So, Trayvon Martin. (Updated 9/10: From the duh and oops departments)

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 . . . 43 NEXT
 

Tyler Perry:
Bully for you! You, of course, are under no legal obligation to divulge such information to a total stranger who is operating with zero legal authority to question you. And neither was Trayvon Martin. You honestly can't see how Martin might have felt slightly threatened by being followed by a complete stranger?

you asked me how I would feel in Trayvon's shoes, and you got an answer, how bad is it to tell someone who's on the neighborhood watch where you're going? Simply telling them to shove off, is only going to give them more suspicion to follow you.

Your attempts to completely absolve George Zimmerman -- who violated the protocol established by pretty much every neighborhood watch organization in the known universe by pursuing and engaging a potential suspect -- of any culpability in what happened are, to be quite honest, rather lame.

Has it occurred to you that some NW Organisations operate differently than others?

I would be interested to know where you obtained the ability to read George Zimmerman's mind.

Phone tapes, is where I paraphrased it from. Never said I read anyone's mind.

pyrate:
I don't think you understand. If you killed a guy in cold blood and were using the Stand Your Ground law as your defense you are not going to go to court and give evidence that makes it clear you just murdered the guy, you are going to lie. You can say he confronted you, shoved you around a bit, threatened to do you harm etc etc and without a contingent of credible witnesses there is nothing the prosecution can do to prove otherwise.

Actually there is plenty that could be done. Let me ask you this, in a state without SYG could you argue, that you were backed up against a wall and your attacker picked up a rock and was about to bash your head in when you drew and fired, without any ability to prosecute? Of course not. There is this little thing called evidence.

You tell a story about how the attacker was hit. Ballistics denies your story. Crime scene analysis denies your story. Blood patterns, shoe prints, powder residue, DNA, finger prints, and on and on and on. You severely underestimate the amount of creativity of some of the investigators. I know one investigator who decided to use my gun as an example. He explained how he could figure out that I had shot someone without even waiting for ballistics (it has to do with the lubricant I use).

By the letter of the law and justice system you cannot be convicted in a situation where you kill someone and there are no witnesses if you claim Stand Your Ground. It is the job of the prosecution to prove that you are guilty, if the only evidence on hand is that you shot the guy at close range then because of Stand Your Ground you should never be convicted if you stand by your story of self defense. Remember that under Stand Your Ground you only have to fear for your safety, you don't have to actually be in danger.

Your fear for safety must be justified.

In fact let us do this little thought experiment, what if Florida was not a SYG state but was instead a Duty to Retreat State (DTR). What would have been done differently? Nothing. One's duty to retreat ends the moment retreat is impossible. If Zimmerman is telling the truth about Martin assaulting him then he no longer had the ability to retreat. Also because just about every nation on earth recognizes (in some form) the human right to defend one's self AND right to use at least equal force to protect one's person Zimmerman would have probably gotten off. In fact about the only thing they could have done is manslaughter charges based on the fact that he followed Martin (and that is still on the table right now).

Also mull this around for a little while. Remember that Benjamin Franklin (among others) said "it is better one hundred guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer". I have shown several cases where the DTR law has actually put an innocent person in jail. Here is one- http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/367/367mass508.html

Summary- A husband and wife were having breakfast, they argued, he threatened to "take care of her" (he had a history of abusing her), the woman ran down to her basement with her children, the man told her to come up or he would come down and kill them, she grabbed the phone to call 911, he backed off and said he was leaving, she put down the phone, he came back, she grabbed a rifle and shot him.

She was convicted of murder because there a 5 minute separation between the initial threat and the shot being fired. She later received a pardon and Massachusetts passed the Castle Doctrine.

Does the DTR sound like the such a swell law anymore?

Of course we could go with Blablahb's version, "crucify all the gun owners and call everything else even". Speaking of which-

Blablahb:
Man sees someone

Ok.

grabs gun with the intent of murder

Screwed up the order of events and you still have not proven that he had intent.

runs victim down

Got any proof?

shoots and kills him.

Once again even if Zimmerman was lying you still missed some key components.

Blablahb:
All wrong. Murder is a criminal offense, untill one can prove self-defense.

Sorry but it is innocent until proven guilty not the other way around.

The only one capable of making a claim on self-defense in this situation, is Martin, who was being chased by a crazed gunman.

So you think that if Martin had had a gun and Zimmerman didn't he could have shot Zimmerman and claimed self defense? Hypocritical much?

Zimmerman is guilty of murder because he confessed to the killing, ballistic evidence and all other forensic evidence shows it, and the 911 calls show the events leading up to the murder.

He confessed to an act of self defense. That is not murder in the eyes of the law. Unless of course you are stating something to the effect of Voltaire's quote, "It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets". Although I somehow doubt you are a great wit like Voltaire.

Since the burden of evidence is fulfilled on the prosecution side of the bargain, Zimmerman remains guilty untill he can proven it wasn't murder

What? How in the hell can you say that Zimmerman is guilty but they still have to prove he was guilty? That makes no sense.

But right now, all we have is that the murderer claims it was self-defense, nothing to substantiate that with

Actually there is plenty of evidence to support both sides.

Zimmerman's history of violence

He has a history of violence? Do you have any proof of that?

paranoid

Got any proof?

Martin's right of self-defense against Zimmerman's cowardly attack

According to Zimmerman Martin attacked first. If that is the case then Zimmerman sure as hell has a right to self defense.

So not only is there ample evidence for first degree murder

Is there? Why don't you show it?

there is evidence the only defense used is a lie.

And there is evidence he told the truth. Why don't you calm the fuck down and wait for the evidence to be presented? Or is moderation beneath you?

Smagmuck_:
Has it occurred to you that some NW Organisations operate differently than others?

That doesn't particularly matter either, although I have seen nothing to indicate that chasing down suspicious individuals is SOP for this particular neighborhood watch organization, if there even is an "organization," per se. However, let's say for the sake of argument that there IS an "organization" that sends out its members to follow and engage suspicious activity while armed, then that is an organization that is completely reckless and is operating on the outskirts of the law.

farson135:

chases after him despite being told not to

Follows the person who may have attacked him.

Wait ... what? Now Zimmerman was following Martin because Martin attacked him?

TheDarkEricDraven:
It's amazing how little middle ground there is in this entire case. Literally the only people defending Zimmerman are rabid racists or people who often find themselves being proven wrong multiple times over in every other subject they've ever been involved with.

What? There so little available evidence and yet you say that the people calling for moderation are racist? Would you mind explaining that load of bull?

FieryTrainwreck:
Maybe you, as a young black man feeling quite justifiably threatened, should take the initiative and preemptively shoot Zimmerman in the chest. That's the only way to guarantee you'll make it out of that situation alive, right?

Actually that might get you shot since he also carries a firearm. Plus since you started it (you had no reasonable suspicion of an impending act of violence) so he would get off for it and you would go to jail.

Point is: we really shouldn't be allowing untrained civilians to blow away anyone without severe consequences.

Have ever had eat concrete after an LEO shoves you into the ground? There is a reason that self defense cases are underreported and that is because of cases like my friend, who was dragged out of his car, slammed into the ground, and arrested on the spot. His crime? Some idiot ran into his car and then took out his tire iron. My friend drew his gun and told the guy to back off.

If you take it upon yourself to intervene, and there isn't very strong witness corroboration of your story, there should be a chance that you might have to serve some fucking time.

There is. Zimmerman is probably going to be charged with manslaughter (at least). Whether or not he gets convicted is another story.

Because no matter what happened, you violently killed another human being. Maybe both parties should be punished, hm? Trayvon certainly was.

What if Martin attacked Zimmerman? Why exactly should Zimmerman be punished if he was protecting himself?

Serge A. Storms:
I've thought this as well. What 17 year old isn't going to feel a little freaked out by being followed by a middle-aged man? In Trayvon's case, he wasn't actually up to anything, so what could it possibly mean for that guy to be following him except that this grown-ass man was looking to cause trouble? At the very least Zimmerman caused a situation where someone was going to die by forcing the encounter.

According to both Zimmerman's and Martin's girlfriend's statement, Martin issued the confrontation.

There are many ways that Martin could have reacted to deescalate the situation. That does not mean that Martin is guilty but it does mean that he played his own part in his death.

evilneko:
So we're back to "he wasn't arrested because of Stand Your Ground."

Where do you get that? If Zimmerman is telling the truth then it would not have mattered if he was in a Duty to Retreat state because he had no ability to retreat. If Zimmerman is lying then this is not a self defense case. Either way evidence has to be collected. People expect justice to happen overnight. As long as Zimmerman is not going anywhere take the time and do the investigation right.

Tyler Perry:
Wait ... what? Now Zimmerman was following Martin because Martin attacked him?

Actually I was addressing the murderer part. Blablahb is taking Martins defense to such extremes when we should be moderating ourselves. In fact people like him is the reason why juries are locked away for high profile cases. A lawyer friend once told me that trying to prevent external sources from coloring a juries perceptions is a supreme pain in the ass.

Tyler Perry:

ravenshrike:

Tyler Perry:
NO. Zimmerman was NOT justified.

He. Is. Not. A. Police. Officer. He had no business chasing people around the neighborhood. Unless he was actively intervening in a violent crime, his involvement with Trayvon Martin should have ended when he hung up the phone with the police department. Your shitty scare tactics notwithstanding, Trayvon Martin was doing nothing wrong.

Do you have any evidence Zimmerman continued to look for Martin after the phone call? Any at all?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin#Zimmerman_cell_phone_call_to_police

Sorry, it's wiki, but everything is cited. I'm at work or I'd dig further. But there's approximately 7 minutes after he hangs up with the police and Martin's call from his girlfriend, and Zimmerman is still following Martin.

None of which is evidence that after the end of Zimmerman's phone call he decided to continue following Martin. Z's call to the cops was at 7:11, it lasted for 5 minutes and 40 seconds. M's call started at 7:12, and lasted until the start of the encounter which was at some point after the end of Z's call. We have no clue at what point M told his GF that he was being followed. Just that he did so at some point in the conversation.

What I find suspicious about the whole thing is that she didn't come forward for 3 weeks after the call. Now, if your significant other was on the phone with you, told you they were being followed, and the line went dead at the start of the conversation between them and the person following them wouldn't you be a wee bit worried? Especially if you couldn't get in contact with them again over the next 2-3 days? Instead it took 3 weeks for her to give her statement to the police.

farson135:

Serge A. Storms:
I've thought this as well. What 17 year old isn't going to feel a little freaked out by being followed by a middle-aged man? In Trayvon's case, he wasn't actually up to anything, so what could it possibly mean for that guy to be following him except that this grown-ass man was looking to cause trouble? At the very least Zimmerman caused a situation where someone was going to die by forcing the encounter.

According to both Zimmerman's and Martin's girlfriend's statement, Martin issued the confrontation.

There are many ways that Martin could have reacted to deescalate the situation. That does not mean that Martin is guilty but it does mean that he played his own part in his death.

Sure, he might have helped a grown-ass man along in his possibly planned, possibly split-second decision to shoot him. All I'm saying is, Trayvon was a 17 year old who was put in the very strange, frightening situation of being followed around by some guy alone at night, a situation most of us would not have reacted to with collected, rational thinking at that age. Zimmerman, on the other hand, should be functioning as a reasonable adult rather than someone whose actions could be interpreted as a mugger or predator. He practically checked off a list on everything you can do to freak the fuck out of someone alone at night and knew the whole time that if things got physical, he had a gun.

farson135:

evilneko:
So we're back to "he wasn't arrested because of Stand Your Ground."

Where do you get that? If Zimmerman is telling the truth then it would not have mattered if he was in a Duty to Retreat state because he had no ability to retreat. If Zimmerman is lying then this is not a self defense case. Either way evidence has to be collected. People expect justice to happen overnight. As long as Zimmerman is not going anywhere take the time and do the investigation right.

Tyler Perry:
Wait ... what? Now Zimmerman was following Martin because Martin attacked him?

Actually I was addressing the murderer part. Blablahb is taking Martins defense to such extremes when we should be moderating ourselves. In fact people like him is the reason why juries are locked away for high profile cases. A lawyer friend once told me that trying to prevent external sources from coloring a juries perceptions is a supreme pain in the ass.

It's the reason given by Sanford PD. Among Stand Your Ground, sheer incompetence, and wild conspiracy theories alleging preferential treatment for one reason or another, it's also the most plausible. Not saying I like it.

ravenshrike:
None of which is evidence that after the end of Zimmerman's phone call he decided to continue following Martin. Z's call to the cops was at 7:11, it lasted for 5 minutes and 40 seconds. M's call started at 7:12, and lasted until the start of the encounter which was at some point after the end of Z's call. We have no clue at what point M told his GF that he was being followed. Just that he did so at some point in the conversation.

Actually, we have a pretty good idea of that.

A T-Mobile phone log provided by the family's attorney shows Trayvon's girlfriend called him again at 7:12 p.m., just moments after having hung up with him. "I think this dude is following me," Trayvon told her, according to her account to family attorney Benjamin Crump.

The girl says she offered Trayvon advice: "Run!"

"When he say this man behind him again, he come and say, this look like he about to do something to him," the girl told ABC News. "And then Trayvon come and said the man was still behind him, and then I come and say, 'Run!' "

Trayvon did just that.

At 7:13, two minutes into Zimmerman's call, he tells the police operator: "S---, he's running."

Between 7:12 and 7:13.

What I find suspicious about the whole thing is that she didn't come forward for 3 weeks after the call. Now, if your significant other was on the phone with you, told you they were being followed, and the line went dead at the start of the conversation between them and the person following them wouldn't you be a wee bit worried? Especially if you couldn't get in contact with them again over the next 2-3 days? Instead it took 3 weeks for her to give her statement to the police.

Via ABC News:

The girl was so distraught after the killing that she spent a night in the hospital, the lawyer said.

"She was really traumatized over this. They were dating. ... It's a situation where to know you were the last person to talk to the young man who was one of the most special persons in the world to you," Crump said.

It may have taken some coaxing by family members to get her to talk at all. It is also possible it took that long to get the records and audio from T-Mo, and decided not to make a statement until they had the evidence to back it up.

Serge A. Storms:
Sure, he might have helped a grown-ass man along in his possibly planned, possibly split-second decision to shoot him. All I'm saying is, Trayvon was a 17 year old who was put in the very strange, frightening situation of being followed around by some guy alone at night, a situation most of us would not have reacted to with collected, rational thinking at that age. Zimmerman, on the other hand, should be functioning as a reasonable adult rather than someone whose actions could be interpreted as a mugger or predator. He practically checked off a list on everything you can do to freak the fuck out of someone alone at night and knew the whole time that if things got physical, he had a gun.

All Martin would have had to do was call the police. Why? Why did he confront the guy (maybe attacking him) instead of just calling the police? He had a cell phone in his hand. He was talking to someone. You cannot tell me that it did not run through his head to call for some help. In addition yes Zimmerman exhibits all the signs of interviewing someone but you NEVER directly confront an interviewer. You make yourself less of a target, escape and evade. That is not just being rational that is the natural human response, run and get help.

evilneko:
It's the reason given by Sanford PD. Among Stand Your Ground, sheer incompetence, and wild conspiracy theories alleging preferential treatment for one reason or another, it's also the most plausible. Not saying I like it.

Once again how is that plausible? Also when exactly did the PD state that they did not arrest him because of SYG? I heard about it being speculated but I never heard direct confirmation.

farson135:

Serge A. Storms:
Sure, he might have helped a grown-ass man along in his possibly planned, possibly split-second decision to shoot him. All I'm saying is, Trayvon was a 17 year old who was put in the very strange, frightening situation of being followed around by some guy alone at night, a situation most of us would not have reacted to with collected, rational thinking at that age. Zimmerman, on the other hand, should be functioning as a reasonable adult rather than someone whose actions could be interpreted as a mugger or predator. He practically checked off a list on everything you can do to freak the fuck out of someone alone at night and knew the whole time that if things got physical, he had a gun.

All Martin would have had to do was call the police. Why? Why did he confront the guy (maybe attacking him) instead of just calling the police? He had a cell phone in his hand. He was talking to someone. You cannot tell me that it did not run through his head to call for some help. In addition yes Zimmerman exhibits all the signs of interviewing someone but you NEVER directly confront an interviewer. You make yourself less of a target, escape and evade. That is not just being rational that is the natural human response, run and get help.

I agree that that's what he should have done but not everyone is going to react to that situation the same way, some people are going to evade and call for help, and some people are going to confront when they feel they've been backed into a corner. In this case, whether or not someone died should not have come down to a 17 year old's decision-making and ability to escape the situation when Zimmerman had the car and the gun.

evilneko:
Your post shows how very little attention you've paid to what I've been saying throughout this thread. It and your other posts indicate to me that you're incapable of engaging in this discussion without attacking your opponents. Fair enough then. In the future I'll pay very little attention to yours.

You're welcome to prove me wrong, of course.

Lollin' hard. When you state that the history of the shooter and victim doesn't matter and you don't care about them, then you act high, mighty, and offended when I paint the shooter as pretty much what he was trying to be, and the defendant as...well, pretty much what he was trying to be (just check out his youtube page) if you think he at all matches the media narrative of a nice friendly kid who was just in the habit of taking strolls, at night, in the rain, in neighborhoods where he has only a tenuous connection, while not high, and not habitually casing the houses, then you're welcome to make that case.

But throwing it all out and saying ONLY THE EVIDENCE OF WHAT HAPPENED ON THAT NIGHT MATTERS! and you're just as silly as blahbby. He hates guns but at least he's consistent about it-he at least claims that people who have a gun have a motivation and a profile for having it. They may be ridiculously prejudiced profiles based on patently silly propaganda, but he's consistent about applying them. He's hiding behind his prejudice, you're hiding behind a fake "just the facts of the incident, please" concern. What did YOU see in the video I posted, pray tell? Blahbe can claim to see nothing because POLICE ARE CONSPIRACY, MAN, but you don't have that luxury.

ravenshrike:
"We don't need you to do that" is not the authorities EXPLICITLY telling you not to do something.

technically, you're correct. they explicitly told him he didn't need to do that.

Smagmuck_:

Dispatch Operators don't carry the same authority that LEOs do, let alone, a non-emergency dispatcher. They can suggest things, but they can not order you to do things.

here's the thing. No, the dispatcher neither could nor did order Zimmermann to do anything. But dispatchers are trained on how to respond to emergency situations; if i called 911 and the dispatcher told me to do something, as long as it was reasonable i would probably do it. I certainly wouldn't put lives at risk by attempting to confront a suspicious person on my own. Zimmermann elected to, and he bares a large share of the responsibility for his reckless actions. I'm not saying he's necessarily guilty of murder, but it's indisputable that if he had simply listened to the dispatcher then none of this would have happened.

farson135:

evilneko:
It's the reason given by Sanford PD. Among Stand Your Ground, sheer incompetence, and wild conspiracy theories alleging preferential treatment for one reason or another, it's also the most plausible. Not saying I like it.

Once again how is that plausible? Also when exactly did the PD state that they did not arrest him because of SYG? I heard about it being speculated but I never heard direct confirmation.

Well, the CS Monitor, Reuters, and a local TV station have all claimed that police said they didn't arrest because of SYG. I'd like better (not to say Reuters, the CS Monitor, or local TV are necessarily bad) but it's getting hard to find articles mentioning it now, what with the sheer number of stories being released.

Myrmecodon:

Lollin' hard. When you state that the history of the shooter and victim doesn't matter and you don't care about them, then you act high, mighty, and offended when I paint the shooter as pretty much what he was trying to be, and the defendant as...well, pretty much what he was trying to be (just check out his youtube page) if you think he at all matches the media narrative of a nice friendly kid who was just in the habit of taking strolls, at night, in the rain, in neighborhoods where he has only a tenuous connection, while not high, and not habitually casing the houses, then you're welcome to make that case.

the point is that it doesn't fucking matter what the media narrative is, nothing about Martin's physical appearance should justify shooting him dead in the street.

It doesn't matter what his "habits" were, we know exactly what he was doing that night, which was walking from his father's fiancee's house to the store to pick up iced tea and skittles during halftime of the NBA All-star Game. He was not under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

Unless George Zimmermann is clairvoyant, he could base his judgement only on Trayvon's actions that night. We now know that prior to his encounter with Zimmermann, Trayvon's actions were almost certainly innocuous.

Serge A. Storms:
I agree that that's what he should have done but not everyone is going to react to that situation the same way, some people are going to evade and call for help, and some people are going to confront when they feel they've been backed into a corner. In this case, whether or not someone died should not have come down to a 17 year old's decision-making and ability to escape the situation when Zimmerman had the car and the gun.

In other words Martin played a part in his own death. He should have reacted differently. Hell, what I am asking him to do is not outside the bounds of what a normal logical person would do anyway. If Martin confronted Zimmerman (and it appears he did) then this should be an object lesson on how to properly react to a perceived threat. Both sides appear to have screwed up and both sides are likely going to pay for it.

evilneko:
Well, the CS Monitor, Reuters, and a local TV station have all claimed that police said they didn't arrest because of SYG. I'd like better (not to say Reuters, the CS Monitor, or local TV are necessarily bad) but it's getting hard to find articles mentioning it now, what with the sheer number of stories being released.

They can claim whatever they want but does not make it the case. SYG does not give license for murder. Do you think that arresting for murder impossible in Florida? Of course not but if the narrative some people are shoveling was true all a person would have to do is claim self defense and the police could not touch them. That is just not the case.

farson135:

evilneko:
Well, the CS Monitor, Reuters, and a local TV station have all claimed that police said they didn't arrest because of SYG. I'd like better (not to say Reuters, the CS Monitor, or local TV are necessarily bad) but it's getting hard to find articles mentioning it now, what with the sheer number of stories being released.

They can claim whatever they want but does not make it the case. SYG does not give license for murder. Do you think that arresting for murder impossible in Florida? Of course not but if the narrative some people are shoveling was true all a person would have to do is claim self defense and the police could not touch them. That is just not the case.

This from the Boston Herald may help:

Unlike that case, there were no known eyewitnesses when Trayvon died Feb. 26 in a confrontation with Zimmerman inside the gated Retreat at Twin Lakes neighborhood. The teen was walking back from a 7-Eleven when he was followed by Zimmerman, 28, a Neighborhood Watch volunteer who fired a single shot and later told police Trayvon attacked him, records show.

That's the hardest type of case for prosecutors.

When the alleged aggressor is dead and there are no witnesses, "it is harder to disprove or to prove beyond a reasonable doubt" that the shooter claiming self-defense faced a credible threat, according to Randy Means, chief investigator and spokesman for the Orange-Osceola State Attorney's Office.

...

Under Florida's "stand your ground" law, anyone who kills someone after reasonably believing that person posed a deadly threat is immune from criminal prosecution and civil lawsuits.

In such situations, "a law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force ... but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful."

Sanford Police Chief Bill Lee referred to that statute earlier this month when he announced his department did not find probable cause to arrest Zimmerman.

But then it really starts to make a difference if:

-The normal justice system still works, and people who commit murder and against whom there is evidence are guilty of murder unless they can prove self-defense.
-SYG law actually legalised all murders except when it can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that there was no self-defense to be found in a hundred kilometres.

So which is the case? Has Florida actually scrapped murder as a criminal offense when it introduced the SYG law? The latter case is rather unthinkable really because of the insurmountable problems with evidence in murder cases it would present, it would undermine the entire legal system. Then again, it is the US, sillier things than cancelling out all laws have been observed.

Blablahb:

-SYG law actually legalised all murders except when it can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that there was no self-defense to be found in a hundred kilometres.

So which is the case? Has Florida actually scrapped murder as a criminal offense when it introduced the SYG law? The latter case is rather unthinkable really because of the insurmountable problems with evidence in murder cases it would present, it would undermine the entire legal system. Then again, it is the US, sillier things than cancelling out all laws have been observed.

Wow. So many levels of fail on that post, I don't know where to start.

Do you care, at all, to prove anything you're saying? Like, at all? Or do you want to keep on with your hyperbole?

You are following the normal progression of those who are on the losing side of an argument, to wit:
1. Factual debate
2. Emotional pleas
3. Nonsensical statements, and other assorted fallacies.
4. Outright violence
Note that you are on step 3. One wonders how well step 4 will go for you...

But hey, if you dropped hyperbole, you wouldn't be the same Blablahb we've come to know and love. How's your quest for world peace going, anyways?

cobra_ky:

the point is that it doesn't fucking matter what the media narrative is, nothing about Martin's physical appearance should justify shooting him dead in the street.

It doesn't matter what his "habits" were, we know exactly what he was doing that night, which was walking from his father's fiancee's house to the store to pick up iced tea and skittles during halftime of the NBA All-star Game. He was not under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

Unless George Zimmermann is clairvoyant, he could base his judgement only on Trayvon's actions that night. We now know that prior to his encounter with Zimmermann, Trayvon's actions were almost certainly innocuous.

Emboldened sections need citations and supporting evidence, I will believe absolutely nothing Trayvon's lawyer or family say until I hear or see the raw feeds, which are coincidentally absent despite the fact that they'd be extremely helpful to the case. They've been openly dissimulating, lying, and misleading the narrative for this entire case. Your attempt at ignoring the relevant details, like the rash of previous burglaries by people who looked and acted exactly like Trayvon, the fact that Trayvon almost certainly attacked GZ first, and was pummeling him on the concrete hard enough to mess up both sides of his head, is very telling.

A few feel-good images memorializing Tray for the losers attempting to stir up either a double jeapoardy arrest or a lynch mob for GZ while I wait for your undoubtedly well-thought-out responses:

image

image

Tray's only known amateur schoolyard Youtube video:

At some point, you realize the true winner in all this is civilized society, which will sleep better knowing that people like Tray won't grow up to murder, rape, steal, or instigate fights for the camera anymore.

Myrmecodon:
Your attempt at ignoring the relevant details, like the rash of previous burglaries by people who looked and acted exactly like Trayvon, the fact that Trayvon almost certainly attacked GZ first, and was pummeling him on the concrete hard enough to mess up both sides of his head, is very telling.

Uhm, except there is nothing to support that at all whatsoever. The murderer claims that happened, but nobody saw it, and all his wounds and the blood mysteriously vanished between him murdering Martin and the police showing up.

Besides, any attack by Martin would have been legal self-defense. If only Martin had smacked Zimmerman's head into some concrete, maybe he'd still have been alive now.

Why are you demanding evidence that Martin is even dead (wtf?) while at the same time believing every lame excuse the murderer made up? That seems quite inconsistent critical thinking.

Blablahb:
Uhm, except there is nothing to support that at all whatsoever. The murderer claims that happened, but nobody saw it, and all his wounds and the blood mysteriously vanished between him murdering Martin and the police showing up.

Besides, any attack by Martin would have been legal self-defense. If only Martin had smacked Zimmerman's head into some concrete, maybe he'd still have been alive by then.

Aha, I'm not even going to point out the fallacies in that, they're so absurd.

Why are you demanding evidence that Martin is even dead (wtf?) while at the same time believing every lame excuse the murderer made up? That seems quite inconsistent critical thinking.

Kind of like you ignoring basic evidence?

Blablahb:
Uhm, except there is nothing to support that at all whatsoever. The murderer claims that happened, but nobody saw it, and all his wounds and the blood mysteriously vanished between him murdering Martin and the police showing up.

Boom goes the dynamite!

http://www.wagist.com/2012/dan-linehan/new-videos-show-zimmermans-gashed-head-and-broken-face#comments

Gash, and broken nose.

ravenshrike:

Blablahb:
Uhm, except there is nothing to support that at all whatsoever. The murderer claims that happened, but nobody saw it, and all his wounds and the blood mysteriously vanished between him murdering Martin and the police showing up.

Boom goes the dynamite!

http://www.wagist.com/2012/dan-linehan/new-videos-show-zimmermans-gashed-head-and-broken-face#comments

Gash, and broken nose.

We've seen that crap before here, didn't you notice? There's nothing to see in those images. No dynamite here.

Myrmecodon:

At some point, you realize the true winner in all this is civilized society, which will sleep better knowing that people like Tray won't grow up to murder, rape, steal, or instigate fights for the camera anymore.

Holy shit. The fact that you are happy a teenager is dead just shows how sick you are.

farson135:
Summary- A husband and wife were having breakfast, they argued, he threatened to "take care of her" (he had a history of abusing her), the woman ran down to her basement with her children, the man told her to come up or he would come down and kill them, she grabbed the phone to call 911, he backed off and said he was leaving, she put down the phone, he came back, she grabbed a rifle and shot him.

Not how the transcript of the court case reads...
I know you want to spin this case to fit your opinion but it does not fit the actual facts of the case.

She shot him without any warning as soon as he started down the stairs.

He was not armed and had never used a weapon in their previous altercations.

She had no reason to believe he would carry out his threat, as he had not done so in the past.

farson135:
She was convicted of murder

No she was not. She was charged with murder and convicted of manslaughter.

The manslaughter verdict was upheld at appeal as well.

farson135:
because there a 5 minute separation between the initial threat and the shot being fired.

5 mins between him threatening her and then returning to the stairs, in which she could have left the house or called the police or taken a number of other actions that would not have resulted in someone being killed.

She was convicted of manslaughter because she did not fire a warning shot, or warn him in any way, before resorting to lethal force (all of which she had ample time to do).

Instead, as soon as he opened the door and put a foot on the stairs, she shot him dead.

farson135:
He explained how he could figure out that I had shot someone without even waiting for ballistics (it has to do with the lubricant I use).

More BS.

Are you the only person in the world to use that type of lubricant?

If not then it can ONLY be used to exclude you (ie you use different type to killer) NOT to convict you (as it only proves you use the same type as the killer).

Same as blood types can only exclude, not convict.

Smagmuck_:
Aha, I'm not even going to point out the fallacies in that, they're so absurd.

No, you don't because you can't. If you're being chased by an agressive man with a gun, self-defense in any form is allowed. Martin would've been within his right to kill Zimmerman with weapons under Florida's laws, even.

Don't agree? Please prove the SYG law does not exist, and other self-defense law articles do not either.

ravenshrike:
oom goes the dynamite!
http://www.wagist.com/2012/dan-linehan/new-videos-show-zimmermans-gashed-head-and-broken-face#comments
Gash, and broken nose.

Ah, thanks for that link. Zimmerman does not have a broken nose in that image, and that would show. If you see the video in motion, you'd see nothing is visible on the back of his head either. As he walks, the light seems to cast a shadow on his skull at a split-second, and apparently the NRA's murder justification departement screenshotted that.

Okay, so I would like to thank you again for those images that prove that Zimmerman's excuses are completely untrue, and he didn't even bother to self-inflict wounds to try and create reasons to support his defense.

It kind of brings us back at why people want to defend Zimmerman while he confessed to the murder, and the excuse he made up in his defense is provably untrue.

evilneko:

This from the Boston Herald may help

Once again what is the difference between this case in a SYG state and the same case in a DTR state? Nothing. Maybe they would have arrested him sooner but that is only a maybe. Even DTR states acknowledge the right to self defense.

Blablahb:
-SYG law actually legalised all murders except when it can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that there was no self-defense to be found in a hundred kilometres.

Wrong

Here is the problem, if your interpretation of the SYG law is true then murder is effectivly legalized. Since it is not you interpretation is wrong.

Blablahb:
Besides, any attack by Martin would have been legal self-defense. If only Martin had smacked Zimmerman's head into some concrete, maybe he'd still have been alive now.

Actually since he started the provocation he would actually go to jail. Once again if Martin had had a gun and Zimmerman had been disarmed would you support Martin shooting Zimmerman?

Blablahb:
Martin would've been within his right to kill Zimmerman with weapons under Florida's laws, even.

No, he wouldn't have. He had not reasonable suspicion that his life was in danger.

Ah, thanks for that link. Zimmerman does not have a broken nose in that image, and that would show.

Depends on the break.

and apparently the NRA's murder justification departement screenshotted that.

Now you see people, THAT is paranoia.

TechNoFear:

farson135:
Summary- A husband and wife were having breakfast, they argued, he threatened to "take care of her" (he had a history of abusing her), the woman ran down to her basement with her children, the man told her to come up or he would come down and kill them, she grabbed the phone to call 911, he backed off and said he was leaving, she put down the phone, he came back, she grabbed a rifle and shot him.

Not how the transcript of the court case reads...

Really.

I know you want to spin this case to fit your opinion but it does not fit the actual facts of the case.

One wonders if you will ever slow down enough to let what I say penetrate your bias.

She shot him without any warning as soon as he started down the stairs.

Not negated by my summary. And he had already started down the stairs when she shot him- pg 509, "and went down a few steps"

He was not armed and had never used a weapon in their previous altercations.

Not negated by my summary. And also completely irrelevant. You can kill a person with your bare fists, plus it has already been established that there was a firearm (and possible other tools) down there.

She had no reason to believe he would carry out his threat, as he had not done so in the past.

Which part the "take care of her" part or the murder her and her children part. Come on now that is a stretch even for you.

You know there is a reason I called it a summary and posted the link. It is so that the person does not have to read the entire goddamn thing in order to get the idea of the case. Now are you saying that my summary misleads on the key elements or are you just pissed off that I did not include everything YOU think is important (i.e. is important to your bias)?

No she was not. She was charged with murder and convicted of manslaughter.

Understood, mistype.

5 mins between him threatening her and then returning to the stairs, in which she could have left the house or called the police or taken a number of other actions that would not have resulted in someone being killed.

She could have but then again leaving the house and her children behind is not a good idea. Escaping the house with children in tow is difficult. She thought the threat had ended and decided not to call the police but then tried AGAIN, failed, and shot him.

She was convicted of manslaughter because she did not fire a warning shot, or warn him in any way, before resorting to lethal force (all of which she had ample time to do).

He was coming down the stairs with the intention of (most likely) harming or killing them. Time is not on your side when you are being attacked. He was already heading down the stairs. You say you are an LEO yet for reason you don't seem to understand that a gun gets less effective the closer you are to a person.

Instead, as soon as he opened the door and put a foot on the stairs, she shot him dead.

Once again he was already down the staircase part way. Also, maybe he should not have threatened her life. Just a thought.

Are you the only person in the world to use that type of lubricant?

You have further proven how little you know competitive shooting. Most competitive marksmen (when they use semis at least) use their own specific mixtures of lubricants to produce a personal variety. My mixture includes a mixture of a silicone lubricant, ATF, grease, and a few other things. He could tell by the smell what I was using (primarily ATF) but he could also (if he wanted to get scientific) get a sample and break it down. Plus even if he could not break it down the fact that I even use ATF on my guns likely makes me a seasoned marksman since your run of the mill shooters tend to waste money on "gun lubricants".

farson135:
Here is the problem, if your interpretation of the SYG law is true then murder is effectivly legalized.

And it would seem murder has indeed been legalised.

farson135:
No, he wouldn't have. He had not reasonable suspicion that his life was in danger.

He was being chased by an agressive gunman, that's a lot of reason. Besides, under Florida's SYG law, you don't have to be in danger to use violence, even extreme and lethal violence. There's nothing Martin could've done that was possibly illegal under the circumstances.

If he had at Zimmerman full power the moment he exited his car to carry out the murder, that would've been legal.

There is however no indication whatsoever of any struggle. Zimmerman just got out the car, hung up 911, and shot Martin dead without any provocation.

Blablahb:
Uhm, except there is the corroborating testimony of several direct eyewitnesses who were near and around the scene at the time. The responsible man claims that happened, but lots of people saw it, and all his wounds and the blood cleaned up by the EMTs on site while Zimmerman was giving his statement to the police, according to standard procedure, because obviously cops don't like having people bleed all over well-used cop cars, since they rarely have time for a full cleaning between cases between him righteously offing Martin and the police showing up.

Besides, assaulting someone from behind and pummeling them on the ground makes it justifiable self-defense even without a Stand Your Ground Law. . If only Martin had made sure to kill Zimmerman, that man who had the audacity to not be a failure in life and not look the other way when black people committed crimes.

Why am I attempting to change the discussion? Because I know I don't have a leg to stand on and I'm too cowardly to face my friends who all believe the Sharpton account. (wtf?) while at the same time believing every lame excuse the murderer made up? That seems quite inconsistent critical thinking.

Fixed for factual clarity, blahbbly. Hope you learn something.

Tyler Perry:
Holy shit. The fact that you are happy a teenager is dead just shows how sick you are.

I'm not the one calling for the lynching of an innocent man who did his duty according to both the letter of the law and the incomplete tactical information available to him at the time. But yes, I'm happy that a teenager who idolized the thug lifestyle got popped before he could live it out by stealing from and occasionally murdering law-abiding citizens who actually work for their money. The world is a more peaceful, hopeful, and trusting place for the loss of its Trayvon Martin.

Get a clue: The longer this case stays in public, the more everyone in America who doesn't think NO_LIMIT_NIGGA is a perfectly fine handle for a growing young boy gets pissed enough to start planning for the day the EBT cards run out. Detroit is already about to be placed under martial law. Riots in Florida will no doubt give the perfect excuse to do the same to all majority-black cities. If you had an ounce of sense of self-preservation, you'd be agreeing with me, deploring the lack of attention paid to black-on-black and black-on-white crimes, and doing everything you could to get the Trayvon story off of Page 1.

George Zimmerman was a Democrat, who stepped up for innocent homeless black people when their own would not. I'm guessing that given the cowardice, opportunism, and ingratitude he's receiving from the black community for that, he's probably re-evaluating his life choices too, as are many others:

You will recall the incident of the beating of the black homeless man Sherman Ware on December 4, 2010 by the son of a Sanford police officer. The beating sparked an outrage in the community but there were very few that stepped up to do anything about it. I would presume the inaction was because of the fact that he was homeless not because he was black. Do you know the individual that stepped up when no one else in the black community would? Do you know who spent tireless hours putting flyers on the cars of persons parked in the churches of the black community? Do you know who waited for the church‐goers to get out of church so that he could hand them fliers in an attempt to organize the black community against this horrible miscarriage of justice? Do you know who helped organize the City Hall meeting on January 8th , 2011 at Sanford City Hall?? That person was GEORGE ZIMMERMAN. Ironic isn't it?

The main point for this letter is to explain to you that the black community has labeled George a racist without any investigation at all. Regardless of the fact that George personally spoke to many of your constituents, not one has stepped forward and said, Hey I know that face. That is the Hispanic guy that was standing up for Sherman Ware. That was the only non‐black face in the meetings for justice in this case. You know as well as I do that there are many NAACP followers that recognize George from the Ware case as well as many other good things that he's done for the black community. It's time for you to end the race issue in this matter and call for cooler heads to prevail. If something happens to George as a result of the race furor stirred up by this mischaracterization of George there will be blood on your hands as well as the rest of the racists that have rushed to judgment. You need to call off the dogs. Period. Publicly and swiftly.

You will not be the only recipient of this letter. I am going to scream as loud about this as the NAACP has against "racist" George. There will be a press release with a copy of this letter mailed to the media but I am going to give you a head‐start in doing the right thing. The actions of the NAACP on this will help the world decide whether your organization is in fact racist or if it is for the greater good of society.

I will not be providing my name because all of our family is in hiding and frankly scared by the threats from the black community. If you feel the need to respond I will see this in the media (if you do the right thing) and I will be happy to provide more details showing how wrong you really are. I will not remain anonymous after the outcome of this case is determined. There are going to be a lot of people that need to be held accountable for their rush to judgment.

evilneko:

ravenshrike:

Blablahb:
Uhm, except there is nothing to support that at all whatsoever. The murderer claims that happened, but nobody saw it, and all his wounds and the blood mysteriously vanished between him murdering Martin and the police showing up.

Boom goes the dynamite!

http://www.wagist.com/2012/dan-linehan/new-videos-show-zimmermans-gashed-head-and-broken-face#comments

Gash, and broken nose.

We've seen that crap before here, didn't you notice? There's nothing to see in those images. No dynamite here.

Y'know, it's gonna be real damn funny when this is all over and you're shown to be utterly wrong. In order for the idea that Zimmerman is lying about his injuries to be true, he will have had to have co-opted the arresting officers, the paramedics at the scene, the lead investigator who wanted to press manslaughter charges, everybody else who saw him at the police station, and his neighbor. That right there is pretty fucking unlikely. Or do you think the Sanford PD would allow him to continue to outright lie about his injuries? Not to mention his parents have stated they have medical records to prove it, so either they're lying or they've roped a doctor into this scheme as well.

Myrmecodon:

Blablahb:
Uhm, except there is the corroborating testimony of several direct eyewitnesses who were near and around the scene at the time. The responsible man claims that happened, but lots of people saw it, and all his wounds and the blood cleaned up by the EMTs on site while Zimmerman was giving his statement to the police, according to standard procedure, because obviously cops don't like having people bleed all over well-used cop cars, since they rarely have time for a full cleaning between cases between him righteously offing Martin and the police showing up.

Besides, assaulting someone from behind and pummeling them on the ground makes it justifiable self-defense even without a Stand Your Ground Law. . If only Martin had made sure to kill Zimmerman, that man who had the audacity to not be a failure in life and not look the other way when black people committed crimes.

Why am I attempting to change the discussion? Because I know I don't have a leg to stand on and I'm too cowardly to face my friends who all believe the Sharpton account. (wtf?) while at the same time believing every lame excuse the murderer made up? That seems quite inconsistent critical thinking.

Fixed for factual clarity, blahbbly. Hope you learn something.

There is no evidence (that we know of right now) that Martin attacked Zimmerman from behind. Zimmerman is saying that this is how it happened but we only have his word for it. Any fight they were engaged in could have started in any number of ways. They could have been face-to-face when one or the other threw the first punch. For all we know Zimmerman could have been the one who attacked Martin from behind.

ravenshrike:
We've seen that crap before here, didn't you notice? There's nothing to see in those images. No dynamite here.

Y'know, it's gonna be real damn funny when this is all over and you're shown to be utterly wrong. In order for the idea that Zimmerman is lying about his injuries to be true, he will have had to have co-opted the arresting officers, the paramedics at the scene, the lead investigator who wanted to press manslaughter charges, everybody else who saw him at the police station, and his neighbor.[/quote]What are you trying to say? That Zimmerman is capable of some very good feigning injuries if it's to save his ass from going to prison for first degree murder?

Also you're conveniently assuming those people back the murderer's excuses. They don't. There's no word at all on what they held of the events. There is however high quality video evidence showing no injuries, where injuries should have been clearly visible.

The only noses broken in this case are of people headdesking over how blindly some people defend a murderer.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 . . . 43 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked