|
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 07 2012 17:48 natrus wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2012 17:36 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On December 07 2012 17:19 natrus wrote:On December 07 2012 17:07 PanN wrote:On December 07 2012 15:57 natrus wrote:On December 07 2012 15:43 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:On December 07 2012 15:12 theaxis12 wrote:
I don't care if there was a fight because he was a grown man being attacked by a kid and shooting him is ridiculous. I can't believe how many people are defending him. I can see punching some asshole who thought you were a criminal walking in your own neighborhood, but shooting a kid that popped you in the nose? That is not something that a stable, rational person does, and he should be locked up. All he had to do was stay in his car after he called the cops, but no he confronted the kid. Why? Because he was looking for some vigilante action. Get out. Seriously this was said almost verbatim like 2 pages ago and rebuffed. Regardless of how you look at the case, make sure you are talking about facts. 1. He didn't just get "popped in the nose". He was on the ground and had his head slammed into it and suffered a broken nose. 2. He didn't get out of his car to find an confront the kid. Based off what is known he lost Trayvon got out of his car and Trayvon approached him. Exactly what happened when he was approached and words that were exchanged can only be known by zimmerman so speculating that he started anything is stupid. If it can't be proven one way or the other then you have to side with the person who is innocent until proven guilty. Not to mention the autopsy showed Trayvon with knuckle wounds and a gunshot wound. IE: He was hitting, not being hit. Then was shot. 3. "Grown man" Zimmerman was definitely older, but Trayvon was 17. Not just a kid. Trayvon was also 6' 3", and martin was something like 5'7". You mentioned height and not the weight. Which I would debate weight is more important. With that being said. I dont think a fight should prompt gunplay ever. I know his head was slammed into the concrete or whatever. But that is still in the realm of a fight. Also we dont know for sure who approached who. Zimmerman's word is not good enough for me. Another thing that bothers me is that Trayvon was not breaking any laws and did not deserve to be followed. I am still not sure which side I am on because we dont know the details. But if you follow someone unlawfully you should expect a negative reaction. Wait, so you're telling me you wouldn't use a gun if some guy was slamming your skull into the concrete and hitting you because "its still in the realm of a fight?" Uh, at that point i think you can uh... die? So i don't think your choice is that bright. I would probably just get knocked out. Like almost all other fights end. So if someone knocks down your friend with one punch and jumps on top of him and is beating him, you would shoot him? Those two situations aren't remotely comparable. On the whole, you're speculating your balls off right now though. We have no idea as to the exact events unfolded once the scuffle began. Simply outright declaring you wouldn't use the weapon you had on you is either intellectually dishonest or silly, because you're possibly accepting death when you have another alternative. I am speculating that he wasnt going to die in that fight. Yes. After looking at the pictures and knowing that in the past fights usually dont end in death. I am not saying that Zimmerman should be guilty. I am saying he shouldnt have pulled the trigger. How are the situations not comparable? Is that not what happened?
I think for any reasonable human being will think that his life is in danger if someone repeatedly smashes his head onto concrete walls.
|
People shouldn't downplay the seriousness of Martin's (alleged) actions. If someone is punching you multiple times in the head and especially slamming your head into the concrete it is indeed life-threatening. I've read of many cases in which someone has died after their head hit the ground after being punched unconscious sometimes after just one punch.
Example:
A Man will be retried over the one-punch death of a promising rugby league footballer after his manslaughter conviction was overturned on appeal.
The court was told Mr Parnell died from injuries sustained when his head struck concrete after he was "king hit" by Hung in the early hours of July 26, 2009, at a football club on Bribie Island, north of Brisbane.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/court-orders-retrial-for-one-punch-death/story-fn3dxiwe-1226532125202
It's all very well to say that you would never react with deadly force yourself but if you were ever actually in that situation you would probably feel differently. Maybe Zimmerman was wrong to interact with Martin at all in the first place but that doesn't justify what Martin allegedly did nor does it make what Zimmerman did murder.
Also calling a 6 foot 3 teenager a 'kid' is pretty intellectually dishonest in my opinion. Someone of that age and height is perfectly capable of inflicting severe injuries.
|
On December 07 2012 17:48 natrus wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2012 17:36 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On December 07 2012 17:19 natrus wrote:On December 07 2012 17:07 PanN wrote:On December 07 2012 15:57 natrus wrote:On December 07 2012 15:43 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:On December 07 2012 15:12 theaxis12 wrote:
I don't care if there was a fight because he was a grown man being attacked by a kid and shooting him is ridiculous. I can't believe how many people are defending him. I can see punching some asshole who thought you were a criminal walking in your own neighborhood, but shooting a kid that popped you in the nose? That is not something that a stable, rational person does, and he should be locked up. All he had to do was stay in his car after he called the cops, but no he confronted the kid. Why? Because he was looking for some vigilante action. Get out. Seriously this was said almost verbatim like 2 pages ago and rebuffed. Regardless of how you look at the case, make sure you are talking about facts. 1. He didn't just get "popped in the nose". He was on the ground and had his head slammed into it and suffered a broken nose. 2. He didn't get out of his car to find an confront the kid. Based off what is known he lost Trayvon got out of his car and Trayvon approached him. Exactly what happened when he was approached and words that were exchanged can only be known by zimmerman so speculating that he started anything is stupid. If it can't be proven one way or the other then you have to side with the person who is innocent until proven guilty. Not to mention the autopsy showed Trayvon with knuckle wounds and a gunshot wound. IE: He was hitting, not being hit. Then was shot. 3. "Grown man" Zimmerman was definitely older, but Trayvon was 17. Not just a kid. Trayvon was also 6' 3", and martin was something like 5'7". You mentioned height and not the weight. Which I would debate weight is more important. With that being said. I dont think a fight should prompt gunplay ever. I know his head was slammed into the concrete or whatever. But that is still in the realm of a fight. Also we dont know for sure who approached who. Zimmerman's word is not good enough for me. Another thing that bothers me is that Trayvon was not breaking any laws and did not deserve to be followed. I am still not sure which side I am on because we dont know the details. But if you follow someone unlawfully you should expect a negative reaction. Wait, so you're telling me you wouldn't use a gun if some guy was slamming your skull into the concrete and hitting you because "its still in the realm of a fight?" Uh, at that point i think you can uh... die? So i don't think your choice is that bright. I would probably just get knocked out. Like almost all other fights end. So if someone knocks down your friend with one punch and jumps on top of him and is beating him, you would shoot him? Those two situations aren't remotely comparable. On the whole, you're speculating your balls off right now though. We have no idea as to the exact events unfolded once the scuffle began. Simply outright declaring you wouldn't use the weapon you had on you is either intellectually dishonest or silly, because you're possibly accepting death when you have another alternative. I am speculating that he wasnt going to die in that fight. Yes. After looking at the pictures and knowing that in the past fights usually dont end in death. I am not saying that Zimmerman should be guilty. I am saying he shouldnt have pulled the trigger. How are the situations not comparable? Is that not what happened?
You don't know what happened. Also it's very easy to look back at a fight in hindsight and say that. When you are in a fight you don't have that luxury, meaning it simply comes down if you have a reasonable fear for you life, which have nothing to do with "most fights don't end in death." Lets think of a theoretical scenario where someone says something along the lines of "I'm going to effing kill you!" and then starts to punch you. You would just take that in a stride and think "oh well, I'm probably just going to get knocked out?"
|
On December 07 2012 17:19 natrus wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2012 17:07 PanN wrote:On December 07 2012 15:57 natrus wrote:On December 07 2012 15:43 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:On December 07 2012 15:12 theaxis12 wrote:
I don't care if there was a fight because he was a grown man being attacked by a kid and shooting him is ridiculous. I can't believe how many people are defending him. I can see punching some asshole who thought you were a criminal walking in your own neighborhood, but shooting a kid that popped you in the nose? That is not something that a stable, rational person does, and he should be locked up. All he had to do was stay in his car after he called the cops, but no he confronted the kid. Why? Because he was looking for some vigilante action. Get out. Seriously this was said almost verbatim like 2 pages ago and rebuffed. Regardless of how you look at the case, make sure you are talking about facts. 1. He didn't just get "popped in the nose". He was on the ground and had his head slammed into it and suffered a broken nose. 2. He didn't get out of his car to find an confront the kid. Based off what is known he lost Trayvon got out of his car and Trayvon approached him. Exactly what happened when he was approached and words that were exchanged can only be known by zimmerman so speculating that he started anything is stupid. If it can't be proven one way or the other then you have to side with the person who is innocent until proven guilty. Not to mention the autopsy showed Trayvon with knuckle wounds and a gunshot wound. IE: He was hitting, not being hit. Then was shot. 3. "Grown man" Zimmerman was definitely older, but Trayvon was 17. Not just a kid. Trayvon was also 6' 3", and martin was something like 5'7". You mentioned height and not the weight. Which I would debate weight is more important. With that being said. I dont think a fight should prompt gunplay ever. I know his head was slammed into the concrete or whatever. But that is still in the realm of a fight. Also we dont know for sure who approached who. Zimmerman's word is not good enough for me. Another thing that bothers me is that Trayvon was not breaking any laws and did not deserve to be followed. I am still not sure which side I am on because we dont know the details. But if you follow someone unlawfully you should expect a negative reaction. Wait, so you're telling me you wouldn't use a gun if some guy was slamming your skull into the concrete and hitting you because "its still in the realm of a fight?" Uh, at that point i think you can uh... die? So i don't think your choice is that bright. I would probably just get knocked out. Like almost all other fights end. So if someone knocks down your friend with one punch and jumps on top of him and is beating him, you would shoot him?
You're asking me if I would murder somebody when I could just join the fight and disarm the situation? Do you seriously believe that your situation is comparable to the one at hand?
Are you fucking kidding me?
EDIT:
I also think its hilarious that you really think you wouldn't pull the trigger in his situation based on "After looking at the pictures and knowing that in the past fights usually dont end in death." Betting your life on usually sure seems smart.
|
On December 07 2012 17:48 natrus wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2012 17:36 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On December 07 2012 17:19 natrus wrote:On December 07 2012 17:07 PanN wrote:On December 07 2012 15:57 natrus wrote:On December 07 2012 15:43 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:On December 07 2012 15:12 theaxis12 wrote:
I don't care if there was a fight because he was a grown man being attacked by a kid and shooting him is ridiculous. I can't believe how many people are defending him. I can see punching some asshole who thought you were a criminal walking in your own neighborhood, but shooting a kid that popped you in the nose? That is not something that a stable, rational person does, and he should be locked up. All he had to do was stay in his car after he called the cops, but no he confronted the kid. Why? Because he was looking for some vigilante action. Get out. Seriously this was said almost verbatim like 2 pages ago and rebuffed. Regardless of how you look at the case, make sure you are talking about facts. 1. He didn't just get "popped in the nose". He was on the ground and had his head slammed into it and suffered a broken nose. 2. He didn't get out of his car to find an confront the kid. Based off what is known he lost Trayvon got out of his car and Trayvon approached him. Exactly what happened when he was approached and words that were exchanged can only be known by zimmerman so speculating that he started anything is stupid. If it can't be proven one way or the other then you have to side with the person who is innocent until proven guilty. Not to mention the autopsy showed Trayvon with knuckle wounds and a gunshot wound. IE: He was hitting, not being hit. Then was shot. 3. "Grown man" Zimmerman was definitely older, but Trayvon was 17. Not just a kid. Trayvon was also 6' 3", and martin was something like 5'7". You mentioned height and not the weight. Which I would debate weight is more important. With that being said. I dont think a fight should prompt gunplay ever. I know his head was slammed into the concrete or whatever. But that is still in the realm of a fight. Also we dont know for sure who approached who. Zimmerman's word is not good enough for me. Another thing that bothers me is that Trayvon was not breaking any laws and did not deserve to be followed. I am still not sure which side I am on because we dont know the details. But if you follow someone unlawfully you should expect a negative reaction. Wait, so you're telling me you wouldn't use a gun if some guy was slamming your skull into the concrete and hitting you because "its still in the realm of a fight?" Uh, at that point i think you can uh... die? So i don't think your choice is that bright. I would probably just get knocked out. Like almost all other fights end. So if someone knocks down your friend with one punch and jumps on top of him and is beating him, you would shoot him? Those two situations aren't remotely comparable. On the whole, you're speculating your balls off right now though. We have no idea as to the exact events unfolded once the scuffle began. Simply outright declaring you wouldn't use the weapon you had on you is either intellectually dishonest or silly, because you're possibly accepting death when you have another alternative. I am speculating that he wasnt going to die in that fight. Yes. After looking at the pictures and knowing that in the past fights usually dont end in death. I am not saying that Zimmerman should be guilty. I am saying he shouldnt have pulled the trigger. How are the situations not comparable? Is that not what happened?
Zimmerman claims that Martin saw his gun, said "I'm going to fucking kill you" and they struggled for it. Even if it is just a claim and there were no witnesses or solid evidence, it doesn't mean it's implausible.
If what Zimmerman claims is true, then there is definitely a reason for him to be afraid for his own life.
|
As someone who's been kicked in the head while on the ground I can say, without a sliver of a doubt, that I'd shoot anyone in the blink of an eye if they were on top of me and throwing punches. If I had the means. The sanctity of human life takes a backseat when you know how fragile your own is.
|
On December 07 2012 15:43 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2012 15:12 theaxis12 wrote:
I don't care if there was a fight because he was a grown man being attacked by a kid and shooting him is ridiculous. I can't believe how many people are defending him. I can see punching some asshole who thought you were a criminal walking in your own neighborhood, but shooting a kid that popped you in the nose? That is not something that a stable, rational person does, and he should be locked up. All he had to do was stay in his car after he called the cops, but no he confronted the kid. Why? Because he was looking for some vigilante action. Get out. Seriously this was said almost verbatim like 2 pages ago and rebuffed. Regardless of how you look at the case, make sure you are talking about facts. 1. He didn't just get "popped in the nose". He was on the ground and had his head slammed into it and suffered a broken nose. 2. He didn't get out of his car to find an confront the kid. Based off what is known he lost Trayvon got out of his car and Trayvon approached him. Exactly what happened when he was approached and words that were exchanged can only be known by zimmerman so speculating that he started anything is stupid. If it can't be proven one way or the other then you have to side with the person who is innocent until proven guilty. Not to mention the autopsy showed Trayvon with knuckle wounds and a gunshot wound. IE: He was hitting, not being hit. Then was shot. 3. "Grown man" Zimmerman was definitely older, but Trayvon was 17. Not just a kid. Trayvon was also 6' 3", and martin was something like 5'7".
You GTFO you piece of shit, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but you guys feel like you are arguing under the rules of the law and you are super serial about it when it is just bullshit ramblings on a fucking video game forum.
1) How do you know that the fight didn't just start with a puch and Martin retaliated?
2) You are going to take the side of the person that is alive just because Trayvon can't give his side?
3) IDK about you but I am only 25 and I look at teenagers as kids. You don't kill a kid because he is being dumb or an asshole, that is what kids do. Beat the shit out of him or run or whatever you need to do, but shooting him is fucking insane.
Only thing that matters: Martin had already called the cops on the kid, but decided (against better judgement and the advice of the police) that he needed to confront and shoot an unarmed person. He is a fucking vigilante, which is unacceptable in our society -> he should be jailed.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On December 10 2012 10:53 theaxis12 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2012 15:43 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:On December 07 2012 15:12 theaxis12 wrote:
I don't care if there was a fight because he was a grown man being attacked by a kid and shooting him is ridiculous. I can't believe how many people are defending him. I can see punching some asshole who thought you were a criminal walking in your own neighborhood, but shooting a kid that popped you in the nose? That is not something that a stable, rational person does, and he should be locked up. All he had to do was stay in his car after he called the cops, but no he confronted the kid. Why? Because he was looking for some vigilante action. Get out. Seriously this was said almost verbatim like 2 pages ago and rebuffed. Regardless of how you look at the case, make sure you are talking about facts. 1. He didn't just get "popped in the nose". He was on the ground and had his head slammed into it and suffered a broken nose. 2. He didn't get out of his car to find an confront the kid. Based off what is known he lost Trayvon got out of his car and Trayvon approached him. Exactly what happened when he was approached and words that were exchanged can only be known by zimmerman so speculating that he started anything is stupid. If it can't be proven one way or the other then you have to side with the person who is innocent until proven guilty. Not to mention the autopsy showed Trayvon with knuckle wounds and a gunshot wound. IE: He was hitting, not being hit. Then was shot. 3. "Grown man" Zimmerman was definitely older, but Trayvon was 17. Not just a kid. Trayvon was also 6' 3", and martin was something like 5'7". You GTFO you piece of shit, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but you guys feel like you are arguing under the rules of the law and you are super serial about it when it is just bullshit ramblings on a fucking video game forum. 1) How do you know that the fight didn't just start with a puch and Martin retaliated? 2) You are going to take the side of the person that is alive just because Trayvon can't give his side? 3) IDK about you but I am only 25 and I look at teenagers as kids. You don't kill a kid because he is being dumb or an asshole, that is what kids do. Beat the shit out of him or run or whatever you need to do, but shooting him is fucking insane. Only thing that matters: Martin had already called the cops on the kid, but decided (against better judgement and the advice of the police) that he needed to confront and shoot an unarmed person. He is a fucking vigilante, which is unacceptable in our society -> he should be jailed.
Why are you mad, though? While you may be "entitled" to your "opinion" of FACTS, facts will always triumph over "opinions" in the court of law EVERY DAY.
1) What facts do you know about the case? Before you post on here again, if you aren't banned, I want you to answer this question before anything else. Write down all the facts, read them to yourself slowly. Do it a few more times.
A) One fact should be how the media altered the 911 call, for which that company is now being sued by the very person they were trying to destroy. (Character wise.)
B) Zimmerman had blood on his face and the back of his head. There were lacerations on the back of his head. His nose was broken.
2) Even if Trayvon could give his side, I doubt he would be truthful. Why the fuck would any "kid" at the age of seventeen, which is almost a legal ADULT, be honest about getting into trouble? (Yeah, there may be a very extremely small amount who will tell the truth, but not when you've already gotten in trouble for drugs and other things.) We've already seen how his parents tried to profit off his death.
3) Would you consider an eighTEEN year-old a kid or an adult? What about nineteen? Just because you see all teenagers as kids doesn't mean that everyone else does. It's funny that you say Zimm should've just beaten Trayvon. If that happened, Zimm could very well still be in legal trouble. (There's a case where someone tried to rob a corner store, but failed and was injured by the people he was trying to rob. The case is the guy who tried to rob the store is suing the very people he tried to rob. Figure that out.)
Do you know that Zimm actually confronted Travyon? I want actual fucking proof.
User was warned for this post
|
On December 10 2012 10:53 theaxis12 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2012 15:43 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:On December 07 2012 15:12 theaxis12 wrote:
I don't care if there was a fight because he was a grown man being attacked by a kid and shooting him is ridiculous. I can't believe how many people are defending him. I can see punching some asshole who thought you were a criminal walking in your own neighborhood, but shooting a kid that popped you in the nose? That is not something that a stable, rational person does, and he should be locked up. All he had to do was stay in his car after he called the cops, but no he confronted the kid. Why? Because he was looking for some vigilante action. Get out. Seriously this was said almost verbatim like 2 pages ago and rebuffed. Regardless of how you look at the case, make sure you are talking about facts. 1. He didn't just get "popped in the nose". He was on the ground and had his head slammed into it and suffered a broken nose. 2. He didn't get out of his car to find an confront the kid. Based off what is known he lost Trayvon got out of his car and Trayvon approached him. Exactly what happened when he was approached and words that were exchanged can only be known by zimmerman so speculating that he started anything is stupid. If it can't be proven one way or the other then you have to side with the person who is innocent until proven guilty. Not to mention the autopsy showed Trayvon with knuckle wounds and a gunshot wound. IE: He was hitting, not being hit. Then was shot. 3. "Grown man" Zimmerman was definitely older, but Trayvon was 17. Not just a kid. Trayvon was also 6' 3", and martin was something like 5'7". You GTFO you piece of shit, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but you guys feel like you are arguing under the rules of the law and you are super serial about it when it is just bullshit ramblings on a fucking video game forum. 1) How do you know that the fight didn't just start with a puch and Martin retaliated? 2) You are going to take the side of the person that is alive just because Trayvon can't give his side? 3) IDK about you but I am only 25 and I look at teenagers as kids. You don't kill a kid because he is being dumb or an asshole, that is what kids do. Beat the shit out of him or run or whatever you need to do, but shooting him is fucking insane. Only thing that matters: Martin had already called the cops on the kid, but decided (against better judgement and the advice of the police) that he needed to confront and shoot an unarmed person. He is a fucking vigilante, which is unacceptable in our society -> he should be jailed.
1. dont know, but if there is no evidence of it then it didnt happen. welcome to judicial "truth."
2. no, but if there is no other person to speak (e.g., witnesses) then it didnt happen. welcome to judicial "truth."
3. its only insane if you disregard his argument that he acted in self defense. because, yes, if you fear for your life you do shoot people.
|
People need to stop being to stubborn and admit the truth. The media played you. The looking for a reason to be mad people at the NAACP played you. The anti gun people played you. They presented a lie to make you feel like some great injustice had occurred when the reality was far from it. Despite the efforts of these groups, the truth, or enough it, is out. Zimmerman was clearly assaulted and his injuries show that his claim that his life was in danger is more than justified. Its was self defense and he will not be convicted. He should not even be tried because it is a waste of time and money but clearly all the people who refuse to admit the truth would protest such a move.
|
Australia8532 Posts
On December 10 2012 12:35 Mallard86 wrote:
People need to stop being to stubborn and admit the truth. The media played you. The looking for a reason to be mad people at the NAACP played you. The anti gun people played you. They presented a lie to make you feel like some great injustice had occurred when the reality was far from it. Despite the efforts of these groups, the truth, or enough it, is out. Zimmerman was clearly assaulted and his injuries show that his claim that his life was in danger is more than justified. Its was self defense and he will not be convicted. He should not even be tried because it is a waste of time and money but clearly all the people who refuse to admit the truth would protest such a move.
While you may be correct. I don't understand why you need to post in a way that makes you sound like you think you are the president of the world. It's as if we all have a veil drawn across our eyes and only you can guide us toward the truth. Do you believe that we are all somehow gullible morons that sit around F5'ing, waiting for you to post so we can understand the truth.
In my opinion, the hardest part about this trial, based on the evidence that has been made public, will be the standard of proof. Beyond reasonable doubt is a high hurdle, especially with some of the evidence on Zimmerman's side like the injuries sustained by Martin. If his story is simply plausible, then it does not satisfy the burden of proof.
On December 07 2012 18:12 saltywet wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2012 17:48 natrus wrote:On December 07 2012 17:36 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On December 07 2012 17:19 natrus wrote:On December 07 2012 17:07 PanN wrote:On December 07 2012 15:57 natrus wrote:On December 07 2012 15:43 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:On December 07 2012 15:12 theaxis12 wrote:
I don't care if there was a fight because he was a grown man being attacked by a kid and shooting him is ridiculous. I can't believe how many people are defending him. I can see punching some asshole who thought you were a criminal walking in your own neighborhood, but shooting a kid that popped you in the nose? That is not something that a stable, rational person does, and he should be locked up. All he had to do was stay in his car after he called the cops, but no he confronted the kid. Why? Because he was looking for some vigilante action. Get out. Seriously this was said almost verbatim like 2 pages ago and rebuffed. Regardless of how you look at the case, make sure you are talking about facts. 1. He didn't just get "popped in the nose". He was on the ground and had his head slammed into it and suffered a broken nose. 2. He didn't get out of his car to find an confront the kid. Based off what is known he lost Trayvon got out of his car and Trayvon approached him. Exactly what happened when he was approached and words that were exchanged can only be known by zimmerman so speculating that he started anything is stupid. If it can't be proven one way or the other then you have to side with the person who is innocent until proven guilty. Not to mention the autopsy showed Trayvon with knuckle wounds and a gunshot wound. IE: He was hitting, not being hit. Then was shot. 3. "Grown man" Zimmerman was definitely older, but Trayvon was 17. Not just a kid. Trayvon was also 6' 3", and martin was something like 5'7". You mentioned height and not the weight. Which I would debate weight is more important. With that being said. I dont think a fight should prompt gunplay ever. I know his head was slammed into the concrete or whatever. But that is still in the realm of a fight. Also we dont know for sure who approached who. Zimmerman's word is not good enough for me. Another thing that bothers me is that Trayvon was not breaking any laws and did not deserve to be followed. I am still not sure which side I am on because we dont know the details. But if you follow someone unlawfully you should expect a negative reaction. Wait, so you're telling me you wouldn't use a gun if some guy was slamming your skull into the concrete and hitting you because "its still in the realm of a fight?" Uh, at that point i think you can uh... die? So i don't think your choice is that bright. I would probably just get knocked out. Like almost all other fights end. So if someone knocks down your friend with one punch and jumps on top of him and is beating him, you would shoot him? Those two situations aren't remotely comparable. On the whole, you're speculating your balls off right now though. We have no idea as to the exact events unfolded once the scuffle began. Simply outright declaring you wouldn't use the weapon you had on you is either intellectually dishonest or silly, because you're possibly accepting death when you have another alternative. I am speculating that he wasnt going to die in that fight. Yes. After looking at the pictures and knowing that in the past fights usually dont end in death. I am not saying that Zimmerman should be guilty. I am saying he shouldnt have pulled the trigger. How are the situations not comparable? Is that not what happened? Zimmerman claims that Martin saw his gun, said "I'm going to fucking kill you" and they struggled for it. Even if it is just a claim and there were no witnesses or solid evidence, it doesn't mean it's implausible. If what Zimmerman claims is true, then there is definitely a reason for him to be afraid for his own life.
There is no way of knowing whether what Zimmerman claims is 'true' or not. As he is the only one left alive, and should remain innocent until proven guilty, it is all about adducing evidence to construct a puzzle. Each piece of evidence is assigned a weight based on probative value. Zimmerman can say anything he likes really, but the reliability and probative value of his evidence is key.
|
On December 10 2012 10:53 theaxis12 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2012 15:43 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:On December 07 2012 15:12 theaxis12 wrote:
I don't care if there was a fight because he was a grown man being attacked by a kid and shooting him is ridiculous. I can't believe how many people are defending him. I can see punching some asshole who thought you were a criminal walking in your own neighborhood, but shooting a kid that popped you in the nose? That is not something that a stable, rational person does, and he should be locked up. All he had to do was stay in his car after he called the cops, but no he confronted the kid. Why? Because he was looking for some vigilante action. Get out. Seriously this was said almost verbatim like 2 pages ago and rebuffed. Regardless of how you look at the case, make sure you are talking about facts. 1. He didn't just get "popped in the nose". He was on the ground and had his head slammed into it and suffered a broken nose. 2. He didn't get out of his car to find an confront the kid. Based off what is known he lost Trayvon got out of his car and Trayvon approached him. Exactly what happened when he was approached and words that were exchanged can only be known by zimmerman so speculating that he started anything is stupid. If it can't be proven one way or the other then you have to side with the person who is innocent until proven guilty. Not to mention the autopsy showed Trayvon with knuckle wounds and a gunshot wound. IE: He was hitting, not being hit. Then was shot. 3. "Grown man" Zimmerman was definitely older, but Trayvon was 17. Not just a kid. Trayvon was also 6' 3", and martin was something like 5'7". You GTFO you piece of shit, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but you guys feel like you are arguing under the rules of the law and you are super serial about it when it is just bullshit ramblings on a fucking video game forum. 1) How do you know that the fight didn't just start with a puch and Martin retaliated? 2) You are going to take the side of the person that is alive just because Trayvon can't give his side? 3) IDK about you but I am only 25 and I look at teenagers as kids. You don't kill a kid because he is being dumb or an asshole, that is what kids do. Beat the shit out of him or run or whatever you need to do, but shooting him is fucking insane.
Only thing that matters: Martin had already called the cops on the kid, but decided (against better judgement and the advice of the police) that he needed to confront and shoot an unarmed person. He is a fucking vigilante, which is unacceptable in our society -> he should be jailed.
I promise you, you only think like that because you are sitting on your chair at home, calm and collected. Put yourself in another situation which your adrenaline are pumping and your face is getting smashed to concrete wall and try those analysis again.
|
On December 10 2012 10:53 theaxis12 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2012 15:43 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:On December 07 2012 15:12 theaxis12 wrote:
I don't care if there was a fight because he was a grown man being attacked by a kid and shooting him is ridiculous. I can't believe how many people are defending him. I can see punching some asshole who thought you were a criminal walking in your own neighborhood, but shooting a kid that popped you in the nose? That is not something that a stable, rational person does, and he should be locked up. All he had to do was stay in his car after he called the cops, but no he confronted the kid. Why? Because he was looking for some vigilante action. Get out. Seriously this was said almost verbatim like 2 pages ago and rebuffed. Regardless of how you look at the case, make sure you are talking about facts. 1. He didn't just get "popped in the nose". He was on the ground and had his head slammed into it and suffered a broken nose. 2. He didn't get out of his car to find an confront the kid. Based off what is known he lost Trayvon got out of his car and Trayvon approached him. Exactly what happened when he was approached and words that were exchanged can only be known by zimmerman so speculating that he started anything is stupid. If it can't be proven one way or the other then you have to side with the person who is innocent until proven guilty. Not to mention the autopsy showed Trayvon with knuckle wounds and a gunshot wound. IE: He was hitting, not being hit. Then was shot. 3. "Grown man" Zimmerman was definitely older, but Trayvon was 17. Not just a kid. Trayvon was also 6' 3", and martin was something like 5'7". You GTFO you piece of shit, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but you guys feel like you are arguing under the rules of the law and you are super serial about it when it is just bullshit ramblings on a fucking video game forum. 1) How do you know that the fight didn't just start with a puch and Martin retaliated? 2) You are going to take the side of the person that is alive just because Trayvon can't give his side? 3) IDK about you but I am only 25 and I look at teenagers as kids. You don't kill a kid because he is being dumb or an asshole, that is what kids do. Beat the shit out of him or run or whatever you need to do, but shooting him is fucking insane. Only thing that matters: Martin had already called the cops on the kid, but decided (against better judgement and the advice of the police) that he needed to confront and shoot an unarmed person. He is a fucking vigilante, which is unacceptable in our society -> he should be jailed.
1) Read the Reports. No other marks/injuries outside of the Gunshot wound on Martin and his knuckles that were used to punch Zimmerman.
2) Listen to the FULL 911 call. In terms of what happened, you will not know nor will I.
3) You are discriminating to make your argument which is one tool the prosecution is trying to use. I know plenty of 16-18 year old that are taller than me, bigger than me, or both. I'll go grab one of those kids and have them beat the snot out of you and we will see what you do. Hindsight gets you nothing.
|
I'm not sure if this has been mentioned in past discussion (I left when people were going nuts and didn't come back until the necro photo on December 4th), but from reading the parts of the conversation I've read it seems as though what is being conveyed is "Treyvon Martin was on top of George Zimmerman punching the shit out of him, and Zimmerman, fearing for his life shot and killed Martin." Is this a correct synopsis?
If so, my question is "If this is the case, shouldn't a chest wound cause sufficient bleeding to soak Zimmerman who was under the victim?" I also wonder about the logistics of reaching for the gun in that situation, but I'll presume it was possible and optimal. The photo shown does not seem to indicate the blood I would expect from a chest wound roughly over the shooter, nor does the photo shown later where Zimmerman "clearly didn't have a broken nose."
|
On December 10 2012 11:34 GnarlyArbitrage wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2012 10:53 theaxis12 wrote:On December 07 2012 15:43 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:On December 07 2012 15:12 theaxis12 wrote:
I don't care if there was a fight because he was a grown man being attacked by a kid and shooting him is ridiculous. I can't believe how many people are defending him. I can see punching some asshole who thought you were a criminal walking in your own neighborhood, but shooting a kid that popped you in the nose? That is not something that a stable, rational person does, and he should be locked up. All he had to do was stay in his car after he called the cops, but no he confronted the kid. Why? Because he was looking for some vigilante action. Get out. Seriously this was said almost verbatim like 2 pages ago and rebuffed. Regardless of how you look at the case, make sure you are talking about facts. 1. He didn't just get "popped in the nose". He was on the ground and had his head slammed into it and suffered a broken nose. 2. He didn't get out of his car to find an confront the kid. Based off what is known he lost Trayvon got out of his car and Trayvon approached him. Exactly what happened when he was approached and words that were exchanged can only be known by zimmerman so speculating that he started anything is stupid. If it can't be proven one way or the other then you have to side with the person who is innocent until proven guilty. Not to mention the autopsy showed Trayvon with knuckle wounds and a gunshot wound. IE: He was hitting, not being hit. Then was shot. 3. "Grown man" Zimmerman was definitely older, but Trayvon was 17. Not just a kid. Trayvon was also 6' 3", and martin was something like 5'7". You GTFO you piece of shit, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but you guys feel like you are arguing under the rules of the law and you are super serial about it when it is just bullshit ramblings on a fucking video game forum. 1) How do you know that the fight didn't just start with a puch and Martin retaliated? 2) You are going to take the side of the person that is alive just because Trayvon can't give his side? 3) IDK about you but I am only 25 and I look at teenagers as kids. You don't kill a kid because he is being dumb or an asshole, that is what kids do. Beat the shit out of him or run or whatever you need to do, but shooting him is fucking insane. Only thing that matters: Martin had already called the cops on the kid, but decided (against better judgement and the advice of the police) that he needed to confront and shoot an unarmed person. He is a fucking vigilante, which is unacceptable in our society -> he should be jailed. Why are you mad, though? While you may be "entitled" to your "opinion" of FACTS, facts will always triumph over "opinions" in the court of law EVERY DAY. 1) What facts do you know about the case? Before you post on here again, if you aren't banned, I want you to answer this question before anything else. Write down all the facts, read them to yourself slowly. Do it a few more times. A) One fact should be how the media altered the 911 call, for which that company is now being sued by the very person they were trying to destroy. (Character wise.) B) Zimmerman had blood on his face and the back of his head. There were lacerations on the back of his head. His nose was broken. 2) Even if Trayvon could give his side, I doubt he would be truthful. Why the fuck would any "kid" at the age of seventeen, which is almost a legal ADULT, be honest about getting into trouble? (Yeah, there may be a very extremely small amount who will tell the truth, but not when you've already gotten in trouble for drugs and other things.) We've already seen how his parents tried to profit off his death. 3) Would you consider an eighTEEN year-old a kid or an adult? What about nineteen? Just because you see all teenagers as kids doesn't mean that everyone else does. It's funny that you say Zimm should've just beaten Trayvon. If that happened, Zimm could very well still be in legal trouble. (There's a case where someone tried to rob a corner store, but failed and was injured by the people he was trying to rob. The case is the guy who tried to rob the store is suing the very people he tried to rob. Figure that out.) Do you know that Zimm actually confronted Travyon? I want actual fucking proof.
A) the NBC lawsuit should not be considered when thinking about the events because even if you take race out of it what Zimm did was still wrong and a crime
2) and why would Zimm tell the fucking truth if he gunned down an innocent man -just wtf on this one
3) I am not talking legal def. of a child, I am talking about how a decent 30 yr old deals with a teenager. Yes, Zimm would be in trouble for kicking the shit out of a kid, but then that kid would still be alive wouldn't he. (IDK what the parthetical part is about)
On December 10 2012 11:38 dAPhREAk wrote:
1. dont know, but if there is no evidence of it then it didnt happen. welcome to judicial "truth."
2. no, but if there is no other person to speak (e.g., witnesses) then it didnt happen. welcome to judicial "truth."
3. its only insane if you disregard his argument that he acted in self defense. because, yes, if you fear for your life you do shoot people.
First two are reasonable, but luckily i don't have to hold to the standards of the courts in my opinion. As for me calling him insane for shooting an unarmed person, it is insane because all you would have to do is show them the gun or fire a warning shot to get them to back off instead of taking their fucking life.
On December 10 2012 12:58 Sufficiency wrote:
I promise you, you only think like that because you are sitting on your chair at home, calm and collected. Put yourself in another situation which your adrenaline are pumping and your face is getting smashed to concrete wall and try those analysis again.
Fair, but as I said earlier there were other alternatives to shooting the kid, and the actions he choose were extreme and wrong.
I also want to point out that no one tried to contradict the bottom line, which is what this is really about. The facts stand by themselves. Everyone defending Zimm seems to be lost in the details of the NBC case or the fight, while the detail of an unarmed kid being gunned down is just taken for granted.
|
lucky we have this thing called a constitution and laws to prevent people like you from jumping to conclusions and lynching people. if you dont think you have to hold to the standards of a court of law then your opinion is really meaningless in my opinion. good to know.
as far as showing them the gun and firing a warning shot, i dont think you understand what exactly he said was happening. he said the kid went for the gun and said zimmerman was going to die. assuming that is true, showing the gun and firing a warning shot are kind of stupid, dont you think? you should stick to what the defendant is alleging and what the witnesses are alleging rather than some fantasy world you have concocted.
edit: you want to get to the bottom line: someone dying does not equal murder.
|
UPDATE: The GPS records on Trayvon's cellphone were recoverable, but somehow the only day that mattered (the day he died) got deleted while the phone was in the custody of the prosecution.
Remember also that previously the prosecution released a very low quality black and white photocopy of the photograph showing Zimmerman's bleeding nose, which concealed the extent of his injuries. The defence had to fight to get the full quality photo provided to them.
It's frightening the lenghts that government employees will go to in order to railroad someone they know is innocent. It's Mike Nifong all over again. There really should be harsher punishments for this sort of thing.
|
United Kingdom16710 Posts
On February 05 2013 19:25 Zaqwe wrote:UPDATE: The GPS records on Trayvon's cellphone were recoverable, but somehow the only day that mattered (the day he died) got deleted while the phone was in the custody of the prosecution. Remember also that previously the prosecution released a very low quality black and white photocopy of the photograph showing Zimmerman's bleeding nose, which concealed the extent of his injuries. The defence had to fight to get the full quality photo provided to them. It's frightening the lenghts that government employees will go to in order to railroad someone they know is innocent. It's Mike Nifong all over again. There really should be harsher punishments for this sort of thing.
Those who meek out 'justice' is often those who abuse it. After all, it is power.
|
On February 05 2013 19:40 Telcontar wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2013 19:25 Zaqwe wrote:UPDATE: The GPS records on Trayvon's cellphone were recoverable, but somehow the only day that mattered (the day he died) got deleted while the phone was in the custody of the prosecution. Remember also that previously the prosecution released a very low quality black and white photocopy of the photograph showing Zimmerman's bleeding nose, which concealed the extent of his injuries. The defence had to fight to get the full quality photo provided to them. It's frightening the lenghts that government employees will go to in order to railroad someone they know is innocent. It's Mike Nifong all over again. There really should be harsher punishments for this sort of thing. Those who meek out 'justice' is often those who abuse it. After all, it is power.
This kind of thing should come with the same punishment that the crime you're trying to prove can come with.
So if the crime could come with 25 to life, and it turns out that the prosecution lied and cheated its way through the investigation, they get 25 to life. There is absolutely no excuse for this kind of thing, and punishments should reflect that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
