|
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 10:51 Kaitlin wrote:
I'm expecting an acquittal, demonstrations / marches orchestrated by Al Sharpton, and civil unrest / riots, not necessarily in that order. It's a pretty fucked up sign when the Black community flips out at the notion of a single racially justified murder [which is far from clear cut] when how many blacks are killed daily by other blacks? The outrage ought to be directed at the individuals and policies that exacerbate the suffering and death of blacks in general, not at the possibility of a lone racist.
|
On April 06 2013 11:23 Dazed_Spy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2013 10:51 Kaitlin wrote:
I'm expecting an acquittal, demonstrations / marches orchestrated by Al Sharpton, and civil unrest / riots, not necessarily in that order. It's a pretty fucked up sign when the Black community flips out at the notion of a single racially justified murder [which is far from clear cut] when how many blacks are killed daily by other blacks? The outrage ought to be directed at the individuals and policies that exacerbate the suffering and death of blacks in general, not at the possibility of a lone racist.
most of the furor is over the fact that the police force is apparently racist. although the original media coverage saying zimmerman was racially motivated did not help.
|
On April 06 2013 11:13 Romantic wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2013 11:04 Zooper31 wrote:On April 06 2013 10:48 Romantic wrote:On April 06 2013 09:26 Zooper31 wrote: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. So what conclusive proof is there that Zimmerman followed Trayvon beyond the point either he says he stopped or it was suggested he stop? I'm not sure what your question is due to bad sentence structure. Are you asking for proof the police told him to not to pursue the suspect? Because theres police recordings of that when he called 911. It is perfectly understandable, maybe you have bad reading comprehension
Or maybe you don't know how to construct sentences.
So what conclusive proof is there that Zimmerman followed Trayvon beyond the point Missing Words/Punctuation either he says he stopped or it was suggested he stop?
Read your sentence again with my editted help and you can understand. As it is now it doesn't make sense. What point are you talking about? Why does one have to struggle when reading that out loud, it doesn't even sound right.
|
I just read that letter from the non-girlfriend girlfriend linked in the OP, and here:
http://media.trb.com/media/acrobat/2013-03/174905720-29122808.pdf
It was not lost on me when I read at the end:
In my mind, I thought it was just a fight.
Her assumption that it was "just a fight", for me, leads me to ponder whether fighting was a part of what she thought was a normal part of Trayvon. That combined with Zimmerman's testimony that Trayvon punched him and started attacking him, I think, helps Zimmerman's defense and colors Trayvon as not a stranger to violence. The fact that this letter is part of evidence, I'm no lawyer, but would this not open the door to exploring Trayvon's background as it relates to violence ?
|
On April 06 2013 11:24 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2013 11:23 Dazed_Spy wrote:On April 06 2013 10:51 Kaitlin wrote:
I'm expecting an acquittal, demonstrations / marches orchestrated by Al Sharpton, and civil unrest / riots, not necessarily in that order. It's a pretty fucked up sign when the Black community flips out at the notion of a single racially justified murder [which is far from clear cut] when how many blacks are killed daily by other blacks? The outrage ought to be directed at the individuals and policies that exacerbate the suffering and death of blacks in general, not at the possibility of a lone racist. most of the furor is over the fact that the police force is apparently racist. although the original media coverage saying zimmerman was racially motivated did not help.
A lot of urban police departments are having problems with people entering into lawsuits with the departments for racial profiling and shit. I don't know if it's as bad as it was some years back, but some police departments actually resorted to policing styles where they ONLY responded to calls and weren't proactively policing in areas where these black on black crimes were occurring. The whole idea was that if there was no officer contact, there would be no complaints... outside of when they responded to 911 calls.
Once shootings went up like 600% in one town, where all the shootings where black on black but maybe one, the department was pressured to chang their stance because of community outroar. If an acquittal happens and is followed by rioting and such, I won't at all be surprised.
|
On April 06 2013 11:29 Zooper31 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2013 11:13 Romantic wrote:On April 06 2013 11:04 Zooper31 wrote:On April 06 2013 10:48 Romantic wrote:On April 06 2013 09:26 Zooper31 wrote: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. So what conclusive proof is there that Zimmerman followed Trayvon beyond the point either he says he stopped or it was suggested he stop? I'm not sure what your question is due to bad sentence structure. Are you asking for proof the police told him to not to pursue the suspect? Because theres police recordings of that when he called 911. It is perfectly understandable, maybe you have bad reading comprehension Or maybe you don't know how to construct sentences. Show nested quote +So what conclusive proof is there that Zimmerman followed Trayvon beyond the point Missing Words/Punctuation either he says he stopped or it was suggested he stop? Read your sentence again with my editted help and you can understand. As it is now it doesn't make sense. What point are you talking about? Why does one have to struggle when reading that out loud, it doesn't even sound right.
I understood what he was asking just fine. I also was able to conclude from your statement that you think Zimmerman was ordered to not follow Trayvon. Maybe you should back off on the reading comprehension insults.
|
On April 06 2013 11:24 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2013 11:23 Dazed_Spy wrote:On April 06 2013 10:51 Kaitlin wrote:
I'm expecting an acquittal, demonstrations / marches orchestrated by Al Sharpton, and civil unrest / riots, not necessarily in that order. It's a pretty fucked up sign when the Black community flips out at the notion of a single racially justified murder [which is far from clear cut] when how many blacks are killed daily by other blacks? The outrage ought to be directed at the individuals and policies that exacerbate the suffering and death of blacks in general, not at the possibility of a lone racist. most of the furor is over the fact that the police force is apparently racist. although the original media coverage saying zimmerman was racially motivated did not help. How do the police factor into a civilian on civilian case, though? Have there been accusations of anything getting covered up? I dont remember there being accusations when I last followed this.
|
On April 06 2013 11:38 Dazed_Spy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2013 11:24 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 06 2013 11:23 Dazed_Spy wrote:On April 06 2013 10:51 Kaitlin wrote:
I'm expecting an acquittal, demonstrations / marches orchestrated by Al Sharpton, and civil unrest / riots, not necessarily in that order. It's a pretty fucked up sign when the Black community flips out at the notion of a single racially justified murder [which is far from clear cut] when how many blacks are killed daily by other blacks? The outrage ought to be directed at the individuals and policies that exacerbate the suffering and death of blacks in general, not at the possibility of a lone racist. most of the furor is over the fact that the police force is apparently racist. although the original media coverage saying zimmerman was racially motivated did not help. How do the police factor into a civilian on civilian case, though? Have there been accusations of anything getting covered up? I dont remember there being accusations when I last followed this.
they didnt arrest him, and people claimed it was because a black boy died. it was only after the furor (and almost a month passed) that he was arrested and charges brought against him.
|
On April 06 2013 11:36 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2013 11:29 Zooper31 wrote:On April 06 2013 11:13 Romantic wrote:On April 06 2013 11:04 Zooper31 wrote:On April 06 2013 10:48 Romantic wrote:On April 06 2013 09:26 Zooper31 wrote: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. So what conclusive proof is there that Zimmerman followed Trayvon beyond the point either he says he stopped or it was suggested he stop? I'm not sure what your question is due to bad sentence structure. Are you asking for proof the police told him to not to pursue the suspect? Because theres police recordings of that when he called 911. It is perfectly understandable, maybe you have bad reading comprehension Or maybe you don't know how to construct sentences. So what conclusive proof is there that Zimmerman followed Trayvon beyond the point Missing Words/Punctuation either he says he stopped or it was suggested he stop? Read your sentence again with my editted help and you can understand. As it is now it doesn't make sense. What point are you talking about? Why does one have to struggle when reading that out loud, it doesn't even sound right. I understood what he was asking just fine. I also was able to conclude from your statement that you think Zimmerman was ordered to not follow Trayvon. Maybe you should back off on the reading comprehension insults.
99% sure I've listened to the police recordings and they agree with me. Unless I somehow developed some pretty bad memory loss I'm pretty sure I'm correct. Link me the evidence then and I can see for myself. Everyone is so quick to tell me I'm wrong but no one is proving me otherwise.
|
On April 06 2013 11:38 Dazed_Spy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2013 11:24 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 06 2013 11:23 Dazed_Spy wrote:On April 06 2013 10:51 Kaitlin wrote:
I'm expecting an acquittal, demonstrations / marches orchestrated by Al Sharpton, and civil unrest / riots, not necessarily in that order. It's a pretty fucked up sign when the Black community flips out at the notion of a single racially justified murder [which is far from clear cut] when how many blacks are killed daily by other blacks? The outrage ought to be directed at the individuals and policies that exacerbate the suffering and death of blacks in general, not at the possibility of a lone racist. most of the furor is over the fact that the police force is apparently racist. although the original media coverage saying zimmerman was racially motivated did not help. How do the police factor into a civilian on civilian case, though? Have there been accusations of anything getting covered up? I dont remember there being accusations when I last followed this.
The police didn't initially arrest Zimmerman. Only after public outcry from media sensationalizing was Zimmerman charged. I'm pretty sure the police chief also resigned as a result of this case.
|
On April 06 2013 11:40 Zooper31 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2013 11:36 Kaitlin wrote:On April 06 2013 11:29 Zooper31 wrote:On April 06 2013 11:13 Romantic wrote:On April 06 2013 11:04 Zooper31 wrote:On April 06 2013 10:48 Romantic wrote:On April 06 2013 09:26 Zooper31 wrote: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. So what conclusive proof is there that Zimmerman followed Trayvon beyond the point either he says he stopped or it was suggested he stop? I'm not sure what your question is due to bad sentence structure. Are you asking for proof the police told him to not to pursue the suspect? Because theres police recordings of that when he called 911. It is perfectly understandable, maybe you have bad reading comprehension Or maybe you don't know how to construct sentences. So what conclusive proof is there that Zimmerman followed Trayvon beyond the point Missing Words/Punctuation either he says he stopped or it was suggested he stop? Read your sentence again with my editted help and you can understand. As it is now it doesn't make sense. What point are you talking about? Why does one have to struggle when reading that out loud, it doesn't even sound right. I understood what he was asking just fine. I also was able to conclude from your statement that you think Zimmerman was ordered to not follow Trayvon. Maybe you should back off on the reading comprehension insults. 99% sure I've listened to the police recordings and they agree with me. Unless I somehow developed some pretty bad memory loss I'm pretty sure I'm correct. Link me the evidence then and I can see for myself. Everyone is so quick to tell me I'm wrong but no one is proving me otherwise.
The relevant part of the recording is when the operator asked if Zimmerman was following Trayvon at the time. Zimmerman responded that he was. Then the operator responded "Ok, we don't need you to do that."
From that, many people have concluded that Zimmerman was ordered to stop following Trayvon, which is simply not the case.
edit:
Actually, continuing on... Zimmerman has said that at that point he returned to his vehicle and did, in fact, cede the pursuit. So, while my point of contention rests with whether what the operator said was an order or not, according to Zimmerman, he stopped following him at that point anyways, rendering it a moot point. Anyways, people still claim that not only did Zimmerman continue to follow Trayvon at that point (debateable), but he did it in disobedience of the order to not pursue (not debateable, as it wasn't an order).
|
On April 06 2013 11:42 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2013 11:40 Zooper31 wrote:On April 06 2013 11:36 Kaitlin wrote:On April 06 2013 11:29 Zooper31 wrote:On April 06 2013 11:13 Romantic wrote:On April 06 2013 11:04 Zooper31 wrote:On April 06 2013 10:48 Romantic wrote:On April 06 2013 09:26 Zooper31 wrote: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. So what conclusive proof is there that Zimmerman followed Trayvon beyond the point either he says he stopped or it was suggested he stop? I'm not sure what your question is due to bad sentence structure. Are you asking for proof the police told him to not to pursue the suspect? Because theres police recordings of that when he called 911. It is perfectly understandable, maybe you have bad reading comprehension Or maybe you don't know how to construct sentences. So what conclusive proof is there that Zimmerman followed Trayvon beyond the point Missing Words/Punctuation either he says he stopped or it was suggested he stop? Read your sentence again with my editted help and you can understand. As it is now it doesn't make sense. What point are you talking about? Why does one have to struggle when reading that out loud, it doesn't even sound right. I understood what he was asking just fine. I also was able to conclude from your statement that you think Zimmerman was ordered to not follow Trayvon. Maybe you should back off on the reading comprehension insults. 99% sure I've listened to the police recordings and they agree with me. Unless I somehow developed some pretty bad memory loss I'm pretty sure I'm correct. Link me the evidence then and I can see for myself. Everyone is so quick to tell me I'm wrong but no one is proving me otherwise. The relevant part of the recording is when the operator asked if Zimmerman was following Trayvon at the time. Zimmerman responded that he was. Then the operator responded "Ok, we don't need you to do that." From that, many people have concluded that Zimmerman was ordered to stop following Trayvon, which is simply not the case.
I could see your argument ok. I don't think it was so much of an order for him to stop following as it was advice from the operator for him not to do so and let the police handle it since he was just neighborhood watch, he didn't need risk having the situation get worse and something happening. Which sadly is exactly what happened.
edit; He might've said during an interview that he stopped following and he got attacked outside his vehicle but wasn't his vehicle on the road and the actual fight/struggle take place on the other side of the apt. complex if I remember correctly. On the recording, he just says ok. That doesn't mean he's gonna stop following, just that he awknowledged that he heard the operator. Just as vague as the arguement as to what the operator meant when she was talking to him on the phone.
|
On April 06 2013 11:46 Zooper31 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2013 11:42 Kaitlin wrote:On April 06 2013 11:40 Zooper31 wrote:On April 06 2013 11:36 Kaitlin wrote:On April 06 2013 11:29 Zooper31 wrote:On April 06 2013 11:13 Romantic wrote:On April 06 2013 11:04 Zooper31 wrote:On April 06 2013 10:48 Romantic wrote:On April 06 2013 09:26 Zooper31 wrote: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. So what conclusive proof is there that Zimmerman followed Trayvon beyond the point either he says he stopped or it was suggested he stop? I'm not sure what your question is due to bad sentence structure. Are you asking for proof the police told him to not to pursue the suspect? Because theres police recordings of that when he called 911. It is perfectly understandable, maybe you have bad reading comprehension Or maybe you don't know how to construct sentences. So what conclusive proof is there that Zimmerman followed Trayvon beyond the point Missing Words/Punctuation either he says he stopped or it was suggested he stop? Read your sentence again with my editted help and you can understand. As it is now it doesn't make sense. What point are you talking about? Why does one have to struggle when reading that out loud, it doesn't even sound right. I understood what he was asking just fine. I also was able to conclude from your statement that you think Zimmerman was ordered to not follow Trayvon. Maybe you should back off on the reading comprehension insults. 99% sure I've listened to the police recordings and they agree with me. Unless I somehow developed some pretty bad memory loss I'm pretty sure I'm correct. Link me the evidence then and I can see for myself. Everyone is so quick to tell me I'm wrong but no one is proving me otherwise. The relevant part of the recording is when the operator asked if Zimmerman was following Trayvon at the time. Zimmerman responded that he was. Then the operator responded "Ok, we don't need you to do that." From that, many people have concluded that Zimmerman was ordered to stop following Trayvon, which is simply not the case. I could see your argument ok. I don't think it was so much of an order for him to stop following as it was advice from the operator for him not to do so and let the police handle it since he was just neighborhood watch, he didn't need risk having the situation get worse and something happening. Which sadly is exactly what happened. edit; He might've said during an interview that he stopped following and he got attacked outside his vehicle but wasn't his vehicle on the road and the actual fight/struggle take place on the other side of the apt. complex if I remember correctly. On the recording, he just says ok. That doesn't mean he's gonna stop following, just that he awknowledged that he heard the operator. Just as vague as the arguement as to what the operator meant when she was talking to him on the phone.
Yeah, my recollection about him no longer following Trayvon was from a subsequent interview, not from the 911 call, and it's hard to discern from the recording what he did, other than he seemed to be breathing somewhat heavily. Some in the media have claimed that indicated he was chasing Trayvon, but those are the very same people in the media who have been inciting this as a racial profiling, armed-white cop wannabe shoots innocent, unarmed, hope of the Negro race, kid, Trayvon. I thought he said he was returning to his truck after the operator said that, and at some point came into contact with Trayvon, not sure how close to his truck he was.
|
On April 06 2013 11:24 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2013 11:23 Dazed_Spy wrote:On April 06 2013 10:51 Kaitlin wrote:
I'm expecting an acquittal, demonstrations / marches orchestrated by Al Sharpton, and civil unrest / riots, not necessarily in that order. It's a pretty fucked up sign when the Black community flips out at the notion of a single racially justified murder [which is far from clear cut] when how many blacks are killed daily by other blacks? The outrage ought to be directed at the individuals and policies that exacerbate the suffering and death of blacks in general, not at the possibility of a lone racist. most of the furor is over the fact that the police force is apparently racist. although the original media coverage saying zimmerman was racially motivated did not help.
I can honestly tell you that this is an ongoing thing. This kind of thing happens about once every 5 years with an egregiously outrageous case happening once every 10 or 20. America blows shit like this up all the time and makes it bigger than it is. Epsecially among black populations, which is kind of ironic since most african american deaths are attributed to african american violence, a white person being the muderer tends to lead to witch hunts if the story gets on the nightly news. I remember people sending around pictures of 10 year old Trayvon smiling around my fb page \, and people telling others to pray for Trayvon, and about how Zimmerman is a racist among other things, and now these same people openly reject evidence brought to light simply due to cognitive dissonance. It's a weird cycle that really makes no sense whatsoever.
|
On April 06 2013 02:50 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2013 23:05 AmericanNightmare wrote:On April 05 2013 10:16 dAPhREAk wrote:
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. What is the age cut-off at which one shouldn't shoot a person punching their face and beating their head into the cement? Let's even assume he's saying stuff like, "You're gonna die tonight" "I'm going to kill you." I ask for clarification. The stupid position.. Are you talking about the night it happened or just that fact he's on trial? Also.. what are you meaning by kid? Are we talking like a "child" or the "a person younger than me"? As for tears, I'll save those for those animal abuse commercials. I mean honestly, some people are monsters. you appear to be new to this thread and do not appear to have read the hundreds of posts i have made here. nevertheless, i will humor you. i said that whether he is guilty of murder or acted in self defense is a separate matter than whether he acted reasonably. i do not feel he reacted reasonably and i call bullshit on his after the fact rationalization of what happened that night. trayvon is a kid (personally i think everyone below 22 is immature and a kid, but it is a case by case basis) that was unarmed (even zimmerman isnt arguing he thought trayvon was armed) who was going to the store to get skittles and iced tea. he was allowed to be where he was, and he had broken no laws. so, how did trayvon being an innocent citizen lawfully present on the premises turn into trayvon being dead? zimmerman. zimmerman considers himself this neighborhood hero protecting the neighborhood from criminals. was he successful in the past? yes. was he doing a good job? apparently, although some people in the neighborhood disagreed. should neighborhood watchmen walk around with guns? not in my book; nobody should, but thats my personal opinion. should neighborhood watchmen do anything beyond contacting the police? not in my book. if they are going to confront people in their neighborhood, should they announce themselves beforehand to prevent misunderstandings? yes, but everything in this case so far makes me think that zimmerman didn't. now, zimmerman's allegations that trayvon caused the confrontation and said he was going to kill him, etc. etc. i don't believe zimmerman. i think he is lying. period. zimmerman and his attorneys have done their best to drag trayvon's reputation through the mud, and trayvon isnt an angel. is he a murderer? no. does he even have a criminal record? not that i have seen. so, how does this kid go from buying skittles to telling a dude that he is going to murder him? zimmerman is lying. he killed someone and he doesnt want to go to prison for it. did he intend to kill someone? hell no. did he cause the circumstances that led to the killing? most likely, yes. so, why dont i think zimmerman should be rotting in jail? i dont think there is enough evidence to prove that he didnt act in self defense. all we know is that there was a confrontation, trayvon appeared to be getting the upper hand and zimmerman shot him. who started the confrontation, why it escalated, etc. we don't really know. i also dont think murder is an appropriate charge in this situation. manslaughter is a maybe, second degree murder is reaching. the fact that you are accusing me of railroading zimmerman because he is on trial is absurd beyond belief. you should really read more than just the last post in a thread so you have an ounce of context before you completely humiliate yourself.
Wow dude.. take stuff more personally why don't ya. I've read several post in this thread and I know facts. So chill out. Stop trying to be a victim and get a couple ounces of civility because I'm not the one being a lying asshole.
Let me ask the question much simpler for you.. What age would your attacker have to be for you to not fight back? I'm talking this person/kid has the jump on you and is going to kill you? Would you just not fight back at all and die or only if the person if immature? Would you teach your kids to always just punch anyone in the nose who was following them or looking at them?
Martin was within his right to be walking down the street. I'd have to say he didn't do anything wrong until he fought with Zim. Zim was legally allowed to carry a gun. He is legally allowed to follow anyone he wants around his neighborhood. He is legally allowed to watch anyone in public. Hell, He's legally allowed to talk to a stranger walking around. Being told "We don't need you to do that" is not a command nor does it have to be obeyed. The dispatcher says "Just let me know if this guy does anything else." Right there they are saying to watch him.
Is there any evidence to show that Zim attacked Martin? Any physical damage besides the gunshot? Because there is enough damage to Zim to make me believe him. Here's some advice, Don't get butthurt about people questioning you for taking a position that can't be proved when people want proof. In my book he did just about everything he was suppose to but I'd prefer that no one die. He was watching out for his community which had been victim enough times for the people to be scared.
User was warned for this post
|
On April 07 2013 01:41 AmericanNightmare wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2013 02:50 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 05 2013 23:05 AmericanNightmare wrote:On April 05 2013 10:16 dAPhREAk wrote:
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. What is the age cut-off at which one shouldn't shoot a person punching their face and beating their head into the cement? Let's even assume he's saying stuff like, "You're gonna die tonight" "I'm going to kill you." I ask for clarification. The stupid position.. Are you talking about the night it happened or just that fact he's on trial? Also.. what are you meaning by kid? Are we talking like a "child" or the "a person younger than me"? As for tears, I'll save those for those animal abuse commercials. I mean honestly, some people are monsters. you appear to be new to this thread and do not appear to have read the hundreds of posts i have made here. nevertheless, i will humor you. i said that whether he is guilty of murder or acted in self defense is a separate matter than whether he acted reasonably. i do not feel he reacted reasonably and i call bullshit on his after the fact rationalization of what happened that night. trayvon is a kid (personally i think everyone below 22 is immature and a kid, but it is a case by case basis) that was unarmed (even zimmerman isnt arguing he thought trayvon was armed) who was going to the store to get skittles and iced tea. he was allowed to be where he was, and he had broken no laws. so, how did trayvon being an innocent citizen lawfully present on the premises turn into trayvon being dead? zimmerman. zimmerman considers himself this neighborhood hero protecting the neighborhood from criminals. was he successful in the past? yes. was he doing a good job? apparently, although some people in the neighborhood disagreed. should neighborhood watchmen walk around with guns? not in my book; nobody should, but thats my personal opinion. should neighborhood watchmen do anything beyond contacting the police? not in my book. if they are going to confront people in their neighborhood, should they announce themselves beforehand to prevent misunderstandings? yes, but everything in this case so far makes me think that zimmerman didn't. now, zimmerman's allegations that trayvon caused the confrontation and said he was going to kill him, etc. etc. i don't believe zimmerman. i think he is lying. period. zimmerman and his attorneys have done their best to drag trayvon's reputation through the mud, and trayvon isnt an angel. is he a murderer? no. does he even have a criminal record? not that i have seen. so, how does this kid go from buying skittles to telling a dude that he is going to murder him? zimmerman is lying. he killed someone and he doesnt want to go to prison for it. did he intend to kill someone? hell no. did he cause the circumstances that led to the killing? most likely, yes. so, why dont i think zimmerman should be rotting in jail? i dont think there is enough evidence to prove that he didnt act in self defense. all we know is that there was a confrontation, trayvon appeared to be getting the upper hand and zimmerman shot him. who started the confrontation, why it escalated, etc. we don't really know. i also dont think murder is an appropriate charge in this situation. manslaughter is a maybe, second degree murder is reaching. the fact that you are accusing me of railroading zimmerman because he is on trial is absurd beyond belief. you should really read more than just the last post in a thread so you have an ounce of context before you completely humiliate yourself. Wow dude.. take stuff more personally why don't ya. I've read several post in this thread and I know facts. So chill out. Stop trying to be a victim and get a couple ounces of civility because I'm not the one being a lying asshole. Let me ask the question much simpler for you.. What age would your attacker have to be for you to not fight back? I'm talking this person/kid has the jump on you and is going to kill you? Would you just not fight back at all and die or only if the person if immature? Would you teach your kids to always just punch anyone in the nose who was following them or looking at them? Martin was within his right to be walking down the street. I'd have to say he didn't do anything wrong until he fought with Zim. Zim was legally allowed to carry a gun. He is legally allowed to follow anyone he wants around his neighborhood. He is legally allowed to watch anyone in public. Hell, He's legally allowed to talk to a stranger walking around. Being told "We don't need you to do that" is not a command nor does it have to be obeyed. The dispatcher says "Just let me know if this guy does anything else." Right there they are saying to watch him. Is there any evidence to show that Zim attacked Martin? Any physical damage besides the gunshot? Because there is enough damage to Zim to make me believe him. Here's some advice, Don't get butthurt about people questioning you for taking a position that can't be proved when people want proof. In my book he did just about everything he was suppose to but I'd prefer that no one die. He was watching out for his community which had been victim enough times for the people to be scared.
are you really referring to me as a lying asshole? i just want to make that clear.
|
On April 06 2013 09:13 Zooper31 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2013 08:58 killa_robot wrote: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).
Following someone is not provoking a fight.
|
|
|
On April 07 2013 05:10 killa_robot wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2013 09:13 Zooper31 wrote:On April 06 2013 08:58 killa_robot wrote: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:
[quote]
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). Following someone is not provoking a fight.
What he did was probably known as "stalking," not "following." I mean, if you're tracking someone with deadly force, that's stalking. If you end up killing them, that's stalking. If you harass them, that's stalking.
|
On April 07 2013 07:49 MountainDewJunkie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2013 05:10 killa_robot wrote:On April 06 2013 09:13 Zooper31 wrote:On April 06 2013 08:58 killa_robot wrote: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:
[quote]
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). Following someone is not provoking a fight. What he did was probably known as "stalking," not "following." I mean, if you're tracking someone with deadly force, that's stalking. If you end up killing them, that's stalking. If you harass them, that's stalking.
No....stalking has to do with harassment or intimidation, and it's done repeatedly over time. I'd love to know how me following you for less than an hour, in your eyes, would constitute me "stalking" you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
