime example of someone hypnotized by the media, and doing everything in their power to go with what most of the media says and other people say.
The media hypnotizes people into thinking that cannabis is harmless? What? I'm pretty sure the media as a whole has given the absolute opposite impression for roughly 50 years.
Sorry to tell you bro, but not everyone has the same mindset after smoking cannabis. Especially the varieties of kinds you may smoke....
I never claimed that people have the exact same reaction. But cannabis generally makes someone far less confrontational and more peaceful, that is a very well understood fact. Good luck finding any serious study that goes against that notion. And if you think there is a strain of cannabis that makes people violent then you are not familiar with the drug.
You have no idea what your talking about and im glad Zimmerman is free'd. The evidence shows very clearly that he was doing nothing but defending himself.
That's not true at all. If you think this is an open-and-shut case then you know nothing about it. Why do you think it's gone to trial in the first place?
Sadly, without this evidence people like you would have put this innocent mans life in the Death Chair.
That's a ridiculous accusation and you know it. I said absolutely nothing that would even remotely imply that I want Zimmerman to be executed. In reality I don't even believe in the death penalty.
|
A lot of people on here are accusing Zimmerman of wrongfully "stalking" Martin. Wasn't he appointed by the gated community to head up the neighborhood watch because he helped stop several burglaries in recent months?
So although he wasn't getting a paycheck, it was his job to follow anyone that looked suspicious, because that is what the head of a neighborhood watch should do, right?
As far as profiling, if a bunch of white kids in orange T-shirts had been breaking into houses in my neighborhood the last couple of months, I'd be awful suspicious of a white kid in an orange T-shirt that I didn't recognize walking around in a rainstorm.
Its not like he was sitting his is car cleaning his pistol peering out into the rain, looking for the first black kid to walk by so he could unload on him.
Concerning the gun: Aren't criminals that do breaking/entering usually armed (in the US)? So if you were charged with protecting your neighborhood/family from those types of criminals, wouldn't you arm yourself?
|
On May 18 2012 22:43 MooseyFate wrote:
A lot of people on here are accusing Zimmerman of wrongfully "stalking" Martin. Wasn't he appointed by the gated community to head up the neighborhood watch because he helped stop several burglaries in recent months?
So although he wasn't getting a paycheck, it was his job to follow anyone that looked suspicious, because that is what the head of a neighborhood watch should do, right?
As far as profiling, if a bunch of white kids in orange T-shirts had been breaking into houses in my neighborhood the last couple of months, I'd be awful suspicious of a white kid in an orange T-shirt that I didn't recognize walking around in a rainstorm.
Its not like he was sitting his is car cleaning his pistol peering out into the rain, looking for the first black kid to walk by so he could unload on him.
Concerning the gun: Aren't criminals that do breaking/entering usually armed (in the US)? So if you were charged with protecting your neighborhood/family from those types of criminals, wouldn't you arm yourself?
Yeah he was. The people currently disagreeing with you are suburban kids who think that safety just magically happens. The fact of the matter is, there is absolutely nothing wrong with questioning why anyone in your neighborhood is doing anything.
No reasonable person would condone, even if someone came up to you with an angry tone and asked "What are you doing around here?" that violence be the response. If you have any other opinion than that, any other opinion, you're not fit to be a juror, and you're not fit to live in society. If you think someone questioning you, even at night, warrants and immediate fight response, you're beyond credibility.
The only things that remain, for either manslaughter or murder charges, is specifically how Zimmerman confronted. The only way I can see him getting in trouble by a reasonable trial, is if he brandished the weapon, or used it in some menacing manner.
Him having a gun is not some "recklessness" nor a "depraved mind." It's for safety, and in his state, which he is licensed to carry in, he can do that. While neighborhood watch "officials" say they do not condone confrontation, nor weapon carrying...it's irrelevant. Means nothing. That's their opinions, those are not laws, and are not relevant for a trial. Further, the supposed "instructions" from the dispatcher; also irrelevant, also mean nothing. "We do not need you to do that" is not "Do not do that." Further, even had the dispatcher said "Do not do that" it carries no legal weight, and requires no cessation of action on Zimmerman's part; he is still well within his rights to go and ask.
Follow the logic of the story:
1. Is it unreasonable to talk to someone at night? It's not.
2. Is it unreasonable to ask them what they're doing in your neighborhood in the rain? It's not.
3. Should the immediate response to those questions, even asked in an aggressive, menacing manner, be a fight, violence, a pummeling? Absolutely not.
4. If someone has been beaten to the point that they have gashes on the back of their head, a broken nose, and black eyes, should they be able to defend themselves? Absolutely.
5. If they cannot remove themselves from the situation through fighting back (i.e. on the ground, being beaten, someone on top) should they be able to defend themselves using any means necessary? Yes.
6. Is it illegal to carry a weapon, given you have a license and/or permit in his state? No.
7. Should someone with a gun, defending themself in this manner,(assailant on top, being beaten) be expected to purposefully aim at a location that will not kill their assailant? Absolutely not.
If the situation were different, if Zimmerman had not been carrying a gun, is it possible that he would've continued to be punched in the head until he was in fact killed? I say so, people don't take punches to the head well, and repeated punches to a broken nose can cause serious damage. So, Zimmerman was definitely fighting for his life in this, and in the moment, even more so. It was not unreasonable to use a gun to defend himself.
To prove profiling, which is literally all they have, you have to prove that he wouldn't also question a white kid in the rain at night, walking through the neighborhood. You can't do that. He called the police line before he had positively identified Trayvon as a black kid. Near the beginning of the call he says "he thinks" it is a black person. If Zimmerman had been "profiling" because he just didn't trust black people, and was uninterested in any white kids walking through the neighborhood, I would expect him to have already identified the kid as black at the beginning of the call. He called when he was unsure. This is not profiling. The profiling is made up.
|
You seem to have serious writing/reading comprehension problems.
nice ad hominem. thats really ironic considering youre the one who infact is having trouble understanding the law which is clearly written.
How do you interpret an act which is imminently dangerous to another?. What did Zimmerman do that was 'imminently' dangerous to Martin, before being beaten down to a pulp?
ive already made this clear you can go back and read what i said or not I really dont care at this point. I dont think you want to actually respond to what ive said.
the evidence seems to indicate he wasn't carrying the gun in his hand and he didn't throw the first punch.
irrelevant where he had the gun, it was on his person and thats all that matters.
As I said it's not enough to proof irrationality or depravity, you have to show clear aggressive, physical, dangerous behavior prior to the confrontation
as ive told you 3 times, what youre claiming has to be proved is inconsistent with florida law. Im not sure why you keep repeating obvious false information after ive clearly shown what needs to be proved as provided by FLORIDA LAW.
on that note im not sure whats the point of your argument, youre trying to tell me what the law says is wrong is what it all comes down to. pardon me if i believe whats written on the books over what someone on a sc forums claims.
|
Zimmerman would have never done what he did if the police were capable of protecting his neighborhood. That's one point it's important to remember. Zimmerman and others called the police repeatedly about crime in their neighborhood and did nothing more than call, and the criminals would just walk away before the police arrived. If your neighborhood was repeatedly being victimized and you felt that the powers that be were not able or willing to protect you, then you might consider doing SOMETHING to protect yourself and your community. Zimmerman wasn't some angry racist looking for violence, he was motivated by the desire to protect his neighborhood.
I don't really know what the solution to this problem is. You don't want to live in a police state, you don't want vigilante justice, and you don't want a community being victimized.
|
On May 18 2012 23:19 Felnarion wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2012 22:43 MooseyFate wrote:
A lot of people on here are accusing Zimmerman of wrongfully "stalking" Martin. Wasn't he appointed by the gated community to head up the neighborhood watch because he helped stop several burglaries in recent months?
So although he wasn't getting a paycheck, it was his job to follow anyone that looked suspicious, because that is what the head of a neighborhood watch should do, right?
As far as profiling, if a bunch of white kids in orange T-shirts had been breaking into houses in my neighborhood the last couple of months, I'd be awful suspicious of a white kid in an orange T-shirt that I didn't recognize walking around in a rainstorm.
Its not like he was sitting his is car cleaning his pistol peering out into the rain, looking for the first black kid to walk by so he could unload on him.
Concerning the gun: Aren't criminals that do breaking/entering usually armed (in the US)? So if you were charged with protecting your neighborhood/family from those types of criminals, wouldn't you arm yourself? Yeah he was. The people currently disagreeing with you are suburban kids who think that safety just magically happens. The fact of the matter is, there is absolutely nothing wrong with questioning why anyone in your neighborhood is doing anything. No reasonable person would condone, even if someone came up to you with an angry tone and asked "What are you doing around here?" that violence be the response. If you have any other opinion than that, any other opinion, you're not fit to be a juror, and you're not fit to live in society. If you think someone questioning you, even at night, warrants and immediate fight response, you're beyond credibility. The only things that remain, for either manslaughter or murder charges, is specifically how Zimmerman confronted. The only way I can see him getting in trouble by a reasonable trial, is if he brandished the weapon, or used it in some menacing manner. Him having a gun is not some "recklessness" nor a "depraved mind." It's for safety, and in his state, which he is licensed to carry in, he can do that. While neighborhood watch "officials" say they do not condone confrontation, nor weapon carrying...it's irrelevant. Means nothing. That's their opinions, those are not laws, and are not relevant for a trial. Further, the supposed "instructions" from the dispatcher; also irrelevant, also mean nothing. "We do not need you to do that" is not "Do not do that." Further, even had the dispatcher said "Do not do that" it carries no legal weight, and requires no cessation of action on Zimmerman's part; he is still well within his rights to go and ask. Follow the logic of the story: 1. Is it unreasonable to talk to someone at night? It's not.2. Is it unreasonable to ask them what they're doing in your neighborhood in the rain? It's not.3. Should the immediate response to those questions, even asked in an aggressive, menacing manner, be a fight, violence, a pummeling? Absolutely not.4. If someone has been beaten to the point that they have gashes on the back of their head, a broken nose, and black eyes, should they be able to defend themselves? Absolutely.5. If they cannot remove themselves from the situation through fighting back (i.e. on the ground, being beaten, someone on top) should they be able to defend themselves using any means necessary? Yes.6. Is it illegal to carry a weapon, given you have a license and/or permit in his state? No. 7. Should someone with a gun, defending themself in this manner,(assailant on top, being beaten) be expected to purposefully aim at a location that will not kill their assailant? Absolutely not.If the situation were different, if Zimmerman had not been carrying a gun, is it possible that he would've continued to be punched in the head until he was in fact killed? I say so, people don't take punches to the head well, and repeated punches to a broken nose can cause serious damage. So, Zimmerman was definitely fighting for his life in this, and in the moment, even more so. It was not unreasonable to use a gun to defend himself. To prove profiling, which is literally all they have, you have to prove that he wouldn't also question a white kid in the rain at night, walking through the neighborhood. You can't do that. He called the police line before he had positively identified Trayvon as a black kid. Near the beginning of the call he says "he thinks" it is a black person. If Zimmerman had been "profiling" because he just didn't trust black people, and was uninterested in any white kids walking through the neighborhood, I would expect him to have already identified the kid as black at the beginning of the call. He called when he was unsure. This is not profiling. The profiling is made up.
This is the best summing up of this issue I have read, and fits completely with the view of the case from all the articles I have read as well. Unfortunately, the media want to milk the coverage for all its worth so they definitely won't write anything so definitive. They want to pretend that the case is still in doubt so that they can keep writing the same article every time a new small piece of evidence comes out.
The case is not in doubt. See quoted post.
|
On May 18 2012 23:19 Felnarion wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2012 22:43 MooseyFate wrote:
A lot of people on here are accusing Zimmerman of wrongfully "stalking" Martin. Wasn't he appointed by the gated community to head up the neighborhood watch because he helped stop several burglaries in recent months?
So although he wasn't getting a paycheck, it was his job to follow anyone that looked suspicious, because that is what the head of a neighborhood watch should do, right?
As far as profiling, if a bunch of white kids in orange T-shirts had been breaking into houses in my neighborhood the last couple of months, I'd be awful suspicious of a white kid in an orange T-shirt that I didn't recognize walking around in a rainstorm.
Its not like he was sitting his is car cleaning his pistol peering out into the rain, looking for the first black kid to walk by so he could unload on him.
Concerning the gun: Aren't criminals that do breaking/entering usually armed (in the US)? So if you were charged with protecting your neighborhood/family from those types of criminals, wouldn't you arm yourself? Yeah he was. The people currently disagreeing with you are suburban kids who think that safety just magically happens. The fact of the matter is, there is absolutely nothing wrong with questioning why anyone in your neighborhood is doing anything. No reasonable person would condone, even if someone came up to you with an angry tone and asked "What are you doing around here?" that violence be the response. If you have any other opinion than that, any other opinion, you're not fit to be a juror, and you're not fit to live in society. If you think someone questioning you, even at night, warrants and immediate fight response, you're beyond credibility. The only things that remain, for either manslaughter or murder charges, is specifically how Zimmerman confronted. The only way I can see him getting in trouble by a reasonable trial, is if he brandished the weapon, or used it in some menacing manner. Him having a gun is not some "recklessness" nor a "depraved mind." It's for safety, and in his state, which he is licensed to carry in, he can do that. While neighborhood watch "officials" say they do not condone confrontation, nor weapon carrying...it's irrelevant. Means nothing. That's their opinions, those are not laws, and are not relevant for a trial. Further, the supposed "instructions" from the dispatcher; also irrelevant, also mean nothing. "We do not need you to do that" is not "Do not do that." Further, even had the dispatcher said "Do not do that" it carries no legal weight, and requires no cessation of action on Zimmerman's part; he is still well within his rights to go and ask. Follow the logic of the story: 1. Is it unreasonable to talk to someone at night? It's not.2. Is it unreasonable to ask them what they're doing in your neighborhood in the rain? It's not.3. Should the immediate response to those questions, even asked in an aggressive, menacing manner, be a fight, violence, a pummeling? Absolutely not.4. If someone has been beaten to the point that they have gashes on the back of their head, a broken nose, and black eyes, should they be able to defend themselves? Absolutely.5. If they cannot remove themselves from the situation through fighting back (i.e. on the ground, being beaten, someone on top) should they be able to defend themselves using any means necessary? Yes.6. Is it illegal to carry a weapon, given you have a license and/or permit in his state? No. 7. Should someone with a gun, defending themself in this manner,(assailant on top, being beaten) be expected to purposefully aim at a location that will not kill their assailant? Absolutely not.If the situation were different, if Zimmerman had not been carrying a gun, is it possible that he would've continued to be punched in the head until he was in fact killed? I say so, people don't take punches to the head well, and repeated punches to a broken nose can cause serious damage. So, Zimmerman was definitely fighting for his life in this, and in the moment, even more so. It was not unreasonable to use a gun to defend himself. To prove profiling, which is literally all they have, you have to prove that he wouldn't also question a white kid in the rain at night, walking through the neighborhood. You can't do that. He called the police line before he had positively identified Trayvon as a black kid. Near the beginning of the call he says "he thinks" it is a black person. If Zimmerman had been "profiling" because he just didn't trust black people, and was uninterested in any white kids walking through the neighborhood, I would expect him to have already identified the kid as black at the beginning of the call. He called when he was unsure. This is not profiling. The profiling is made up.
Agree with this post 100% and also agree that this isn't a case in doubt. I don't expect this case to go away any time soon though. (with all the attention surrounding it)
|
On May 18 2012 23:19 Felnarion wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2012 22:43 MooseyFate wrote:
A lot of people on here are accusing Zimmerman of wrongfully "stalking" Martin. Wasn't he appointed by the gated community to head up the neighborhood watch because he helped stop several burglaries in recent months?
So although he wasn't getting a paycheck, it was his job to follow anyone that looked suspicious, because that is what the head of a neighborhood watch should do, right?
As far as profiling, if a bunch of white kids in orange T-shirts had been breaking into houses in my neighborhood the last couple of months, I'd be awful suspicious of a white kid in an orange T-shirt that I didn't recognize walking around in a rainstorm.
Its not like he was sitting his is car cleaning his pistol peering out into the rain, looking for the first black kid to walk by so he could unload on him.
Concerning the gun: Aren't criminals that do breaking/entering usually armed (in the US)? So if you were charged with protecting your neighborhood/family from those types of criminals, wouldn't you arm yourself? Yeah he was. The people currently disagreeing with you are suburban kids who think that safety just magically happens. The fact of the matter is, there is absolutely nothing wrong with questioning why anyone in your neighborhood is doing anything. No reasonable person would condone, even if someone came up to you with an angry tone and asked "What are you doing around here?" that violence be the response. If you have any other opinion than that, any other opinion, you're not fit to be a juror, and you're not fit to live in society. If you think someone questioning you, even at night, warrants and immediate fight response, you're beyond credibility. The only things that remain, for either manslaughter or murder charges, is specifically how Zimmerman confronted. The only way I can see him getting in trouble by a reasonable trial, is if he brandished the weapon, or used it in some menacing manner. Him having a gun is not some "recklessness" nor a "depraved mind." It's for safety, and in his state, which he is licensed to carry in, he can do that. While neighborhood watch "officials" say they do not condone confrontation, nor weapon carrying...it's irrelevant. Means nothing. That's their opinions, those are not laws, and are not relevant for a trial. Further, the supposed "instructions" from the dispatcher; also irrelevant, also mean nothing. "We do not need you to do that" is not "Do not do that." Further, even had the dispatcher said "Do not do that" it carries no legal weight, and requires no cessation of action on Zimmerman's part; he is still well within his rights to go and ask. Follow the logic of the story: 1. Is it unreasonable to talk to someone at night? It's not.2. Is it unreasonable to ask them what they're doing in your neighborhood in the rain? It's not.3. Should the immediate response to those questions, even asked in an aggressive, menacing manner, be a fight, violence, a pummeling? Absolutely not.4. If someone has been beaten to the point that they have gashes on the back of their head, a broken nose, and black eyes, should they be able to defend themselves? Absolutely.5. If they cannot remove themselves from the situation through fighting back (i.e. on the ground, being beaten, someone on top) should they be able to defend themselves using any means necessary? Yes.6. Is it illegal to carry a weapon, given you have a license and/or permit in his state? No. 7. Should someone with a gun, defending themself in this manner,(assailant on top, being beaten) be expected to purposefully aim at a location that will not kill their assailant? Absolutely not.If the situation were different, if Zimmerman had not been carrying a gun, is it possible that he would've continued to be punched in the head until he was in fact killed? I say so, people don't take punches to the head well, and repeated punches to a broken nose can cause serious damage. So, Zimmerman was definitely fighting for his life in this, and in the moment, even more so. It was not unreasonable to use a gun to defend himself. To prove profiling, which is literally all they have, you have to prove that he wouldn't also question a white kid in the rain at night, walking through the neighborhood. You can't do that. He called the police line before he had positively identified Trayvon as a black kid. Near the beginning of the call he says "he thinks" it is a black person. If Zimmerman had been "profiling" because he just didn't trust black people, and was uninterested in any white kids walking through the neighborhood, I would expect him to have already identified the kid as black at the beginning of the call. He called when he was unsure. This is not profiling. The profiling is made up.
As long I am on public property I would not let no one but the police question me what I am doing there. And I would advice them to keep their nose out of my stuff.
If I would be on private property this is different ofcourse.
|
it was private property....
|
On May 18 2012 21:44 Silvertine wrote:
It's a shame that THC was found in his system because we all know the ridiculous response that your typical American jury would have: "A drugged-up black kid, he must have been dangerous or at least in a bad state of mind." When in actuality cannabis would make you less confrontational or violent.
the fact that he was on drugs supports zimmerman's story that he thought the kid was on drugs--part of the reason why he called the police. just more evidence that supports zimmerman's story.
|
On May 18 2012 23:25 heliusx wrote:nice ad hominem. thats really ironic considering youre the one who infact is having trouble understanding the law which is clearly written. Show nested quote +How do you interpret an act which is imminently dangerous to another?. What did Zimmerman do that was 'imminently' dangerous to Martin, before being beaten down to a pulp? ive already made this clear you can go back and read what i said or not I really dont care at this point. I dont think you want to actually respond to what ive said. Show nested quote +the evidence seems to indicate he wasn't carrying the gun in his hand and he didn't throw the first punch. irrelevant where he had the gun, it was on his person and thats all that matters. Show nested quote + As I said it's not enough to proof irrationality or depravity, you have to show clear aggressive, physical, dangerous behavior prior to the confrontation as ive told you 3 times, what youre claiming has to be proved is inconsistent with florida law. Im not sure why you keep repeating obvious false information after ive clearly shown what needs to be proved as provided by FLORIDA LAW. on that note im not sure whats the point of your argument, youre trying to tell me what the law says is wrong is what it all comes down to. pardon me if i believe whats written on the books over what someone on a sc forums claims.
both of you dont appear to be particularly informed on the facts or law of this case (both of which are laid out to some extent in the op, but it appears neither of you have looked at it). mind taking your back and forth "discussion" to PMs?
|
Trayvon evidence fails to answer who screamed for help
ORLANDO, Florida (Reuters) - An FBI expert found crucial evidence in the Trayvon Martin case was inconclusive, saying it was impossible to tell if the voice screaming for help belonged to the black Florida teenager or his shooter George Zimmerman just before the neighborhood watch captain pulled the trigger.
That detail came from a mass of evidence made public on Thursday in the case that sparked civil rights protests across the United States and debates over guns, self-defense laws and race relations in America.
The documents confirm numerous compelling facts and minutiae that have been debated at kitchen tables and on television sets across the country following the February 26 homicide when Zimmerman, 28, shot and killed the 17-year-old Martin.
Police initially declined to arrest Zimmerman, citing Florida's "Stand Your Ground" self-defense law, but a special prosecutor who was subsequently appointed charged Zimmerman with second-degree murder. Zimmerman has pleaded not guilty.
The nearly 200 pages of documents plus photographs, videos and audio recordings provide evidence that will be seized upon by both Zimmerman's supporters and his detractors, including the revelation that Martin had traces of marijuana in his system and a witness who described the teen as beating on Zimmerman in the style of mixed martial arts.
But what may be the central point of contention - who screamed for help? - goes tantalizingly unanswered.
If it was Zimmerman, it would confirm his story that he pleaded for assistance against the teenager who was brutally beating him. If it was Martin, it could establish Zimmerman was the aggressor who shot an unarmed teenager and would be a major component of a case for second-degree murder.
Relatives of both Zimmerman and Martin swear it was their kin who was pleading for his life.
The cries for help were silenced by a single shot from Zimmerman's Kel Tec 9mm handgun but not before they were recorded on phone calls that neighbors made to police to report a struggle between two men in their gated community in the central Florida city of Sanford.
"Critical listening and digital signal analysis further revealed that the screaming voice of the 911 call is of insufficient voice quality and duration to conduct a meaningful voice comparison with any other voice samples," concluded Kenneth Marr, a specialist with the FBI's digital evidence laboratory in Quantico, Virginia.
Of 18.82 seconds of screaming in the distance, only 2.53 seconds went uninterrupted by the conversation between the woman who called 911 and the dispatcher, Marr said in his report.
Moreover, the audio sample was "produced under an extreme emotional state," the report said, making it difficult to analyze.
Zimmerman supporters can point to a separate Sanford police report within the documents that says Martin's father, Tracy Martin, told investigators the screams did not belong to his son when he heard the recordings two days after the shooting.
Martin has since told reporters he was uncertain at that time, but that when he heard an enhanced recording on March 16 he was convinced it was his son calling for help. The boy's mother, Sybrina Fulton, also insists the cries come from Trayvon.
Zimmerman's father and brother have been equally adamant it was George's voice they heard.
"That is absolutely, positively George Zimmerman," father Robert Zimmerman said in an interview with prosecutors on March 19. "Myself, my wife, family members and friends know that is George Zimmerman. There is no doubt who is yelling for help. It is absolutely my son."
MOUNDS OF EVIDENCE
The documents made public on Thursday include reports from law enforcement, the medical examiner who performed the autopsy, and fire department medics who treated Zimmerman at the scene.
There are photographs of the crime scene and Zimmerman's injuries, plus audio recordings of witness statements, and video of Zimmerman arriving at the police station and the last images of Martin alive, while he was buying candy and a soft drink at a convenience store.
Alongside photos of Zimmerman's bloody scalp and puffy nose, the documents say Zimmerman repeatedly declined to be taken to the hospital to be treated for injuries suffered in his scuffle with Martin, which could weaken his argument that he feared for his life and required deadly force to defend himself.
In addition, the medical examiner's report showed only a small abrasion on Martin's left ring finger and no other injuries - apart from the fatal gunshot wound to the chest - to support Zimmerman's claim he was nearly beaten to death.
A Sanford police officer said "Zimmerman appeared to have a broken and bloody nose and swelling of his face," which could support Zimmerman's contention he feared for his life.
Zimmerman told the fire department medics he was taking temazepam, a medication to treat anxiety or insomnia, and librax, which is prescribed for gastrointestinal disorders.
According to ABC News, a medical report by Zimmerman's doctor also said he had been prescribed Adderall, which is used to treat Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD).
Police also conclude the incident was "ultimately avoidable" had Zimmerman remained in his car that night instead of following Martin.
The medical examiner's report showed traces of THC - the active ingredient in marijuana - in Martin's blood and a positive test for 'cannabinoids' in his urine.
An attorney for the Martin family called the marijuana evidence irrelevant, saying it was more telling that police declined to order a drug or alcohol test of Zimmerman.
Martin was on suspension from school at the time of the shooting after school officials found traces of marijuana, but no actual drugs, in his belongings.
"The relevant thing is George Zimmerman didn't have a toxicology report so we don't know what he had in his system," said attorney Benjamin Crump. "We know he (Zimmerman) was on prescription medication but we don't know if he was taking it or not and what effect that would have on him."
http://news.yahoo.com/trayvon-martin-had-traces-marijuana-system-002214340.html
|
Both men made mistakes. Zimmerman was within is right to defend himself if his version of events is true. So far nothing I have seen leads me to believe it wasn't.
|
I think the best thing about this thread is how adamantly convinced people are he is guilty; new evidence is released, now everything thinks he's not guilty, etc. I think it's good to change your mind based on the evidence presented, but there is a line between thinking he is guilty, and making a rage thread asking why he hasn't been hanged by the neck yet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
