|
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 December 05 2012 04:08 phrenzy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 03:52 Anesthetic wrote:
Im not talking about the events that happened before. Im talking about the actual mindset that you get when you fight (especially if you dont fight that often). For me and most people I know that have been in fights it becomes pure animalistic brutality to the point where you dont think and just try to inflict as much harm as you can to the other person( this can be changed with proper training/more experience but it doesnt sound to me that zimmerman had that training/experience). I don't understand that logic. If i start a fight, and think they might kill or seriously harm me, its ok for me to kill them?
in certain circumstances, yes.
|
On December 05 2012 05:22 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 04:08 phrenzy wrote:On December 05 2012 03:52 Anesthetic wrote:
Im not talking about the events that happened before. Im talking about the actual mindset that you get when you fight (especially if you dont fight that often). For me and most people I know that have been in fights it becomes pure animalistic brutality to the point where you dont think and just try to inflict as much harm as you can to the other person( this can be changed with proper training/more experience but it doesnt sound to me that zimmerman had that training/experience). I don't understand that logic. If i start a fight, and think they might kill or seriously harm me, its ok for me to kill them? in certain circumstances, yes.
I'd guess that the only circumstance that this would be okay legally would be if they were in the middle of committing a crime, which would be difficult to prove in this case.
|
On December 05 2012 04:14 Romantic wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 04:06 PanN wrote:On December 05 2012 04:04 Romantic wrote:On December 05 2012 03:27 sluggaslamoo wrote:On December 04 2012 23:26 tomatriedes wrote:On December 04 2012 23:10 saltywet wrote:Okay, this is the first time I read about this and I just spent the last hour reading about the background and aftermath about this... The solid facts that I got from reading the report are: 1. There was definitely a cry for help, recorded on the tape 2. Witnesses seeing one man on top of another, throwing punches 3. Martin's autopsy reports that Martin had a small abrasion on his left ring finger, a gunshot to the chest at close range, and no other injuries. The fact that Martin had physical injury (ie bruises, cuts) leads me to believe that it was a one sided fight where Martin was attacking Zimmerman, that Zimmerman was definitely crying out for help, and that Zimmerman retaliated in self-defence. Other smaller details/questions also seem to support this, ie - Why would Martin go back and confront Zimmerman? If he feels that Zimmerman is a threat why not run home?
- Martin is on his third disciplinary suspension from his high school.
- Martin passed a lie detector where he was asked if he was in fear for his life when he shot the gun (ie self defense); of course, lie detectors can be deceived but this is still a good detail
Yep, gotta agree with this. Logic in regard to the injuries points to Trayvon being on top in th fight which makes Zimmerman's claim of self-defence look pretty sound. Unfortunately some people seem to have had a very close-minded agenda of portraying Zimmerman as a racist lunatic since day one and ignore anything that might contradict that. The next thing they'll be saying is that this picture was photoshopped. Edit- Yep, didn't take them long: http://americanlivewire.com/george-zimmerman-photoshopped/ Uh saltywet. Have you got martin and zimmerman the wrong way around? Zimmerman is a racist lunatic. You only need the recording to justify that. If you confront someone aggressively, you have every right to attack them in self defence ( Martin was clearly running away, and Zimmerman was chasing him). Also Zimmerman used beyond reasonable force in the fight, he got a punch to the lip, and he needed to pull out a gun and shoot the guy? Its Zimmermans own damn fault for confronting Martin. The voice recording tells all, whatever story Zimmerman tells, whether or its sound or not, is plain wrong and adds nothing to the debate. Its obviously murder, plain and simple. I would love to see proof of the bolded text. Good luck, you won't find any. Oh yes, clearly just a, "punch to the lip" after seeing his bloody and doctor diagnosed closed fracture of the nose (but you're an expert on broken noses) and a long gash across the back of his head. Dude, sluggaslamoo is going to the trial to present his evidence, he actually does know what hes talking about, and hes going to flip this trial upside down. Sluggaslamoo for broken nose expert / pro-evidence gatherer / prosecutor! The Trayvon Martin killing should be a case study on how people use language deceptively. A closed fracture and bleeding nose with gashes on the back of your head, likely from being slammed in to the pavement is just a, "Punch to the lip". Following a suspicious person while speaking with police is, "chasing down and confronting". For some people, Hispanic\white guy reporting suspicious person to police and following him = racist white murderer stalks and shoots unarmed skittles holding black boy followed by racist police not arresting him. I think that one goes beyond just deceptive use of language though.
Don't forget how many people will call it a "fight" to try and imply mutual aggression when in fact it was a one-sided assault.
On December 05 2012 04:08 phrenzy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 03:52 Anesthetic wrote:
Im not talking about the events that happened before. Im talking about the actual mindset that you get when you fight (especially if you dont fight that often). For me and most people I know that have been in fights it becomes pure animalistic brutality to the point where you dont think and just try to inflict as much harm as you can to the other person( this can be changed with proper training/more experience but it doesnt sound to me that zimmerman had that training/experience). I don't understand that logic. If i start a fight, and think they might kill or seriously harm me, its ok for me to kill them?
The autopsy showed no injuries on Trayvon other than the gunshot wound and scraped knuckles from punching Zimmerman.
It wasn't a fight, it was an assault. And Zimmerman didn't commit the assault, Trayvon did.
When someone is assaulted they have a right to defend themselves.
|
On December 05 2012 05:28 mortonm wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 04:14 Romantic wrote:On December 05 2012 04:06 PanN wrote:On December 05 2012 04:04 Romantic wrote:On December 05 2012 03:27 sluggaslamoo wrote:On December 04 2012 23:26 tomatriedes wrote:On December 04 2012 23:10 saltywet wrote:Okay, this is the first time I read about this and I just spent the last hour reading about the background and aftermath about this... The solid facts that I got from reading the report are: 1. There was definitely a cry for help, recorded on the tape 2. Witnesses seeing one man on top of another, throwing punches 3. Martin's autopsy reports that Martin had a small abrasion on his left ring finger, a gunshot to the chest at close range, and no other injuries. The fact that Martin had physical injury (ie bruises, cuts) leads me to believe that it was a one sided fight where Martin was attacking Zimmerman, that Zimmerman was definitely crying out for help, and that Zimmerman retaliated in self-defence. Other smaller details/questions also seem to support this, ie - Why would Martin go back and confront Zimmerman? If he feels that Zimmerman is a threat why not run home?
- Martin is on his third disciplinary suspension from his high school.
- Martin passed a lie detector where he was asked if he was in fear for his life when he shot the gun (ie self defense); of course, lie detectors can be deceived but this is still a good detail
Yep, gotta agree with this. Logic in regard to the injuries points to Trayvon being on top in th fight which makes Zimmerman's claim of self-defence look pretty sound. Unfortunately some people seem to have had a very close-minded agenda of portraying Zimmerman as a racist lunatic since day one and ignore anything that might contradict that. The next thing they'll be saying is that this picture was photoshopped. Edit- Yep, didn't take them long: http://americanlivewire.com/george-zimmerman-photoshopped/ Uh saltywet. Have you got martin and zimmerman the wrong way around? Zimmerman is a racist lunatic. You only need the recording to justify that. If you confront someone aggressively, you have every right to attack them in self defence ( Martin was clearly running away, and Zimmerman was chasing him). Also Zimmerman used beyond reasonable force in the fight, he got a punch to the lip, and he needed to pull out a gun and shoot the guy? Its Zimmermans own damn fault for confronting Martin. The voice recording tells all, whatever story Zimmerman tells, whether or its sound or not, is plain wrong and adds nothing to the debate. Its obviously murder, plain and simple. I would love to see proof of the bolded text. Good luck, you won't find any. Oh yes, clearly just a, "punch to the lip" after seeing his bloody and doctor diagnosed closed fracture of the nose (but you're an expert on broken noses) and a long gash across the back of his head. Dude, sluggaslamoo is going to the trial to present his evidence, he actually does know what hes talking about, and hes going to flip this trial upside down. Sluggaslamoo for broken nose expert / pro-evidence gatherer / prosecutor! The Trayvon Martin killing should be a case study on how people use language deceptively. A closed fracture and bleeding nose with gashes on the back of your head, likely from being slammed in to the pavement is just a, "Punch to the lip". Following a suspicious person while speaking with police is, "chasing down and confronting". For some people, Hispanic\white guy reporting suspicious person to police and following him = racist white murderer stalks and shoots unarmed skittles holding black boy followed by racist police not arresting him. I think that one goes beyond just deceptive use of language though. Don't forget how many people will call it a "fight" to try and imply mutual aggression when in fact it was a one-sided assault. Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 04:08 phrenzy wrote:On December 05 2012 03:52 Anesthetic wrote:
Im not talking about the events that happened before. Im talking about the actual mindset that you get when you fight (especially if you dont fight that often). For me and most people I know that have been in fights it becomes pure animalistic brutality to the point where you dont think and just try to inflict as much harm as you can to the other person( this can be changed with proper training/more experience but it doesnt sound to me that zimmerman had that training/experience). I don't understand that logic. If i start a fight, and think they might kill or seriously harm me, its ok for me to kill them? The autopsy showed no injuries on Trayvon other than the gunshot wound and scraped knuckles from punching Zimmerman. It wasn't a fight, it was an assault. And Zimmerman didn't commit the assault, Trayvon did. When someone is assaulted they have a right to defend themselves.
Assault doesn't require actual physical violence, just the threat of it and a reasonable belief that the person can carry cause the harm that is feared. It is perfectly reasonable to believe that Zimmerman assaulted Trayvon, there's no proof at all for battery though.
|
On December 05 2012 05:26 hinnolinn wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 05:22 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 05 2012 04:08 phrenzy wrote:On December 05 2012 03:52 Anesthetic wrote:
Im not talking about the events that happened before. Im talking about the actual mindset that you get when you fight (especially if you dont fight that often). For me and most people I know that have been in fights it becomes pure animalistic brutality to the point where you dont think and just try to inflict as much harm as you can to the other person( this can be changed with proper training/more experience but it doesnt sound to me that zimmerman had that training/experience). I don't understand that logic. If i start a fight, and think they might kill or seriously harm me, its ok for me to kill them? in certain circumstances, yes. I'd guess that the only circumstance that this would be okay legally would be if they were in the middle of committing a crime, which would be difficult to prove in this case.
thats not what i was referring to, but i believe your example is also accurate. if you initiate a confrontation and they escalate it then it could be appropriate to use lethal force. the jury instruction is in the op.
|
On December 05 2012 05:33 hinnolinn wrote:
It is perfectly reasonable to believe that Zimmerman assaulted Trayvon, there's no proof at all for battery though.
No, that is incredibly unreasonable given the evidence. All evidence that has been released contradicts such a belief.
What is your reasoning for your beliefs?
|
On December 05 2012 05:34 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 05:26 hinnolinn wrote:On December 05 2012 05:22 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 05 2012 04:08 phrenzy wrote:On December 05 2012 03:52 Anesthetic wrote:
Im not talking about the events that happened before. Im talking about the actual mindset that you get when you fight (especially if you dont fight that often). For me and most people I know that have been in fights it becomes pure animalistic brutality to the point where you dont think and just try to inflict as much harm as you can to the other person( this can be changed with proper training/more experience but it doesnt sound to me that zimmerman had that training/experience). I don't understand that logic. If i start a fight, and think they might kill or seriously harm me, its ok for me to kill them? in certain circumstances, yes. I'd guess that the only circumstance that this would be okay legally would be if they were in the middle of committing a crime, which would be difficult to prove in this case. thats not what i was referring to, but i believe your example is also accurate. if you initiate a confrontation and they escalate it then it could be appropriate to use lethal force. the jury instruction is in the op.
At that point it should be on him to prove that lethal force was necessary.
|
On December 05 2012 05:37 mortonm wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 05:33 hinnolinn wrote:
It is perfectly reasonable to believe that Zimmerman assaulted Trayvon, there's no proof at all for battery though. No, that is incredibly unreasonable given the evidence. All evidence that has been released contradicts such a belief. What is your reasoning for your beliefs?
So we have somebody that has admitted to following another person around at night, I don't know about you, but that would definitely qualify as assault to me if you didn't know who was following you and for what purpose. They could be there to mug you or for any other reason.
|
On December 05 2012 05:38 hinnolinn wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 05:34 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 05 2012 05:26 hinnolinn wrote:On December 05 2012 05:22 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 05 2012 04:08 phrenzy wrote:On December 05 2012 03:52 Anesthetic wrote:
Im not talking about the events that happened before. Im talking about the actual mindset that you get when you fight (especially if you dont fight that often). For me and most people I know that have been in fights it becomes pure animalistic brutality to the point where you dont think and just try to inflict as much harm as you can to the other person( this can be changed with proper training/more experience but it doesnt sound to me that zimmerman had that training/experience). I don't understand that logic. If i start a fight, and think they might kill or seriously harm me, its ok for me to kill them? in certain circumstances, yes. I'd guess that the only circumstance that this would be okay legally would be if they were in the middle of committing a crime, which would be difficult to prove in this case. thats not what i was referring to, but i believe your example is also accurate. if you initiate a confrontation and they escalate it then it could be appropriate to use lethal force. the jury instruction is in the op. At that point it should be on him to prove that lethal force was necessary.
normally it is considered an affirmative defense (defendant must prove), but not under Florida law.
|
On December 05 2012 05:39 hinnolinn wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 05:37 mortonm wrote:On December 05 2012 05:33 hinnolinn wrote:
It is perfectly reasonable to believe that Zimmerman assaulted Trayvon, there's no proof at all for battery though. No, that is incredibly unreasonable given the evidence. All evidence that has been released contradicts such a belief. What is your reasoning for your beliefs? So we have somebody that has admitted to following another person around at night, I don't know about you, but that would definitely qualify as assault to me if you didn't know who was following you and for what purpose. They could be there to mug you or for any other reason.
there is nothing illegal about following someone around (at night or otherwise). and it certainly isnt considered an assault.
|
On December 05 2012 05:43 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 05:38 hinnolinn wrote:On December 05 2012 05:34 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 05 2012 05:26 hinnolinn wrote:On December 05 2012 05:22 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 05 2012 04:08 phrenzy wrote:On December 05 2012 03:52 Anesthetic wrote:
Im not talking about the events that happened before. Im talking about the actual mindset that you get when you fight (especially if you dont fight that often). For me and most people I know that have been in fights it becomes pure animalistic brutality to the point where you dont think and just try to inflict as much harm as you can to the other person( this can be changed with proper training/more experience but it doesnt sound to me that zimmerman had that training/experience). I don't understand that logic. If i start a fight, and think they might kill or seriously harm me, its ok for me to kill them? in certain circumstances, yes. I'd guess that the only circumstance that this would be okay legally would be if they were in the middle of committing a crime, which would be difficult to prove in this case. thats not what i was referring to, but i believe your example is also accurate. if you initiate a confrontation and they escalate it then it could be appropriate to use lethal force. the jury instruction is in the op. At that point it should be on him to prove that lethal force was necessary. normally it is considered an affirmative defense (defendant must prove), but not under Florida law.
As we were talking about a case where you indeed initiated the confrontation, I don't believe stand your ground law would automatically hold here.
|
On December 05 2012 05:39 hinnolinn wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 05:37 mortonm wrote:On December 05 2012 05:33 hinnolinn wrote:
It is perfectly reasonable to believe that Zimmerman assaulted Trayvon, there's no proof at all for battery though. No, that is incredibly unreasonable given the evidence. All evidence that has been released contradicts such a belief. What is your reasoning for your beliefs? So we have somebody that has admitted to following another person around at night, I don't know about you, but that would definitely qualify as assault to me if you didn't know who was following you and for what purpose. They could be there to mug you or for any other reason.
What are you talking about? Following someone around certainly is not assault.
|
On December 05 2012 05:37 mortonm wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 05:33 hinnolinn wrote:
It is perfectly reasonable to believe that Zimmerman assaulted Trayvon, there's no proof at all for battery though. No, that is incredibly unreasonable given the evidence. All evidence that has been released contradicts such a belief. What is your reasoning for your beliefs?
These arm-chair defense lawyers in this thread are starting to get a bit irritating.
|
I see the mod note is no longer deterring people from making completely erroneous statements or claims. That's a shame, because daphreak did an excellent job laying out the facts in the OP. Please read it if you haven't already.
|
On December 05 2012 05:39 hinnolinn wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 05:37 mortonm wrote:On December 05 2012 05:33 hinnolinn wrote:
It is perfectly reasonable to believe that Zimmerman assaulted Trayvon, there's no proof at all for battery though. No, that is incredibly unreasonable given the evidence. All evidence that has been released contradicts such a belief. What is your reasoning for your beliefs? So we have somebody that has admitted to following another person around at night, I don't know about you, but that would definitely qualify as assault to me if you didn't know who was following you and for what purpose. They could be there to mug you or for any other reason.
Following and observing someone is not assault. Were that the case private investigators would be an illegal occupation.
|
On December 05 2012 05:46 hinnolinn wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 05:43 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 05 2012 05:38 hinnolinn wrote:On December 05 2012 05:34 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 05 2012 05:26 hinnolinn wrote:On December 05 2012 05:22 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 05 2012 04:08 phrenzy wrote:On December 05 2012 03:52 Anesthetic wrote:
Im not talking about the events that happened before. Im talking about the actual mindset that you get when you fight (especially if you dont fight that often). For me and most people I know that have been in fights it becomes pure animalistic brutality to the point where you dont think and just try to inflict as much harm as you can to the other person( this can be changed with proper training/more experience but it doesnt sound to me that zimmerman had that training/experience). I don't understand that logic. If i start a fight, and think they might kill or seriously harm me, its ok for me to kill them? in certain circumstances, yes. I'd guess that the only circumstance that this would be okay legally would be if they were in the middle of committing a crime, which would be difficult to prove in this case. thats not what i was referring to, but i believe your example is also accurate. if you initiate a confrontation and they escalate it then it could be appropriate to use lethal force. the jury instruction is in the op. At that point it should be on him to prove that lethal force was necessary. normally it is considered an affirmative defense (defendant must prove), but not under Florida law. As we were talking about a case where you indeed initiated the confrontation, I don't believe stand your ground law would automatically hold here.
However, the use of deadly force is not justifiable if you find:
1. (Defendant) was attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of (applicable forcible felony); or
Define applicable forcible felony. Define after paragraph 2 if both paragraphs 1 and 2 are given.
2. (Defendant) initially provoked the use of force against [himself] [herself], unless:
a. The force asserted toward the defendant was so great that [he] [she] reasonably believed that [he] [she] was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and had exhausted every reasonable means to escape the danger, other than using deadly force on (assailant).
b. In good faith, the defendant withdrew from physical contact with (assailant) and clearly indicated to (assailant) that [he] [she] wanted to withdraw and stop the use of deadly force, but (assailant) continued or resumed the use of force.
|
On December 05 2012 06:01 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 05:46 hinnolinn wrote:On December 05 2012 05:43 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 05 2012 05:38 hinnolinn wrote:On December 05 2012 05:34 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 05 2012 05:26 hinnolinn wrote:On December 05 2012 05:22 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 05 2012 04:08 phrenzy wrote:On December 05 2012 03:52 Anesthetic wrote:
Im not talking about the events that happened before. Im talking about the actual mindset that you get when you fight (especially if you dont fight that often). For me and most people I know that have been in fights it becomes pure animalistic brutality to the point where you dont think and just try to inflict as much harm as you can to the other person( this can be changed with proper training/more experience but it doesnt sound to me that zimmerman had that training/experience). I don't understand that logic. If i start a fight, and think they might kill or seriously harm me, its ok for me to kill them? in certain circumstances, yes. I'd guess that the only circumstance that this would be okay legally would be if they were in the middle of committing a crime, which would be difficult to prove in this case. thats not what i was referring to, but i believe your example is also accurate. if you initiate a confrontation and they escalate it then it could be appropriate to use lethal force. the jury instruction is in the op. At that point it should be on him to prove that lethal force was necessary. normally it is considered an affirmative defense (defendant must prove), but not under Florida law. As we were talking about a case where you indeed initiated the confrontation, I don't believe stand your ground law would automatically hold here. Show nested quote +However, the use of deadly force is not justifiable if you find:
1. (Defendant) was attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of (applicable forcible felony); or
Define applicable forcible felony. Define after paragraph 2 if both paragraphs 1 and 2 are given.
2. (Defendant) initially provoked the use of force against [himself] [herself], unless:
a. The force asserted toward the defendant was so great that [he] [she] reasonably believed that [he] [she] was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and had exhausted every reasonable means to escape the danger, other than using deadly force on (assailant).
b. In good faith, the defendant withdrew from physical contact with (assailant) and clearly indicated to (assailant) that [he] [she] wanted to withdraw and stop the use of deadly force, but (assailant) continued or resumed the use of force.
Sorry, I should have expressed what I meant better, by automatically hold, I meant that there would have to be at least some investigation and show proof of either 2a or 2b. I do appreciate what you looked up to quote to me, so thank you very much for that, as it was definitely educational.
|
On December 05 2012 04:06 PanN wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 04:04 Romantic wrote:On December 05 2012 03:27 sluggaslamoo wrote:On December 04 2012 23:26 tomatriedes wrote:On December 04 2012 23:10 saltywet wrote:Okay, this is the first time I read about this and I just spent the last hour reading about the background and aftermath about this... The solid facts that I got from reading the report are: 1. There was definitely a cry for help, recorded on the tape 2. Witnesses seeing one man on top of another, throwing punches 3. Martin's autopsy reports that Martin had a small abrasion on his left ring finger, a gunshot to the chest at close range, and no other injuries. The fact that Martin had physical injury (ie bruises, cuts) leads me to believe that it was a one sided fight where Martin was attacking Zimmerman, that Zimmerman was definitely crying out for help, and that Zimmerman retaliated in self-defence. Other smaller details/questions also seem to support this, ie - Why would Martin go back and confront Zimmerman? If he feels that Zimmerman is a threat why not run home?
- Martin is on his third disciplinary suspension from his high school.
- Martin passed a lie detector where he was asked if he was in fear for his life when he shot the gun (ie self defense); of course, lie detectors can be deceived but this is still a good detail
Yep, gotta agree with this. Logic in regard to the injuries points to Trayvon being on top in th fight which makes Zimmerman's claim of self-defence look pretty sound. Unfortunately some people seem to have had a very close-minded agenda of portraying Zimmerman as a racist lunatic since day one and ignore anything that might contradict that. The next thing they'll be saying is that this picture was photoshopped. Edit- Yep, didn't take them long: http://americanlivewire.com/george-zimmerman-photoshopped/ Uh saltywet. Have you got martin and zimmerman the wrong way around? Zimmerman is a racist lunatic. You only need the recording to justify that. If you confront someone aggressively, you have every right to attack them in self defence ( Martin was clearly running away, and Zimmerman was chasing him). Also Zimmerman used beyond reasonable force in the fight, he got a punch to the lip, and he needed to pull out a gun and shoot the guy? Its Zimmermans own damn fault for confronting Martin. The voice recording tells all, whatever story Zimmerman tells, whether or its sound or not, is plain wrong and adds nothing to the debate. Its obviously murder, plain and simple. I would love to see proof of the bolded text. Good luck, you won't find any. Oh yes, clearly just a, "punch to the lip" after seeing his bloody and doctor diagnosed closed fracture of the nose (but you're an expert on broken noses) and a long gash across the back of his head. Dude, sluggaslamoo is going to the trial to present his evidence, he actually does know what hes talking about, and hes going to flip this trial upside down. Sluggaslamoo for broken nose expert / pro-evidence gatherer / prosecutor!
Explain this
On December 05 2012 03:27 sluggaslamoo wrote:![[image loading]](http://americanlivewire.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/george-zimmerman-cuts-0523-300x202.jpg) Here shows he has no swelling after being released, it is impossible to have a broken swelling nose and then look perfectly fine an hour later.
Sorry but listen to the recording.
Martin took 2 minutes because he had no idea someone was stalking him (a.k.a he was walking, walking for 2 minutes doesn't get you very far). After Zimmerman dropped the phone, he chased after him, that's when Martin would try to run away. He chased after him and confronted him and is a racist obviously because LISTEN TO THE FUCKING RECORDING.
|
On December 05 2012 05:46 hinnolinn wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 05:43 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 05 2012 05:38 hinnolinn wrote:On December 05 2012 05:34 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 05 2012 05:26 hinnolinn wrote:On December 05 2012 05:22 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 05 2012 04:08 phrenzy wrote:On December 05 2012 03:52 Anesthetic wrote:
Im not talking about the events that happened before. Im talking about the actual mindset that you get when you fight (especially if you dont fight that often). For me and most people I know that have been in fights it becomes pure animalistic brutality to the point where you dont think and just try to inflict as much harm as you can to the other person( this can be changed with proper training/more experience but it doesnt sound to me that zimmerman had that training/experience). I don't understand that logic. If i start a fight, and think they might kill or seriously harm me, its ok for me to kill them? in certain circumstances, yes. I'd guess that the only circumstance that this would be okay legally would be if they were in the middle of committing a crime, which would be difficult to prove in this case. thats not what i was referring to, but i believe your example is also accurate. if you initiate a confrontation and they escalate it then it could be appropriate to use lethal force. the jury instruction is in the op. At that point it should be on him to prove that lethal force was necessary. normally it is considered an affirmative defense (defendant must prove), but not under Florida law. As we were talking about a case where you indeed initiated the confrontation, I don't believe stand your ground law would automatically hold here.
I think part of the problem is that people are trying to make the laws into something they aren't because they find the laws themselves distasteful.
If you have a problem with Stand Your Ground laws, Castle laws, Carry laws, or other such, it's not particularly relevant, except to how it affects the case.
Just like lots of people think Marijuana legislation is stupid doesn't change the fact that the legislation exists, the way the courts are supposed to work is that the law is blind. If the law is the law, that's what should be used to determine guilt. Not opinion of the law.
The Stand Your Ground law wouldn't generally be directly applicable to lethal force in a situation where you start a fight. Stand Your Ground (typically, at least in Texas) just means you don't have an inherent duty to attempt escape before using force. But, even with that, I may not be required to run before defending myself here, but if it can be proven that I provoked a situation, using excessive force becomes illegal.
I assume it turns into a tangled, convoluted muckity muck of case law once you really delve into the intricacies and real-world scenarios, though.
Basically, in any state where Stand Your Ground applies to situations outside your home/vehicle, it comes down to whether it can be proven that the person was inherently breaking the law prior to using lethal force. The lethal force itself would only be illegal if the situation only existed because they broke another law.
Long story short, it turns to "innocent until proven guilty", so unless he broke another law first, he isn't technically guilty.
|
On December 05 2012 06:07 sluggaslamoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 04:06 PanN wrote:On December 05 2012 04:04 Romantic wrote:On December 05 2012 03:27 sluggaslamoo wrote:On December 04 2012 23:26 tomatriedes wrote:On December 04 2012 23:10 saltywet wrote:Okay, this is the first time I read about this and I just spent the last hour reading about the background and aftermath about this... The solid facts that I got from reading the report are: 1. There was definitely a cry for help, recorded on the tape 2. Witnesses seeing one man on top of another, throwing punches 3. Martin's autopsy reports that Martin had a small abrasion on his left ring finger, a gunshot to the chest at close range, and no other injuries. The fact that Martin had physical injury (ie bruises, cuts) leads me to believe that it was a one sided fight where Martin was attacking Zimmerman, that Zimmerman was definitely crying out for help, and that Zimmerman retaliated in self-defence. Other smaller details/questions also seem to support this, ie - Why would Martin go back and confront Zimmerman? If he feels that Zimmerman is a threat why not run home?
- Martin is on his third disciplinary suspension from his high school.
- Martin passed a lie detector where he was asked if he was in fear for his life when he shot the gun (ie self defense); of course, lie detectors can be deceived but this is still a good detail
Yep, gotta agree with this. Logic in regard to the injuries points to Trayvon being on top in th fight which makes Zimmerman's claim of self-defence look pretty sound. Unfortunately some people seem to have had a very close-minded agenda of portraying Zimmerman as a racist lunatic since day one and ignore anything that might contradict that. The next thing they'll be saying is that this picture was photoshopped. Edit- Yep, didn't take them long: http://americanlivewire.com/george-zimmerman-photoshopped/ Uh saltywet. Have you got martin and zimmerman the wrong way around? Zimmerman is a racist lunatic. You only need the recording to justify that. If you confront someone aggressively, you have every right to attack them in self defence ( Martin was clearly running away, and Zimmerman was chasing him). Also Zimmerman used beyond reasonable force in the fight, he got a punch to the lip, and he needed to pull out a gun and shoot the guy? Its Zimmermans own damn fault for confronting Martin. The voice recording tells all, whatever story Zimmerman tells, whether or its sound or not, is plain wrong and adds nothing to the debate. Its obviously murder, plain and simple. I would love to see proof of the bolded text. Good luck, you won't find any. Oh yes, clearly just a, "punch to the lip" after seeing his bloody and doctor diagnosed closed fracture of the nose (but you're an expert on broken noses) and a long gash across the back of his head. Dude, sluggaslamoo is going to the trial to present his evidence, he actually does know what hes talking about, and hes going to flip this trial upside down. Sluggaslamoo for broken nose expert / pro-evidence gatherer / prosecutor! Explain this Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 03:27 sluggaslamoo wrote:Here shows he has no swelling after being released, it is impossible to have a broken swelling nose and then look perfectly fine an hour later. Sorry but listen to the recording. Martin took 2 minutes because he had no idea someone was stalking him (a.k.a he was walking, walking for 2 minutes doesn't get you very far). After Zimmerman dropped the phone, he chased after him, that's when Martin would try to run away. He chased after him and confronted him and is a racist obviously because LISTEN TO THE FUCKING RECORDING.
the photo with the blood was released by the police/district attorney. are you suggesting that the police/district attorney have doctored the photo to support zimmerman's defense?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
