|
This is a sensitive and complex issue, please do not make comments without first reading the facts, which are cataloged in the OP.
If you make an uninformed post, or one that isn't relevant to the discussion, you will be moderated. If in doubt, don't post. |
On May 30 2013 09:06 theaxis12 wrote:From the Wiki on Justifiable homicide http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justifiable_homicide "A homicide may be considered justified if it is done to prevent a very serious crime, such as rape, armed robbery, manslaughter or murder. The assailant's intent to commit a serious crime must be clear at the time." "The circumstances under which homicide is justified are usually considered to be that the defendant had no alternative method of self-defense or defense of another than to kill the attacker." I don't really see those conditions being met by Zimmerman considering he was large enough to fight back (or even retreat with the threat of the gun) vs. an unarmed man roughly his size who was not displaying any obvious intentions to commit a serious crime simply by walking at night.
Zimmerman was pinned on the ground on his back while beaing beaten in the head by Trayvon at the time of the shooting.
|
On May 30 2013 10:05 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2013 09:06 theaxis12 wrote:From the Wiki on Justifiable homicide http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justifiable_homicide "A homicide may be considered justified if it is done to prevent a very serious crime, such as rape, armed robbery, manslaughter or murder. The assailant's intent to commit a serious crime must be clear at the time." "The circumstances under which homicide is justified are usually considered to be that the defendant had no alternative method of self-defense or defense of another than to kill the attacker." I don't really see those conditions being met by Zimmerman considering he was large enough to fight back (or even retreat with the threat of the gun) vs. an unarmed man roughly his size who was not displaying any obvious intentions to commit a serious crime simply by walking at night. Zimmerman was pinned on the ground on his back while beaing beaten in the head by Trayvon at the time of the shooting.
Why do people keep repeating this as is if its fact?
The alternative, as has been stated many times, is that Zimmerman was not told to chase Martin. This is actual fact as it is recorded in the 911 call. That's what makes the court case so complicated.
Regardless of whether his head was getting beat, he has no concrete evidence for this, while the 911 call is concrete evidence.
|
On May 30 2013 09:46 theaxis12 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2013 09:19 Tewks44 wrote:On May 30 2013 09:06 theaxis12 wrote:From the Wiki on Justifiable homicide http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justifiable_homicide "A homicide may be considered justified if it is done to prevent a very serious crime, such as rape, armed robbery, manslaughter or murder. The assailant's intent to commit a serious crime must be clear at the time." "The circumstances under which homicide is justified are usually considered to be that the defendant had no alternative method of self-defense or defense of another than to kill the attacker." I don't really see those conditions being met by Zimmerman considering he was large enough to fight back (or even retreat with the threat of the gun) vs. an unarmed man roughly his size who was not displaying any obvious intentions to commit a serious crime simply by walking at night. The opinion that he was large enough to fight back is pure speculation. He looked like he had been beaten up pretty bad in pictures taken the night of the shooting. You can't judge someone's ability to fight back based purely on size. There are other factors such as ability and strength. Zimmerman made the choice to confront Martin even after being told to stay where he was, and if you choose to start shit with someone that can beat your ass, well your ass is going to be beaten in self-defense. There is no reason to think that Martin would have killed Zimmerman because he had no motive or weapon.
Zimmerman went up to Martin and spoke with him. That can't really be considered "starting shit" can it?
Zimmerman was never ordered to stay where he was.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin#Shooting_and_investigation
The dispatcher asked Zimmerman if he was following him. When Zimmerman answered, "yeah," the dispatcher said, "We don't need you to do that."
That doesn't sound like an order to me, more like a suggestion.
|
On May 30 2013 09:18 Inside.Out wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2013 09:06 theaxis12 wrote:From the Wiki on Justifiable homicide http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justifiable_homicide "A homicide may be considered justified if it is done to prevent a very serious crime, such as rape, armed robbery, manslaughter or murder. The assailant's intent to commit a serious crime must be clear at the time." "The circumstances under which homicide is justified are usually considered to be that the defendant had no alternative method of self-defense or defense of another than to kill the attacker." I don't really see those conditions being met by Zimmerman considering he was large enough to fight back (or even retreat with the threat of the gun) vs. an unarmed man roughly his size who was not displaying any obvious intentions to commit a serious crime simply by walking at night. exactly, he had a very obvious alternative to killing Martin when the 911 responder told him not to confront the teen. He should have just listened to her, and none of this ever would have happened. the fact that he was told by an authority figure (I know a 911 responder doesn't wield as much power as the police itself, but if you're going to call 911, you better fucking listen to what the person says). He made his choice to confront the teen AND bring his gun, which to me constitutes pre-meditated murder. You can't call self-defense when you were told (and had a very legitimate option) to get the fuck out of there, and decided instead to grab your gun and do the exact opposite thing. If he didn't intend to shoot Martin right from the start, he was definitely looking to cause trouble, and it ended in a young man's tragic death, which constitutes at the very least manslaughter or third-degree murder, though personally I'd say anything less than a conviction for first degree would not be justice.
Zimmerman did listen to the 911 dispatcher. It was Trayvon who confronted and then attacked Zimmerman.
Carrying a handgun in case you need to defend yourself doesn't somehow make it premeditated murder in the event you do need to use your weapon. That is preposterous. I can't even comprehend your twisted (lack of) logic there.
|
On May 30 2013 09:51 Hypertension wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2013 09:18 Inside.Out wrote:On May 30 2013 09:06 theaxis12 wrote:From the Wiki on Justifiable homicide http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justifiable_homicide "A homicide may be considered justified if it is done to prevent a very serious crime, such as rape, armed robbery, manslaughter or murder. The assailant's intent to commit a serious crime must be clear at the time." "The circumstances under which homicide is justified are usually considered to be that the defendant had no alternative method of self-defense or defense of another than to kill the attacker." I don't really see those conditions being met by Zimmerman considering he was large enough to fight back (or even retreat with the threat of the gun) vs. an unarmed man roughly his size who was not displaying any obvious intentions to commit a serious crime simply by walking at night. exactly, he had a very obvious alternative to killing Martin when the 911 responder told him not to confront the teen. He should have just listened to her, and none of this ever would have happened. the fact that he was told by an authority figure (I know a 911 responder doesn't wield as much power as the police itself, but if you're going to call 911, you better fucking listen to what the person says). He made his choice to confront the teen AND bring his gun, which to me constitutes pre-meditated murder. You can't call self-defense when you were told (and had a very legitimate option) to get the fuck out of there, and decided instead to grab your gun and do the exact opposite thing. If he didn't intend to shoot Martin right from the start, he was definitely looking to cause trouble, and it ended in a young man's tragic death, which constitutes at the very least manslaughter or third-degree murder, though personally I'd say anything less than a conviction for first degree would not be justice. Yeah. Zimmerman's defenders should listen to the 911 call again. Zimmerman was clearly told not to pursue Martin, and chose to anyway. If he did not intend to pursue, then why was he unwilling to tell the dispatcher where to find him at the end?
I think it is you who needs to listen to the call again. When the dispatcher said "we don't need you to do that", Zimmerman responds "okay" and stops following.
Then he stands around for over a minute while finishing the phone call with the dispatcher. During that time Trayvon had enough time to make it home, and double back to confront (and assault) Zimmerman when he got off the phone.
|
It's amazing that people believe they know what happened when they weren't there.
|
Lets not ignore the insane "self defence" killings in this country that don't even ever go to trial. A guy down in texas saw 2 people robbing the house next door to him, decided to go out of his house with a shotgun and killed those 2 people when they tried to run away from the house.
He wasn't even charged with a crime I don't think. I would be utterly shocked if this even got to a trial. if it does it'll be a sad shame for a prosecutor that is going nowhere fast.
On May 30 2013 10:15 BlackJack wrote:
It's amazing that people believe they know what happened when they weren't there.
Its more amazing that people think a 17 year old black teenager with a 4 inch advantage would lose in a fight to a middle aged fat man.
|
On May 30 2013 10:06 sluggaslamoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2013 10:05 Zaqwe wrote:On May 30 2013 09:06 theaxis12 wrote:From the Wiki on Justifiable homicide http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justifiable_homicide "A homicide may be considered justified if it is done to prevent a very serious crime, such as rape, armed robbery, manslaughter or murder. The assailant's intent to commit a serious crime must be clear at the time." "The circumstances under which homicide is justified are usually considered to be that the defendant had no alternative method of self-defense or defense of another than to kill the attacker." I don't really see those conditions being met by Zimmerman considering he was large enough to fight back (or even retreat with the threat of the gun) vs. an unarmed man roughly his size who was not displaying any obvious intentions to commit a serious crime simply by walking at night. Zimmerman was pinned on the ground on his back while beaing beaten in the head by Trayvon at the time of the shooting. Why do people keep repeating this as is if its fact? The alternative, as has been stated many times, is that Zimmerman was not told to chase Martin. This is actual fact as it is recorded in the 911 call. That's what makes the court case so complicated. Regardless of whether his head was getting beat, he has no concrete evidence for this, while the 911 call is concrete evidence.
It is an established fact that Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman when the shooting happened, and was beating Zimmerman about the head. The only witness to the altercation confirms this, and so does all the physical evidence.
Zimmerman did not follow Trayvon after the dispatcher told him it wasn't necessary.
Even if Zimmerman had continued following Trayvon, he was well within his rights to put a bullet in Trayvon's chest when he got attacked, pinned on the ground, and his attacker showed no signs of stopping.
It is not a very complicated case at all. It is only 'complicated' because so many people jumped to the wrong conclusion and don't want to admit they were in error. Even if they have to keep repeating lies like saying Zimmerman ignored the non-emergency dispatcher.
|
On May 30 2013 09:06 theaxis12 wrote:From the Wiki on Justifiable homicide http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justifiable_homicide "A homicide may be considered justified if it is done to prevent a very serious crime, such as rape, armed robbery, manslaughter or murder. The assailant's intent to commit a serious crime must be clear at the time." "The circumstances under which homicide is justified are usually considered to be that the defendant had no alternative method of self-defense or defense of another than to kill the attacker." I don't really see those conditions being met by Zimmerman considering he was large enough to fight back (or even retreat with the threat of the gun) vs. an unarmed man roughly his size who was not displaying any obvious intentions to commit a serious crime simply by walking at night.
If we put this more into context.
"A homicide may be considered justified if it is done to prevent a very serious crime, such as rape, armed robbery, manslaughter or murder. The assailant's intent to commit a serious crime must be clear at the time."
Zimmerman pursued Trayvon on the assumption that he's up to no good or doing drugs. Not even this was clear at the time.
Now it could be that he shot to prevent Trayvon from murdering him, but even slamming someones head into the pavement does not mean it is clear that Trayvon was trying to kill Zimmerman.
"The circumstances under which homicide is justified are usually considered to be that the defendant had no alternative method of self-defense or defense of another than to kill the attacker."
This one is a little closer but I still think it doesn't apply at all. The alternative was given to Zimmerman when he was told "we don't need you to do that". He is not a police officer. Its also unlikely that the fight would have commenced if Zimmerman ran away.
I also think its unfair to dismiss this as, "if Trayvon initiated the fight then he was at fault". Fight or flight response, Trayvon could have initiated the fight thinking his life was in danger, and trying to incapacitate Zimmerman before he ran away. There is also the possibility of a motive, so that Zimmerman would think twice for following him again. Considering Zimmerman was following him all the way, Trayvon probably came out thinking he wouldn't be able to get away. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Trayvon does not have a history of attacking people.
|
On May 30 2013 10:17 Sermokala wrote:
Lets not ignore the insane "self defence" killings in this country that don't even ever go to trial. A guy down in texas saw 2 people robbing the house next door to him, decided to go out of his house with a shotgun and killed those 2 people when they tried to run away from the house.
He wasn't even charged with a crime I don't think. I would be utterly shocked if this even got to a trial. if it does it'll be a sad shame for a prosecutor that is going nowhere fast.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Horn_shooting_controversy#Joe_Horn
Is this what you're talking about?
Cause it went to a Grand Jury trial.
Edit: fixed broken quote
On May 30 2013 10:21 sluggaslamoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2013 09:06 theaxis12 wrote:From the Wiki on Justifiable homicide http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justifiable_homicide "A homicide may be considered justified if it is done to prevent a very serious crime, such as rape, armed robbery, manslaughter or murder. The assailant's intent to commit a serious crime must be clear at the time." "The circumstances under which homicide is justified are usually considered to be that the defendant had no alternative method of self-defense or defense of another than to kill the attacker." I don't really see those conditions being met by Zimmerman considering he was large enough to fight back (or even retreat with the threat of the gun) vs. an unarmed man roughly his size who was not displaying any obvious intentions to commit a serious crime simply by walking at night. If we put this more into context. "A homicide may be considered justified if it is done to prevent a very serious crime, such as rape, armed robbery, manslaughter or murder. The assailant's intent to commit a serious crime must be clear at the time." Zimmerman pursued Trayvon on the assumption that he's up to no good or doing drugs. Not even this was clear at the time. Now it could be that he shot to prevent Trayvon from murdering him, but even slamming someones head into the pavement does not mean it is clear that Trayvon was trying to kill Zimmerman. "The circumstances under which homicide is justified are usually considered to be that the defendant had no alternative method of self-defense or defense of another than to kill the attacker." This one is a little closer but I still think it doesn't apply at all. The alternative was given to Zimmerman when he was told "we don't need you to do that". He is not a police officer. Its also unlikely that the fight would have commenced if Zimmerman ran away. I also think its unfair to dismiss this as, "if Trayvon initiated the fight then he was at fault". Fight or flight response, Trayvon could have initiated the fight thinking his life was in danger, and trying to incapacitate Zimmerman before he ran away. There is also the possibility of a motive, so that Zimmerman would think twice for following him again. Considering Zimmerman was following him all the way, Trayvon probably came out thinking he wouldn't be able to get away. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Trayvon does not have a history of attacking people.
Was Zimmerman within his legal rights to follow Martin in a public place with the intent of speaking with him?
|
if you were getting your head smashed against a concrete curb, there would be traces of blood, sweat, hair and torn skin on said curb. unless a couple days passed, it rained, or someone powerwashed the curb, you should be able to find something there. far as i know, there has been no forensic evidence supporting that this happened though.
|
On May 30 2013 10:19 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2013 10:06 sluggaslamoo wrote:On May 30 2013 10:05 Zaqwe wrote:On May 30 2013 09:06 theaxis12 wrote:From the Wiki on Justifiable homicide http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justifiable_homicide "A homicide may be considered justified if it is done to prevent a very serious crime, such as rape, armed robbery, manslaughter or murder. The assailant's intent to commit a serious crime must be clear at the time." "The circumstances under which homicide is justified are usually considered to be that the defendant had no alternative method of self-defense or defense of another than to kill the attacker." I don't really see those conditions being met by Zimmerman considering he was large enough to fight back (or even retreat with the threat of the gun) vs. an unarmed man roughly his size who was not displaying any obvious intentions to commit a serious crime simply by walking at night. Zimmerman was pinned on the ground on his back while beaing beaten in the head by Trayvon at the time of the shooting. Why do people keep repeating this as is if its fact? The alternative, as has been stated many times, is that Zimmerman was not told to chase Martin. This is actual fact as it is recorded in the 911 call. That's what makes the court case so complicated. Regardless of whether his head was getting beat, he has no concrete evidence for this, while the 911 call is concrete evidence. It is an established fact that Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman when the shooting happened, and was beating Zimmerman about the head. The only witness to the altercation confirms this, and so does all the physical evidence. Zimmerman did not follow Trayvon after the dispatcher told him it wasn't necessary. Even if Zimmerman had continued following Trayvon, he was well within his rights to put a bullet in Trayvon's chest when he got attacked, pinned on the ground, and his attacker showed no signs of stopping. It is not a very complicated case at all. It is only 'complicated' because so many people jumped to the wrong conclusion and don't want to admit they were in error. Even if they have to keep repeating lies like saying Zimmerman ignored the non-emergency dispatcher.
That's not fact, that's anecdotal evidence. The physical evidence suggest that his story has an element of truth, but it doesn't prove that his life was in danger, or that he was "pinned".
Its also not concrete evidence, the fact is that there were wounds on the back of his head, that doesn't mean he was getting his head beat into the pavement.
(I don't even know how you get pinned by having your head slammed into the pavement)
We do not know if Zimmerman actually went back to his car when he said ok. We just have to assume he did.
We do not know if said witness was helping Zimmerman for the trial in order to help his story. Having one witness say this, and being the only one to see it is not very telling.
|
On May 30 2013 10:25 ticklishmusic wrote:
if you were getting your head smashed against a concrete curb, there would be traces of blood, sweat, hair and torn skin on said curb. unless a couple days passed, it rained, or someone powerwashed the curb, you should be able to find something there. far as i know, there has been no forensic evidence supporting that this happened though.
Have you seen the photos of Zimmerman's injuries? The back of his head is bloodied, and his nose is pretty clearly broken.
On May 30 2013 10:26 sluggaslamoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2013 10:19 Zaqwe wrote:On May 30 2013 10:06 sluggaslamoo wrote:On May 30 2013 10:05 Zaqwe wrote:On May 30 2013 09:06 theaxis12 wrote:From the Wiki on Justifiable homicide http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justifiable_homicide "A homicide may be considered justified if it is done to prevent a very serious crime, such as rape, armed robbery, manslaughter or murder. The assailant's intent to commit a serious crime must be clear at the time." "The circumstances under which homicide is justified are usually considered to be that the defendant had no alternative method of self-defense or defense of another than to kill the attacker." I don't really see those conditions being met by Zimmerman considering he was large enough to fight back (or even retreat with the threat of the gun) vs. an unarmed man roughly his size who was not displaying any obvious intentions to commit a serious crime simply by walking at night. Zimmerman was pinned on the ground on his back while beaing beaten in the head by Trayvon at the time of the shooting. Why do people keep repeating this as is if its fact? The alternative, as has been stated many times, is that Zimmerman was not told to chase Martin. This is actual fact as it is recorded in the 911 call. That's what makes the court case so complicated. Regardless of whether his head was getting beat, he has no concrete evidence for this, while the 911 call is concrete evidence. It is an established fact that Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman when the shooting happened, and was beating Zimmerman about the head. The only witness to the altercation confirms this, and so does all the physical evidence. Zimmerman did not follow Trayvon after the dispatcher told him it wasn't necessary. Even if Zimmerman had continued following Trayvon, he was well within his rights to put a bullet in Trayvon's chest when he got attacked, pinned on the ground, and his attacker showed no signs of stopping. It is not a very complicated case at all. It is only 'complicated' because so many people jumped to the wrong conclusion and don't want to admit they were in error. Even if they have to keep repeating lies like saying Zimmerman ignored the non-emergency dispatcher. That's not fact, that's anecdotal evidence. The physical evidence suggest that his story has an element of truth, but it doesn't prove that his life was in danger, or that he was pinned. Its also not concrete evidence, the fact is that there were wounds on the back of his head, that doesn't mean he was getting his head beat into the pavement. We do not know if Zimmerman actually went back to his car when he said ok. We just have to assume he did.
It doesn't matter if in hindsight we can say Zimmerman was not in life-threatening danger. The law states that if a reasonable person would fear for their life in the same situation, lethal force is acceptable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defense_(United_States)
|
On May 30 2013 10:21 sluggaslamoo wrote:
This one is a little closer but I still think it doesn't apply at all. The alternative was given to Zimmerman when he was told "we don't need you to do that".
And then Zimmerman responded "okay" and proceeded to not do that, exactly as the dispatcher suggested.
At what point do you think Zimmerman became legally obligated to allow himself to be beaten to death, and why?
On May 30 2013 10:21 sluggaslamoo wrote:
He is not a police officer. Its also unlikely that the fight would have commenced if Zimmerman ran away.
Self defense is not exclusive to police officers.
On May 30 2013 10:21 sluggaslamoo wrote:
I also think its unfair to dismiss this as, "if Trayvon initiated the fight then he was at fault". Fight or flight response, Trayvon could have initiated the fight thinking his life was in danger, and trying to incapacitate Zimmerman before he ran away. There is also the possibility of a motive, so that Zimmerman would think twice for following him again.
Trayvon had already successfully ran away. After Trayvon ran away and Zimmerman lost sight of him, Zimmerman spent over a minute on the phone finishing his call. That was more than enough time for Trayvon to make it all the way home (and subsequently leave again to go back and find Zimmerman).
Trayvon had to double back to confront and attack Zimmerman.
On May 30 2013 10:21 sluggaslamoo wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Trayvon does not have a history of attacking people.
You are wrong. The cell phone records released showed Trayvon had a history of getting into fights to punish people for being snitches.
As Zimmerman had "snitched" by phoning police it is no surprise Trayvon wanted to teach him a lesson.
|
|
|
On May 30 2013 10:36 sluggaslamoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2013 10:29 Millitron wrote:On May 30 2013 10:25 ticklishmusic wrote:
if you were getting your head smashed against a concrete curb, there would be traces of blood, sweat, hair and torn skin on said curb. unless a couple days passed, it rained, or someone powerwashed the curb, you should be able to find something there. far as i know, there has been no forensic evidence supporting that this happened though. Have you seen the photos of Zimmerman's injuries? The back of his head is bloodied, and his nose is pretty clearly broken. On May 30 2013 10:26 sluggaslamoo wrote:On May 30 2013 10:19 Zaqwe wrote:On May 30 2013 10:06 sluggaslamoo wrote:On May 30 2013 10:05 Zaqwe wrote:On May 30 2013 09:06 theaxis12 wrote:From the Wiki on Justifiable homicide http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justifiable_homicide "A homicide may be considered justified if it is done to prevent a very serious crime, such as rape, armed robbery, manslaughter or murder. The assailant's intent to commit a serious crime must be clear at the time." "The circumstances under which homicide is justified are usually considered to be that the defendant had no alternative method of self-defense or defense of another than to kill the attacker." I don't really see those conditions being met by Zimmerman considering he was large enough to fight back (or even retreat with the threat of the gun) vs. an unarmed man roughly his size who was not displaying any obvious intentions to commit a serious crime simply by walking at night. Zimmerman was pinned on the ground on his back while beaing beaten in the head by Trayvon at the time of the shooting. Why do people keep repeating this as is if its fact? The alternative, as has been stated many times, is that Zimmerman was not told to chase Martin. This is actual fact as it is recorded in the 911 call. That's what makes the court case so complicated. Regardless of whether his head was getting beat, he has no concrete evidence for this, while the 911 call is concrete evidence. It is an established fact that Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman when the shooting happened, and was beating Zimmerman about the head. The only witness to the altercation confirms this, and so does all the physical evidence. Zimmerman did not follow Trayvon after the dispatcher told him it wasn't necessary. Even if Zimmerman had continued following Trayvon, he was well within his rights to put a bullet in Trayvon's chest when he got attacked, pinned on the ground, and his attacker showed no signs of stopping. It is not a very complicated case at all. It is only 'complicated' because so many people jumped to the wrong conclusion and don't want to admit they were in error. Even if they have to keep repeating lies like saying Zimmerman ignored the non-emergency dispatcher. That's not fact, that's anecdotal evidence. The physical evidence suggest that his story has an element of truth, but it doesn't prove that his life was in danger, or that he was pinned. Its also not concrete evidence, the fact is that there were wounds on the back of his head, that doesn't mean he was getting his head beat into the pavement. We do not know if Zimmerman actually went back to his car when he said ok. We just have to assume he did. It doesn't matter if in hindsight we can say Zimmerman was not in life-threatening danger. The law states that if a reasonable person would fear for their life in the same situation, lethal force is acceptable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defense_(United_States) Is this the line you are talking about? "When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justiciable." "without fault" "is in a place where he has a right to be" This was also in 1877...
Zimmerman was in a place he had a right to be and had done nothing wrong.
He absolutely had the right to defend himself.
|
You can die from hitting your head slightly wrong if you fall. Some random person who attacked you and is now smacking your head into the concrete can do plenty of damage.
If the media didn't turn this whole case into a ridiculous make believe racist circus there wouldn't even be a case. Using pictures of a 10 year old Trayvon and whiting Zimmerman pictures is so fucked up. The media is so toxic now.
|
On May 30 2013 10:23 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2013 10:17 Sermokala wrote:
Lets not ignore the insane "self defence" killings in this country that don't even ever go to trial. A guy down in texas saw 2 people robbing the house next door to him, decided to go out of his house with a shotgun and killed those 2 people when they tried to run away from the house.
He wasn't even charged with a crime I don't think. I would be utterly shocked if this even got to a trial. if it does it'll be a sad shame for a prosecutor that is going nowhere fast.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Horn_shooting_controversy#Joe_HornIs this what you're talking about? Cause it went to a Grand Jury trial.
There isn't a such thing as a grand jury trial. It went to a grand jury to see if it was a crime worth going to trial and the grand jury said no it wasn't so it didn't go to trail.
If that guy can get off scott free zimmerman shouldn't get any less.
|
On May 25 2013 00:05 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2013 10:18 hikid wrote:
And to think that ALL of this could have been avoided had Zimmerman simply not confronted the individual regardless of who was right or wrong. Zimmerman did not confront Trayvon. According to both Zimmerman and the female on the phone with Trayvon it was Trayvon who confronted Zimmerman. The words they describe being exchanged are different but they agree on the sequence of events.
Zimmerman got out of his car to follow him at one point correct? I'm saying he should have stayed in his damn car. I'm not saying he wasn't justified or w/e and I'm CERTAINLY not saying Trayvon was a good kid or w/e. I'm saying Zimmerman has to live with the fact that he took someones life, which in my opinion could have been avoided had he just never left his car. My original post was unclear sorry.
|
On May 30 2013 10:06 sluggaslamoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2013 10:05 Zaqwe wrote:On May 30 2013 09:06 theaxis12 wrote:From the Wiki on Justifiable homicide http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justifiable_homicide "A homicide may be considered justified if it is done to prevent a very serious crime, such as rape, armed robbery, manslaughter or murder. The assailant's intent to commit a serious crime must be clear at the time." "The circumstances under which homicide is justified are usually considered to be that the defendant had no alternative method of self-defense or defense of another than to kill the attacker." I don't really see those conditions being met by Zimmerman considering he was large enough to fight back (or even retreat with the threat of the gun) vs. an unarmed man roughly his size who was not displaying any obvious intentions to commit a serious crime simply by walking at night. Zimmerman was pinned on the ground on his back while beaing beaten in the head by Trayvon at the time of the shooting. Why do people keep repeating this as is if its fact? The alternative, as has been stated many times, is that Zimmerman was not told to chase Martin. This is actual fact as it is recorded in the 911 call. That's what makes the court case so complicated. Regardless of whether his head was getting beat, he has no concrete evidence for this, while the 911 call is concrete evidence.
Just wanted to mention that being told "we don't need you to do that" is not the same as being told "do not do that".
Dispatcher
Are you following him?
Zimmerman
Yeah.
Dispatcher
Ok, we don't need you to do that.
Zimmerman
Ok.
http://bizsecurity.about.com/od/creatingpolicies/a/A-Transcript-Of-The-George-Zimmerman-Police-Call.htm
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
