|
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 April 06 2013 08:22 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2013 08:07 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Trayvon wasn't a kid...
Dude was as big as most men, if not bigger.
And I think it's stupid to just assume Zimmerman is lying because he had a gun. (Basically the argument you put forward). Wait, are you really putting forth the idea that Trayvon's physical size mitigates his status as an immature minor? Based on what has been released in terms of Trayvon's Facebook amongst other things, I'd say it is very safe to say that he was still a "kid".
I think the point is, he was physically strong enough to pose a serious threat to Zimmerman. He wasn't just a kid who could be easily overpowered, and was shot by a racist Zimmerman, he was a big guy who was beating the crap out of Zimmerman.
|
On April 06 2013 08:39 Tewks44 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2013 08:22 farvacola wrote:On April 06 2013 08:07 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Trayvon wasn't a kid...
Dude was as big as most men, if not bigger.
And I think it's stupid to just assume Zimmerman is lying because he had a gun. (Basically the argument you put forward). Wait, are you really putting forth the idea that Trayvon's physical size mitigates his status as an immature minor? Based on what has been released in terms of Trayvon's Facebook amongst other things, I'd say it is very safe to say that he was still a "kid". I think the point is, he was physically strong enough to pose a serious threat to Zimmerman. He wasn't just a kid who could be easily overpowered, and was shot by a racist Zimmerman, he was a big guy who was beating the crap out of Zimmerman.
since i was the person who used the term "kid," let me clarify that i wasnt using it to imply that zimmerman's self defense claim was bullshit. i was using it to show that i didnt feel sorry for zimmerman after killing a young individual. if you would prefer that i had wrote "17 year old" or "young adult" or whatever, just re-read my post with that in mind and you'll see it changes nothing of substance. the significance of "kid" to me is that zimmerman ended a person's life while they were young.
|
On April 06 2013 08:43 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2013 08:39 Tewks44 wrote:On April 06 2013 08:22 farvacola wrote:On April 06 2013 08:07 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Trayvon wasn't a kid...
Dude was as big as most men, if not bigger.
And I think it's stupid to just assume Zimmerman is lying because he had a gun. (Basically the argument you put forward). Wait, are you really putting forth the idea that Trayvon's physical size mitigates his status as an immature minor? Based on what has been released in terms of Trayvon's Facebook amongst other things, I'd say it is very safe to say that he was still a "kid". I think the point is, he was physically strong enough to pose a serious threat to Zimmerman. He wasn't just a kid who could be easily overpowered, and was shot by a racist Zimmerman, he was a big guy who was beating the crap out of Zimmerman. since i was the person who used the term "kid," let me clarify that i wasnt using it to imply that zimmerman's self defense claim was bullshit. i was using it to show that i didnt feel sorry for zimmerman after killing a young individual. if you would prefer that i had wrote "17 year old" or "young adult" or whatever, just re-read my post with that in mind and you'll see it changes nothing of substance. the significance of "kid" to me is that zimmerman ended a person's life while they were young.
I get what you're saying, and in terms of direct cause and effect, yes Zimmerman is completely responsible for Trayvon's death. However, to say he's legally responsible is another story. It would set a precedent that it's okay to assault someone for following you. That would be a real headache when every single person charged with assault took it to court with the "he was following me" defence.
|
The more menacing we make Trayvon out to be, the more reckless Zimmerman's actions become after he disobeys the order to stand down and wait for the police.
|
... and yet after well over a year, we still can't get the fact that THERE WAS NO ORDER TO STAND DOWN through our thick skulls.
|
On April 06 2013 08:50 Tewks44 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2013 08:43 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 06 2013 08:39 Tewks44 wrote:On April 06 2013 08:22 farvacola wrote:On April 06 2013 08:07 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Trayvon wasn't a kid...
Dude was as big as most men, if not bigger.
And I think it's stupid to just assume Zimmerman is lying because he had a gun. (Basically the argument you put forward). Wait, are you really putting forth the idea that Trayvon's physical size mitigates his status as an immature minor? Based on what has been released in terms of Trayvon's Facebook amongst other things, I'd say it is very safe to say that he was still a "kid". I think the point is, he was physically strong enough to pose a serious threat to Zimmerman. He wasn't just a kid who could be easily overpowered, and was shot by a racist Zimmerman, he was a big guy who was beating the crap out of Zimmerman. since i was the person who used the term "kid," let me clarify that i wasnt using it to imply that zimmerman's self defense claim was bullshit. i was using it to show that i didnt feel sorry for zimmerman after killing a young individual. if you would prefer that i had wrote "17 year old" or "young adult" or whatever, just re-read my post with that in mind and you'll see it changes nothing of substance. the significance of "kid" to me is that zimmerman ended a person's life while they were young. I get what you're saying, and in terms of direct cause and effect, yes Zimmerman is completely responsible for Trayvon's death. However, to say he's legally responsible is another story. It would set a precedent that it's okay to assault someone for following you. That would be a real headache when every single person charged with assault took it to court with the "he was following me" defence.
we are on the same page.
|
On April 05 2013 13:35 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2013 10:16 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 05 2013 09:37 Millitron wrote:On April 05 2013 09:17 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 05 2013 09:11 Millitron wrote:On April 05 2013 08:57 xDaunt wrote:On April 05 2013 08:37 docvoc wrote:On April 05 2013 08:22 dAPhREAk wrote:Zimmerman filed a petition to have the court of appeal review the trial court's decision not to allow him to depose the family's attorney concerning statements made by the "girlfriend" to him. that issue is only mildly interesting to non-lawyers, but of more interest is that he provides a summary of the case, which gives us a first view of how the defense will go: http://www.gzdocs.com/documents/0413/petition.pdf Wait, so this seems like the family lawyer was working WAY out of her bounds in having witness 8 come to the stand and also said that there were factual issues with what she said. That makes a lot of sense since it seems like the girl was lying since she couldn't even spell Trayvon correctly, spelling it "trevon" several times. Along with the fact that Zimmerman's attorney claims the interview of witness 8 was largely unintelligible, that is enough to throw out ALL of that evidence and severely hurt the Martin family's case. What are the bounds that they can hold Mr. Crump (the family lawyer) to? Is he held in contempt for blantantly and knowingly breaking the law and attempting Perjury? Contempt would not apply because he has not violated any court orders. Perjury may be an issue given that Crump submitted an affidavit. Also, all lawyers are bound by independent codes of ethics -- the breach of which can lead to sanctions by the state bar. Reviewing the Defense's brief, I did wonder whether Crump might be grieved for violating some of those rules. I also have to wonder about the prosecutor. I really, really hope that these charges don't turn out to be ginned up like the Duke Lacrosse case. There undeniably is a stink about the whole affair, particularly in light of Crump's alleged PR efforts. The worst part of it is the media circus that immediately followed the incident. Now even if Zimmerman is found completely innocent, even without a mistrial, his life has probably been ruined. Everyone will remember the months long insanity, but no one will remember the 30 second announcement on MSNBC about his innocence. And the walking clumps of slime calling themselves journalists who passed off edited police recordings and grainy photos as undeniable proof Zimmerman was racist will get off scott-free. They should be punished as severely as Zimmerman could have been, its unforgivable. the worst offenders have been fired and sued by Zimmerman in civil court (i.e., the ones who used edited police recordings). But the public generally doesn't know that. Everyone who Zimmerman meets in the future will know he shot Martin, and because of the media circus they may still think he's guilty of murder. But no one knows who those journalists are. Besides some financial problems caused by the law suits and firings, they'll get off way easier than Zimmerman. im finding it very hard to shed a tear for zimmerman after he shot and killed an unarmed kid. whether he is guilty is something entirely different from the fact that he apparently put him himself in an incredibly stupid position and caused a chain of events leading to trayvon's death. maybe the facts at trial will say something different, but as of now, no tears will be shed. This about sums up how I feel about the situation. I don't believe he is legally culpable, however I still think he is a jackass for doing what he did leading up to it.
A guy kills another guy in self defence.
"Man, what a jackass"
Lol.
|
On April 06 2013 08:54 Kaitlin wrote:
... and yet after well over a year, we still can't get the fact that THERE WAS NO ORDER TO STAND DOWN through our thick skulls.
How delightfully pedantic. "Ok, we don't need you to do that." from a police operator ought to mean something, and even more so when the threat of Trayvon is inflated and the shape of Florida's Stand Your Ground law is taken into account. And yes, my skull is quite thick, all the better to resist the pathetic spittle of a man named Kaitlin.
|
On April 06 2013 08:22 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2013 08:07 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Trayvon wasn't a kid...
Dude was as big as most men, if not bigger.
And I think it's stupid to just assume Zimmerman is lying because he had a gun. (Basically the argument you put forward). Wait, are you really putting forth the idea that Trayvon's physical size mitigates his status as an immature minor? Based on what has been released in terms of Trayvon's Facebook amongst other things, I'd say it is very safe to say that he was still a "kid".
I'm saying that
1) Using the word "kid" is an obvious emotional appeal
2) When we're talking about whether someone is going to beat you down or not, their maturity doesn't come into play nearly as much as their size
3) I know 40 year old men/women who are immature as fuck, but they aren't "kids". Throughout all of human history, up until extremely recently, no one would have called a seventeen year old a "kid". At best, he's a young man. Immaturity has got nothing to do with it. This was a person fully capable of maiming/killing a full grown male with his bare hands if he wanted. Sure some 5-foot-nothing thirteen year old might be able to kill a full grown male with his bare hands too, if he gets lucky. But Trayvon was not thirteen, and he was not 5-foot-nothing. He was six feet tall and weighed 160 lbs. And he was seventeen years old. Biologically, he's closer to a forty year old than a prepubescent ten year old.
|
On April 06 2013 08:18 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2013 08:07 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Trayvon wasn't a kid...
Dude was as big as most men, if not bigger.
And I think it's stupid to just assume Zimmerman is lying because he had a gun. (Basically the argument you put forward). we'll have to agree to disagree, i think immature adolescents and young adults (even in college) are still kids. trayvon is a kid in my mind. his size is of little relevance to my consideration. i don't assume zimmerman is lying because he had a gun, nor did i put that argument forward. maybe read a little more carefully. i think he is lying because his story doesn't make any sense.
Okay well semantics aren't relevant here.
Why doesn't his story make sense? You made a big deal about Trayvon being unarmed and Zimmerman seeing himself as an armed hero, I assume that's why you think it doesn't make sense. You haven't really given a solid reason why it doesn't other than Trayvon not having a criminal record, but that doesn't mean he's some kind of angel. It doesn't mean he couldn't become violent if he wanted, and it doesn't mean that he didn't attack Zimmerman.
|
On April 06 2013 09:02 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2013 08:22 farvacola wrote:On April 06 2013 08:07 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Trayvon wasn't a kid...
Dude was as big as most men, if not bigger.
And I think it's stupid to just assume Zimmerman is lying because he had a gun. (Basically the argument you put forward). Wait, are you really putting forth the idea that Trayvon's physical size mitigates his status as an immature minor? Based on what has been released in terms of Trayvon's Facebook amongst other things, I'd say it is very safe to say that he was still a "kid". I'm saying that 1) Using the word "kid" is an obvious emotional appeal 2) When we're talking about whether someone is going to beat you down or not, their maturity doesn't come into play nearly as much as their size 3) I know 40 year old men/women who are immature as fuck, but they aren't "kids". Throughout all of human history, up until extremely recently, no one would have called a seventeen year old a "kid". At best, he's a young man. Immaturity has got nothing to do with it. This was a person fully capable of maiming/killing a full grown male with his bare hands if he wanted. Sure some 5-foot-nothing thirteen year old might be able to kill a full grown male with his bare hands too, if he gets lucky. But Trayvon was not thirteen, and he was not 5-foot-nothing. He was six feet tall and weighed over 160 lbs. And he was seventeen years old. Biologically, he shares closer to a forty year old than he does with a prepubescent ten year old.
I don't disagree with anything you've written above, but I think it ignores how much we ought to consider the initiation of the conflict and how the discrepancy in legal status between the two might be worth looking at. Trayvon may be 17, but he is still legally a minor, and I would think that the law ought to say something insofar as how adults and minors initiate a potentially violent interaction.
|
On April 06 2013 08:58 killa_robot wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2013 13:35 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:On April 05 2013 10:16 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 05 2013 09:37 Millitron wrote:On April 05 2013 09:17 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 05 2013 09:11 Millitron wrote:On April 05 2013 08:57 xDaunt wrote:On April 05 2013 08:37 docvoc wrote:On April 05 2013 08:22 dAPhREAk wrote:Zimmerman filed a petition to have the court of appeal review the trial court's decision not to allow him to depose the family's attorney concerning statements made by the "girlfriend" to him. that issue is only mildly interesting to non-lawyers, but of more interest is that he provides a summary of the case, which gives us a first view of how the defense will go: http://www.gzdocs.com/documents/0413/petition.pdf Wait, so this seems like the family lawyer was working WAY out of her bounds in having witness 8 come to the stand and also said that there were factual issues with what she said. That makes a lot of sense since it seems like the girl was lying since she couldn't even spell Trayvon correctly, spelling it "trevon" several times. Along with the fact that Zimmerman's attorney claims the interview of witness 8 was largely unintelligible, that is enough to throw out ALL of that evidence and severely hurt the Martin family's case. What are the bounds that they can hold Mr. Crump (the family lawyer) to? Is he held in contempt for blantantly and knowingly breaking the law and attempting Perjury? Contempt would not apply because he has not violated any court orders. Perjury may be an issue given that Crump submitted an affidavit. Also, all lawyers are bound by independent codes of ethics -- the breach of which can lead to sanctions by the state bar. Reviewing the Defense's brief, I did wonder whether Crump might be grieved for violating some of those rules. I also have to wonder about the prosecutor. I really, really hope that these charges don't turn out to be ginned up like the Duke Lacrosse case. There undeniably is a stink about the whole affair, particularly in light of Crump's alleged PR efforts. The worst part of it is the media circus that immediately followed the incident. Now even if Zimmerman is found completely innocent, even without a mistrial, his life has probably been ruined. Everyone will remember the months long insanity, but no one will remember the 30 second announcement on MSNBC about his innocence. And the walking clumps of slime calling themselves journalists who passed off edited police recordings and grainy photos as undeniable proof Zimmerman was racist will get off scott-free. They should be punished as severely as Zimmerman could have been, its unforgivable. the worst offenders have been fired and sued by Zimmerman in civil court (i.e., the ones who used edited police recordings). But the public generally doesn't know that. Everyone who Zimmerman meets in the future will know he shot Martin, and because of the media circus they may still think he's guilty of murder. But no one knows who those journalists are. Besides some financial problems caused by the law suits and firings, they'll get off way easier than Zimmerman. im finding it very hard to shed a tear for zimmerman after he shot and killed an unarmed kid. whether he is guilty is something entirely different from the fact that he apparently put him himself in an incredibly stupid position and caused a chain of events leading to trayvon's death. maybe the facts at trial will say something different, but as of now, no tears will be shed. This about sums up how I feel about the situation. I don't believe he is legally culpable, however I still think he is a jackass for doing what he did leading up to it. A guy kills another guy in self defence. "Man, what a jackass" Lol.
It's not self defense if you provoke the fight. I find it hard to believe people are still argueing this. I thought it was pretty much clear that Zimmerman disobeyed the police he called, followed Trayvon, a fight insued and then he killed an innocent kid. If I was Trayvon I probably would've attacked/ran for my life if some stranger was following me in the middle of the night, especially if he had a gun (though Trayvon didn't know that).
|
On April 06 2013 09:10 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2013 08:18 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 06 2013 08:07 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Trayvon wasn't a kid...
Dude was as big as most men, if not bigger.
And I think it's stupid to just assume Zimmerman is lying because he had a gun. (Basically the argument you put forward). we'll have to agree to disagree, i think immature adolescents and young adults (even in college) are still kids. trayvon is a kid in my mind. his size is of little relevance to my consideration. i don't assume zimmerman is lying because he had a gun, nor did i put that argument forward. maybe read a little more carefully. i think he is lying because his story doesn't make any sense. Okay well semantics aren't relevant here. Why doesn't his story make sense? You made a big deal about Trayvon being unarmed and Zimmerman seeing himself as an armed hero, I assume that's why you think it doesn't make sense. You haven't really given a solid reason why it doesn't other than Trayvon not having a criminal record, but that doesn't mean he's some kind of angel. It doesn't mean he couldn't become violent if he wanted, and it doesn't mean that he didn't attack Zimmerman.
trayvon going to the store to get snacks and then turning into a crazed murderer trying to kill zimmerman doesnt make sense to me. the whole "i was returning to my car and he jumped me" sounds like complete bullshit. the whole "you're going to die tonight" sounds like complete bullshit to me. i don't doubt that trayvon was beating the shit out of zimmerman, but i question what the catalyst was.
edit: and, yes, using kid was an emotional appeal. we were discussing whether we should feel sorry for zimmerman, which is an emotional issue.
|
On April 06 2013 09:11 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2013 09:02 sc2superfan101 wrote:On April 06 2013 08:22 farvacola wrote:On April 06 2013 08:07 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Trayvon wasn't a kid...
Dude was as big as most men, if not bigger.
And I think it's stupid to just assume Zimmerman is lying because he had a gun. (Basically the argument you put forward). Wait, are you really putting forth the idea that Trayvon's physical size mitigates his status as an immature minor? Based on what has been released in terms of Trayvon's Facebook amongst other things, I'd say it is very safe to say that he was still a "kid". I'm saying that 1) Using the word "kid" is an obvious emotional appeal 2) When we're talking about whether someone is going to beat you down or not, their maturity doesn't come into play nearly as much as their size 3) I know 40 year old men/women who are immature as fuck, but they aren't "kids". Throughout all of human history, up until extremely recently, no one would have called a seventeen year old a "kid". At best, he's a young man. Immaturity has got nothing to do with it. This was a person fully capable of maiming/killing a full grown male with his bare hands if he wanted. Sure some 5-foot-nothing thirteen year old might be able to kill a full grown male with his bare hands too, if he gets lucky. But Trayvon was not thirteen, and he was not 5-foot-nothing. He was six feet tall and weighed over 160 lbs. And he was seventeen years old. Biologically, he shares closer to a forty year old than he does with a prepubescent ten year old. I don't disagree with anything you've written above, but I think it ignores how much we ought to consider the initiation of the conflict and how the discrepancy in legal status between the two might be worth looking at. Trayvon may be 17, but he is still legally a minor, and I would think that the law ought to say something insofar as how adults and minors initiate a potentially violent interaction.
We don't know who initiated the conflict and will never know. And tbh with everyone talking about the legality of Trayvon's actions prior to the shooting (and they certainly were legal), they ignore the shit out of the fact that what Zimmerman was doing was also perfectly legal.
I don't what the law could say about it. There are plenty of adults who won't attack you, and plenty of minors who will. There are plenty of adults who have been attacked by minors. Trayvon was still technically a minor sure, and would have been for another year; but the legal line is pretty arbitrary. We shouldn't put too much stock into it.
|
Hmm been a while since I've thought about this story. I wonder... From the legal standpoint in Florida, what type of physical attack merits lethal response? I know that Police, for example, are instructed to use lethal force only when there is a lethal threat. A slap to the face, for example, would not merit a lethal response. But being tackled to the ground and beaten in the head with no end in sight probably could in some cases.
So how is it determined that the lethal response is justified when there is no eye witness? I imagine they piece things together by looking at injuries and interviewing the gunman. So if the gunman claims that the assault was severe enough that it was potentially lethal, and his injuries are consistent with his story, is that all that is needed?
|
On April 06 2013 09:20 FallDownMarigold wrote:
Hmm been a while since I've thought about this story. I wonder... From the legal standpoint in Florida, what type of physical attack merits lethal response? I know that Police, for example, are instructed to use lethal force only when there is a lethal threat. A slap to the face, for example, would not merit a lethal response. But being tackled to the ground and beaten in the head with no end in sight probably could in some cases.
So how is it determined that the lethal response is justified when there is no eye witness? I imagine they piece things together by looking at injuries and interviewing the gunman. So if the gunman claims that the assault was severe enough that it was potentially lethal, and his injuries are consistent with his story, is that all that is needed?
Beating someone to death on the ground is lethal force yes. But then the question becomes who instigated the fight. I doubt Trayvon would just randomly attack him for no reason and I doubt the same for Zimmerman. Zimmerman should've just not have followed him and listened to the police who told him not to. Now we have to deal with a dead 17yr old because of his actions.
|
On April 06 2013 09:20 FallDownMarigold wrote:
Hmm been a while since I've thought about this story. I wonder... From the legal standpoint in Florida, what type of physical attack merits lethal response? I know that Police, for example, are instructed to use lethal force only when there is a lethal threat. A slap to the face, for example, would not merit a lethal response. But being tackled to the ground and beaten in the head with no end in sight probably could in some cases.
So how is it determined that the lethal response is justified when there is no eye witness? I imagine they piece things together by looking at injuries and interviewing the gunman. So if the gunman claims that the assault was severe enough that it was potentially lethal, and his injuries are consistent with his story, is that all that is needed?
+ Show Spoiler +A person is justified in using deadly force if [he] [she] reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent
1. imminent death or great bodily harm to [himself] [herself] or another, or
2. the imminent commission of (applicable forcible felony) against [himself] [herself] or another.
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
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 63 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.
In deciding whether defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge [him] [her] by the circumstances by which [he] [she] was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing the defendant need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, the defendant must have actually believed that the danger was real.
If the defendant [was not engaged in an unlawful activity and] was attacked in any place where [he] [she] had a right to be, [he] [she] had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand [his] [her] ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if [he] [she] reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to [himself] [herself] [another] or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
In considering the issue of self-defense, you may take into account the relative physical abilities and capacities of the defendant and (victim).
If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether the defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find the defendant not guilty.
However, if from the evidence you are convinced that the defendant was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved.
|
On April 06 2013 09:16 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2013 09:10 sc2superfan101 wrote:On April 06 2013 08:18 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 06 2013 08:07 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Trayvon wasn't a kid...
Dude was as big as most men, if not bigger.
And I think it's stupid to just assume Zimmerman is lying because he had a gun. (Basically the argument you put forward). we'll have to agree to disagree, i think immature adolescents and young adults (even in college) are still kids. trayvon is a kid in my mind. his size is of little relevance to my consideration. i don't assume zimmerman is lying because he had a gun, nor did i put that argument forward. maybe read a little more carefully. i think he is lying because his story doesn't make any sense. Okay well semantics aren't relevant here. Why doesn't his story make sense? You made a big deal about Trayvon being unarmed and Zimmerman seeing himself as an armed hero, I assume that's why you think it doesn't make sense. You haven't really given a solid reason why it doesn't other than Trayvon not having a criminal record, but that doesn't mean he's some kind of angel. It doesn't mean he couldn't become violent if he wanted, and it doesn't mean that he didn't attack Zimmerman. trayvon going to the store to get snacks and then turning into a crazed murderer trying to kill zimmerman doesnt make sense to me. the whole "i was returning to my car and he jumped me" sounds like complete bullshit. the whole "you're going to die tonight" sounds like complete bullshit to me. i don't doubt that trayvon was beating the shit out of zimmerman, but i question what the catalyst was. edit: and, yes, using kid was an emotional appeal. we were discussing whether we should feel sorry for zimmerman, which is an emotional issue.
You don't have to be a crazed murderer to do something stupid like attack someone who is following you. And I've been in a fight before, and I've said: "I'll fucking tear your head off" or something along those lines, without actually wanting or intending to tear the persons head off of their body.
I guess I just see no reason to distrust the version given by Zimmerman. I don't do "gut feelings" with these kind of issues so for me, unless there is evidence to the contrary, I accept what I hear.
|
Thanks for the thorough reply, hah, that was quick. You must be one of them there lawyers! So with that in mind, what's your professional opinion on this altercation? Not enough info, so innocent?
|
On April 06 2013 09:32 FallDownMarigold wrote:
Thanks for the thorough reply, hah, that was quick. You must be one of them there lawyers! So with that in mind, what's your professional opinion on this altercation? Not enough info, so innocent?
i just copy pasted the jury instructions from OP.
here is my short summary:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=324498¤tpage=86#1718
please disregard my usage of "kid," it upsets people apparently.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
