I think people entirely dismissing the dispatcher's 'suggestion' is straight up irresponsible. I'm stuck wondering why Zimmerman felt the need to continue following him despite doing his due diligence in reporting already. Anyone trying to argue that Martin was in fact the aggressor and Zimmerman was just standing his ground really can't just sweep this under the rug because it absolutely is relevant.
"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.
just because you confront someone doesn't grant them the legal right to "beat your ass."
On May 30 2013 16:15 Mazer wrote: I think people entirely dismissing the dispatcher's 'suggestion' is straight up irresponsible. I'm stuck wondering why Zimmerman felt the need to continue following him despite doing his due diligence in reporting already. Anyone trying to argue that Martin was in fact the aggressor and Zimmerman was just standing his ground really can't just sweep this under the rug because it absolutely is relevant.
It doesn't prove or disprove that George Zimmerman was the aggressor. That's why it isn't important.
On May 30 2013 16:15 Mazer wrote: I think people entirely dismissing the dispatcher's 'suggestion' is straight up irresponsible. I'm stuck wondering why Zimmerman felt the need to continue following him despite doing his due diligence in reporting already. Anyone trying to argue that Martin was in fact the aggressor and Zimmerman was just standing his ground really can't just sweep this under the rug because it absolutely is relevant.
It doesn't prove or disprove that George Zimmerman was the aggressor. That's why it isn't important.
If that's the argument we're gonna make, the injuries Zimmerman sustained aren't important either.
"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.
just because you confront someone doesn't grant them the legal right to "beat your ass."
Well if u approach someone with a weapon on ur side, and u are aggressive u dont think u should be liable no matter what? Not saying that is the case here. But I think if u are carrying a firearm u have to be held to a higher standard. And a higher liability. But that is just my opinion.
"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.
just because you confront someone doesn't grant them the legal right to "beat your ass."
Well if u approach someone with a weapon on ur side, and u are aggressive u dont think u should be liable no matter what? Not saying that is the case here. But I think if u are carrying a firearm u have to be held to a higher standard. And a higher liability. But that is just my opinion.
I don't know enough about the legal issues involved to say one way or another, but I would find it strange if you could legally assault someone carrying a firearm for confronting you.
On May 30 2013 13:21 theaxis12 wrote: I just stated that as an obvious example, there is any number of ways that Zimmerman could have made Martin fear for his life. Martin had noticed him watching him and even ran away from him, so maybe he feared being raped or kidnapped. The point is that we have to give Martin the benefit of the doubt because Zimmerman was the one who initiated the whole situation and had any violent intent going into it.
We don't have to give Martin the benefit of the doubt. He's dead. He's not on trial. What was in his head is completely irrelevant. What is relevant is Zimmerman's perception of what was happening. Actually, your last sentence is complete garbage, since there's nothing wrong with "initiating the whole situation" when you are trying to keep aware of someone you don't recognize in the neighborhood, considering the recent crimes. You're also assuming Zimmerman had violent intent ? Please.
On May 30 2013 13:21 theaxis12 wrote: Also is thinking Martin charged Zimmerman with his gun really more outlandish than the story Zimmerman is trying to promote that Martin was just a raving lunatic that once confronted with a polite conversation tried to kill him? Come on...this defense is the most racist thing to happen yet in this case. It is truly sad how many people will buy into this image of a thug n*gger that will bash your head in the second you question him.
Oh, wait, we see it all the time. Not to mention, Trayvon specifically liked to get in fights ... Did you not know that or conveniently ignore the facts that are out there ?
User was temp banned for this post.
Just wow on the video. As for the violent intent thing one person was walking home and talking on the phone, the other was stalking the first with a loaded weapon telling the police "these assholes, they always get away". Which one would you say has violent intent?
On May 30 2013 16:21 Tewks44 wrote:
just because you confront someone doesn't grant them the legal right to "beat your ass."
That all depends on how you "confront" said person.
On May 30 2013 13:21 theaxis12 wrote: I just stated that as an obvious example, there is any number of ways that Zimmerman could have made Martin fear for his life. Martin had noticed him watching him and even ran away from him, so maybe he feared being raped or kidnapped. The point is that we have to give Martin the benefit of the doubt because Zimmerman was the one who initiated the whole situation and had any violent intent going into it.
We don't have to give Martin the benefit of the doubt. He's dead. He's not on trial. What was in his head is completely irrelevant. What is relevant is Zimmerman's perception of what was happening. Actually, your last sentence is complete garbage, since there's nothing wrong with "initiating the whole situation" when you are trying to keep aware of someone you don't recognize in the neighborhood, considering the recent crimes. You're also assuming Zimmerman had violent intent ? Please.
On May 30 2013 13:21 theaxis12 wrote: Also is thinking Martin charged Zimmerman with his gun really more outlandish than the story Zimmerman is trying to promote that Martin was just a raving lunatic that once confronted with a polite conversation tried to kill him? Come on...this defense is the most racist thing to happen yet in this case. It is truly sad how many people will buy into this image of a thug n*gger that will bash your head in the second you question him.
Oh, wait, we see it all the time. Not to mention, Trayvon specifically liked to get in fights ... Did you not know that or conveniently ignore the facts that are out there ?
User was temp banned for this post.
Just wow on the video. As for the violent intent thing one person was walking home and talking on the phone, the other was stalking the first with a loaded weapon telling the police "these assholes, they always get away". Which one would you say has violent intent?
On May 30 2013 16:15 Mazer wrote: I think people entirely dismissing the dispatcher's 'suggestion' is straight up irresponsible. I'm stuck wondering why Zimmerman felt the need to continue following him despite doing his due diligence in reporting already. Anyone trying to argue that Martin was in fact the aggressor and Zimmerman was just standing his ground really can't just sweep this under the rug because it absolutely is relevant.
It doesn't prove or disprove that George Zimmerman was the aggressor. That's why it isn't important.
If that's the argument we're gonna make, the injuries Zimmerman sustained aren't important either.
Pretty dumb argument.
Calling people irresponsible for saying that call doesn't really hold any value in determining his guilt/innocence doesn't make sense to me.
On May 30 2013 16:15 Mazer wrote: I think people entirely dismissing the dispatcher's 'suggestion' is straight up irresponsible. I'm stuck wondering why Zimmerman felt the need to continue following him despite doing his due diligence in reporting already. Anyone trying to argue that Martin was in fact the aggressor and Zimmerman was just standing his ground really can't just sweep this under the rug because it absolutely is relevant.
It doesn't prove or disprove that George Zimmerman was the aggressor. That's why it isn't important.
If that's the argument we're gonna make, the injuries Zimmerman sustained aren't important either.
Pretty dumb argument.
Calling people irresponsible for saying that call doesn't really hold any value in determining his guilt/innocence doesn't make sense to me.
Let's re-hash this:
I said the phone call shouldn't be ignored as it brings up the question of why would Zimmerman continue following Martin despite already reporting it to the authorities.
You argued that we can dismiss the phone call because it doesn't prove or disprove Zimmerman was the aggressor.
By that same logic, we can dismiss other details in the trial such as the injuries he sustained because those don't prove or disprove that Zimmerman was the aggressor.
So yes, I still think ignoring the phone call is irresponsible. Just as ignoring Zimmerman's injuries would be irresponsible. What doesn't make sense to you?
On May 30 2013 16:15 Mazer wrote: I think people entirely dismissing the dispatcher's 'suggestion' is straight up irresponsible. I'm stuck wondering why Zimmerman felt the need to continue following him despite doing his due diligence in reporting already. Anyone trying to argue that Martin was in fact the aggressor and Zimmerman was just standing his ground really can't just sweep this under the rug because it absolutely is relevant.
It doesn't prove or disprove that George Zimmerman was the aggressor. That's why it isn't important.
If that's the argument we're gonna make, the injuries Zimmerman sustained aren't important either.
Pretty dumb argument.
Calling people irresponsible for saying that call doesn't really hold any value in determining his guilt/innocence doesn't make sense to me.
Let's re-hash this:
I said the phone call shouldn't be ignored as it brings up the question of why would Zimmerman continue following Martin despite already reporting it to the authorities.
You argued that we can dismiss the phone call because it doesn't prove or disprove Zimmerman was the aggressor.
By that same logic, we can dismiss other details in the trial such as the injuries he sustained because those don't prove or disprove that Zimmerman was the aggressor.
So yes, I still think ignoring the phone call is irresponsible. Just as ignoring Zimmerman's injuries would be irresponsible. What doesn't make sense to you?
Choosing the word "irresponsible" as if strangers on the internet were actually members of the jury or something. I don't know what is irresponsible about having an opinion in something I'm not involved in.
On May 30 2013 16:15 Mazer wrote: I think people entirely dismissing the dispatcher's 'suggestion' is straight up irresponsible. I'm stuck wondering why Zimmerman felt the need to continue following him despite doing his due diligence in reporting already. Anyone trying to argue that Martin was in fact the aggressor and Zimmerman was just standing his ground really can't just sweep this under the rug because it absolutely is relevant.
It doesn't prove or disprove that George Zimmerman was the aggressor. That's why it isn't important.
If that's the argument we're gonna make, the injuries Zimmerman sustained aren't important either.
Pretty dumb argument.
Calling people irresponsible for saying that call doesn't really hold any value in determining his guilt/innocence doesn't make sense to me.
Let's re-hash this:
I said the phone call shouldn't be ignored as it brings up the question of why would Zimmerman continue following Martin despite already reporting it to the authorities.
You argued that we can dismiss the phone call because it doesn't prove or disprove Zimmerman was the aggressor.
By that same logic, we can dismiss other details in the trial such as the injuries he sustained because those don't prove or disprove that Zimmerman was the aggressor.
So yes, I still think ignoring the phone call is irresponsible. Just as ignoring Zimmerman's injuries would be irresponsible. What doesn't make sense to you?
Choosing the word "irresponsible" as if strangers on the internet were actually members of the jury or something. I don't know what is irresponsible about having an opinion in something I'm not involved in.
Arguing about semantics now instead of backing up your original point. Wicked.
On May 30 2013 16:15 Mazer wrote: I think people entirely dismissing the dispatcher's 'suggestion' is straight up irresponsible. I'm stuck wondering why Zimmerman felt the need to continue following him despite doing his due diligence in reporting already. Anyone trying to argue that Martin was in fact the aggressor and Zimmerman was just standing his ground really can't just sweep this under the rug because it absolutely is relevant.
It doesn't prove or disprove that George Zimmerman was the aggressor. That's why it isn't important.
If that's the argument we're gonna make, the injuries Zimmerman sustained aren't important either.
Pretty dumb argument.
Calling people irresponsible for saying that call doesn't really hold any value in determining his guilt/innocence doesn't make sense to me.
Let's re-hash this:
I said the phone call shouldn't be ignored as it brings up the question of why would Zimmerman continue following Martin despite already reporting it to the authorities.
You argued that we can dismiss the phone call because it doesn't prove or disprove Zimmerman was the aggressor.
By that same logic, we can dismiss other details in the trial such as the injuries he sustained because those don't prove or disprove that Zimmerman was the aggressor.
So yes, I still think ignoring the phone call is irresponsible. Just as ignoring Zimmerman's injuries would be irresponsible. What doesn't make sense to you?
Choosing the word "irresponsible" as if strangers on the internet were actually members of the jury or something. I don't know what is irresponsible about having an opinion in something I'm not involved in.
Arguing about semantics now instead of backing up your original point. Wicked.
If you want me to concede that my point was incomplete, fine. I should have instead said it isn't important because it doesn't provide anything useful to proving his guilt/innocence. Him not taking the advice is neither illegal nor indicative of "aggressive" behavior. He was looking out for the well-being of his area and thought something was up. That doesn't mean he was looking to get his head pulverized and being forced to shoot somebody. So what exactly is irresponsible about saying the dispatcher's recommendation doesn't prove anything? What does it mean to you?
The injuries he sustained are useful because if he hadn't had them he would have no justification for shooting.
"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?
That doesn't sound like an order to me, more like a suggestion.
How on Earth do you know what happened when Zimmerman confronted Martin, no one does, that is the point. Maybe Zimmerman tried to intimidate Martin with his gun, wouldn't that explain and excuse his attack? The only story we have is from Zimmerman ofc he is going to say the kid attacked him for no reason. The fact that he was the initiator and the only one armed requires that we give Martin the benefit of the doubt that he feared for his life and attacked out of self-defense.
Also he could have defended himself regardless of Martin's size with his gun in a non-lethal fashion (intimidation or non-lethal blow), so it still doesn't qualify as justifiable homicide.
So let me get this straight. You think it's a possibility Zimmerman was waving a gun around and then Martin though his best bet was to rush him? You watch too many movies.
It's painfully obvious that Martin at some point attacked Zimmerman. Martin is clearly not a nice individual and has a history of violent behaviour. Zimmerman was beaten up pretty bad while Martin just had the bullet hole in his chest. The time frame from Zimmerman being on the phone to the fight. it's pretty clear what happened if you connect the dots.
I just stated that as an obvious example, there is any number of ways that Zimmerman could have made Martin fear for his life. Martin had noticed him watching him and even ran away from him, so maybe he feared being raped or kidnapped. The point is that we have to give Martin the benefit of the doubt because Zimmerman was the one who initiated the whole situation and had any violent intent going into it.
Also is thinking Martin charged Zimmerman with his gun really more outlandish than the story Zimmerman is trying to promote that Martin was just a raving lunatic that once confronted with a polite conversation tried to kill him? Come on...this defense is the most racist thing to happen yet in this case. It is truly sad how many people will buy into this image of a thug n*gger that will bash your head in the second you question him.
It's not really the issue of whether people buy into it or not. The question is: is there a reasonable chance that Zimmerman fired after being beaten up badly, in self defense? If the answer to that is yes, even if you don't think that it was the case, then you have to find him not guilty. The evidence does show Zimmerman being badly beaten and Martin with only the gunshot wound as an injury, which suggests that, no matter what provocation occurred, Martin was indeed beating the shit out of Zimmerman who then fired in self defense. Anything else is just speculation really, and that's not enough to convict a man on.
Please don't say something like "anything else is just speculation", when your entire post is pure speculation...
If Zimmerman assaulted Trayvon which is a likely possibility considering Zimmerman has a record of assaulting police officers, people and domestic violence and was generally known by people that knew him for having a bad temper. Doing so gives Trayvon a right to slam Zimmermans head into the pavement, however now that Zimmerman is in fear for his life, is he allowed to pull out the gun and shoot him? I don't know, but seems weird if its allowed.
A random person grabs me and throws me, or wrestles me, do I have to wait for you to bloody my face before I can fight back? I don't think so. In fact the exact same excuse would apply to Trayvon, than to Zimmerman. Of course the only person that can give an account to what happened, is the person that is still alive, so how do you think the story will be when his future career is at stake?
Also witness reports of people that I will admit only heard the event, paint a very different picture to the one and only witness that Zimmerman had.
Do you understand that it doesn't actually matter that Zimmerman might have been the aggressor, unless it can be proven that he actually was, beyond a reasonable doubt, definitely completely at fault for the fight? It doesn't actually matter how many different ways you can spin Zimmerman starting a fight and then going for the gun after he loses it. Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. What injuries did they both have? Martin had damaged knuckles and a gunshot wound. Zimmerman had a broken nose and lacerations on the back of his head. I think that's sufficient to conclude that Zimmerman was punched in the face, but there's no other damage to Martin at all other than the gunshot wound.
I think there is enough evidence to prove Zimmerman provoked a reaction from trayvon however that doesn't mean Zimmerman started the physical fight the 2 had. I personal believe Zimmerman needs to be held accountable for something Probably not murder because the more backround info we learn the more it's seems like self defense is a reasonable claim. I think at this point we can agree neither person involved was a good person and both are trash imo
On May 30 2013 21:10 IamPryda wrote: I think there is enough evidence to prove Zimmerman provoked a reaction from trayvon however that doesn't mean Zimmerman started the physical fight the 2 had. I personal believe Zimmerman needs to be held accountable for something Probably not murder because the more backround info we learn the more it's seems like self defense is a reasonable claim. I think at this point we can agree neither person involved was a good person and both are trash imo
What should he be held accountable for? Also that last sentence is pretty obtuse.
Let's try to go through the event leading up to the gunshot. The 911 dispatcher is asking if he's following Trayvon and telling him he doesn't need to do that at 7.12 pm.
- He doesn't follow and stays on the phone until 7.13:41 pm. Call ends. - During this time Trayvon is on the phone with his girlfriend until 7.16 pm. - The first 911 call about the fight is at 7:16pm, reporting a fight and someone yelling help - The gunshot is at 7:16:55pm.
Zimmermans talks with police normally toward the end. Zimmerman ran after Trayvon, but stopped when he lost him. He wasn't threatened and Trayvon was not attacking him. - According to the girlfriend, they were still talking and Trayvon had a headset on when the final confrontation happened, between 7.15pm and 7.15:30pm
- The headset fell to the ground and call went dead at 7.16pm. Girlfriend heard Trayvon: “Why are you following me?” Zimmerman: “What are you doing here?”
The fight lasted at the most a minute and a half before Trayvon got shot (source). In the 911 call someone is heard screaming help for over a minute, ending with the gunshot. Zimmerman claims it was him, Trayvons family claims it was Trayvon. The call is in the video bellow:
A minute and a half is what is up for debate. My personal thoughts: A person was yelling help for one minute. In that small community someone was bound to come outside and help him if it was Zimmerman. Several people called 911 minutes after the gunshot and 2 minutes later someone takes a picture of Zimmermans backhead.
The community had a history of burglaries, they knew Zimmerman, were probably friends, and appointed him neighborhood watch. Surely they would have recognized his voice screaming for help and would come out to help him.
The conclusion I draw is that Zimmerman's life was not in danger. He was in his community and if he shouted for help he could count on people to come out and help him. To shoot a 17 y/o kid after fighting for a minute?
On May 30 2013 12:39 theaxis12 wrote: How on Earth do you know what happened when Zimmerman confronted Martin
Maybe this is just a typo on your part, but Trayvon was the one who confronted Zimmerman.
On May 30 2013 12:39 theaxis12 wrote: Maybe Zimmerman tried to intimidate Martin with his gun, wouldn't that explain and excuse his attack?
I don't think that explains why Trayvon was hitting Zimmerman in the face while leaving his hands free to operate his gun, no.
When Trayvon assaulted Zimmerman, had he been aware of the gun he would have struggled for it instead of trying to beat Zimmerman into a coma.
On May 30 2013 12:39 theaxis12 wrote: The fact that he was the initiator
All available evidence and testimony shows Trayvon was "the initiator" of both the confrontation and the physical violence.
On May 30 2013 12:39 theaxis12 wrote: Martin [...] feared for his life and attacked out of self-defense.
The fact that Trayvon had over a minute after he ran away to put distance between himself and Zimmerman, but chose to double back and ambush Zimmerman when he got off the phone certainly doesn't indicate fear.
Trayvon went on the attack. He was not defending himself.
On May 30 2013 13:21 theaxis12 wrote: Martin had noticed him watching him and even ran away from him, so maybe he feared being raped or kidnapped.
And then he doubled back and waited for Zimmerman to get off the phone before confronting and assaulting him.
Apparently the only thing Trayvon feared was that Zimmerman would get home safely without being taught a lesson about snitching.
On May 30 2013 13:21 theaxis12 wrote: The point is that we have to give Martin the benefit of the doubt because Zimmerman was the one who initiated the whole situation and had any violent intent going into it.
Trayvon initiated the situation when he confronted and attacked Zimmerman.
On May 30 2013 13:21 theaxis12 wrote: Also is thinking Martin charged Zimmerman with his gun really more outlandish than the story Zimmerman is trying to promote that Martin was just a raving lunatic that once confronted with a polite conversation tried to kill him? Come on...this defense is the most racist thing to happen yet in this case. It is truly sad how many people will buy into this image of a thug n*gger that will bash your head in the second you question him.
Trayvon had been in fights with people because they snitched. It is well within his character to assault someone who phoned the police on him.
EPT
