Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[Trayvon Martin]'s Violent Attack on George Zimmerman

19293959798147

Posts

  • SheepSheep Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    The hypothetical isn't to determine anything about Zimmerman. It's to point out that skulking around alleyways at night, following someone, is reason enough to be alarmed.

    I bring it up because I feel it would be easier for people to emphasize with a woman if she were being followed around late at night by a stranger.


    Also, let's stop stipulating that it was Zimmerman crying out for help. Forensic evidence has proven that the person screaming for help was NOT Zimmerman.

    QlBGc.jpg
  • emp123emp123 Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Shado red wrote: »
    emp123 wrote: »
    I wonder what Florida harassment laws look like and whether Zimmerman's actions would fall under them.

    Um, scroll up. BubbaT posted Florida's harassment law on this page. ;-)

    He posted stalking laws. ;-)

    emp123 on
    camo_sig2.png
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    @Bowen Is correct. That he left the car with a gun is irrelevant. It's not a requirement that a person investigate something unarmed. The question is whether or not he rightfully used the weapon when he did.

    You have to realize that a lot of people here just straight up oppose concealed carry, so there's basically no way zimmerman could be justified to them. His being armed in and of itself makes him guilty in their eyes, regardless of any other facts that may come to light.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Sheep wrote: »
    The hypothetical isn't to determine anything about Zimmerman. It's to point out that skulking around alleyways at night, following someone, is reason enough to be alarmed.

    I bring it up because I feel it would be easier for people to emphasize with a woman if she were being followed around late at night by a stranger.


    Also, let's stop stipulating that it was Zimmerman crying out for help. Forensic evidence has proven that the person screaming for help was NOT Zimmerman.



    Probably not Zimmer, right?

    Or are we back to conventional wisdom, like the whole "three days" thing?

  • SheepSheep Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2012
    mcdermott wrote: »

    You have to realize that a lot of people here just straight up oppose concealed carry, so there's basically no way zimmerman could be justified to them. His being armed in and of itself makes him guilty in their eyes, regardless of any other facts that may come to light.

    Well, you know, when you have a gun and the other guy has a bag of Skittles it's really hard to feel sympathetic.

    But your simplistic summation is appreciated. Some of us think he's guilty because he has a history of violence, he has a history of inflated ego, he has a history of calling the cops on black people in his neighborhood, he put himself in the position he was in even after being warned not to.

    Oh, let's not forget his lying and the attempts to cover it up.

    Sheep on
    QlBGc.jpg
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Exactly.

    Because having skittles clearly makes you incapable of seriously injuring somebody while unarmed.

    Thank you for clearly demonstrating my point.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    So are skittles like Kryptonite? Can I hold them up at a thug to keep him from being able to harm me? Or does he have to be the one carrying them?

  • SheepSheep Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Don't think so. The kid that had em was apparently shot dead.

    QlBGc.jpg
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    But what if they only work on thugs, and not crazy gun nuts. It's not like Kryptonite makes lex luthor sick, right?

  • BubbaTBubbaT Registered User regular
    Jubal77 wrote: »
    Edit: It is at this point people like to cling to the detective statement. Well what if he couldnt catch Zimmerman in a lie? They would have been right back where they started and have wasted resources trying.

    I think it's still worth a try, if the detective in charge is that convinced Zimmerman is lying. It's not a ton of resources that would be expended, and the stakes are pretty high. I mean, we are talking about a dead person here, not a stolen carton of smokes.

    The argument of "if it doesn't work, we'll have wasted time and resources" could apply to many steps in the criminal justice system. Heck, it could apply to prosecuting a case entirely. Any time the prosecution loses at trial, the state has expended time and resources, without much to show for it. I'm not sure I find this argument compelling. The state's interest should be in justice, not in conserving resources.

  • BubbaTBubbaT Registered User regular
    emp123 wrote: »
    Shado red wrote: »
    emp123 wrote: »
    I wonder what Florida harassment laws look like and whether Zimmerman's actions would fall under them.

    Um, scroll up. BubbaT posted Florida's harassment law on this page. ;-)

    He posted stalking laws. ;-)

    Stalking and harassment seem to be pretty intertwined in Florida law, at least in terms of the act of physically following someone (as opposed to, say, Sexual Harassment).

    From the statute I posted earlier:
    (a) “Harass” means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress in such person and serves no legitimate purpose.

    (b) “Course of conduct” means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of “course of conduct.” Such constitutionally protected activity includes picketing or other organized protests.
    http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/filestores/web/statutes/fs07/ch0784/Section_0784.048.HTM


    From another Florida statute, regarding the "harassment" of victims and witnesses.
    (3) As used in this section, the term:
    (a) “Harassment” means a course of conduct directed at a specific person that:
    1. Causes substantial emotional distress in such person; and
    2. Serves no legitimate purpose.
    (b) “Course of conduct” means a series of acts over a period of time, however short, indicating a continuity of purpose.
    http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0900-0999/0914/Sections/0914.24.html

    Both refer to "a series of acts", rather than single instances of the behavior. So in order for Zimmerman to "harass" Martin, he would have had to follow Martin on multiple occasions. Even if Zimmerman had followed other people around the neighborhood previously, the "specific person" criteria makes those other followings irrelevant to whether Zimmerman was stalking/harassing Trayvon specifically.

    Zimmerman would have had to follow Trayvon specifically on multiple occasions, to legally constitute harassment and/or stalking.

  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    Sheep wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »

    You have to realize that a lot of people here just straight up oppose concealed carry, so there's basically no way zimmerman could be justified to them. His being armed in and of itself makes him guilty in their eyes, regardless of any other facts that may come to light.

    Well, you know, when you have a gun and the other guy has a bag of Skittles it's really hard to feel sympathetic.

    But your simplistic summation is appreciated. Some of us think he's guilty because he has a history of violence, he has a history of inflated ego, he has a history of calling the cops on black people in his neighborhood, he put himself in the position he was in even after being warned not to.

    Oh, let's not forget his lying and the attempts to cover it up.

    What about holding Skittles prevent someone from attacking others? If I have a Snickers am I prevented from slamming someone's head in to the ground?

    PSN: allenquid
  • BubbaTBubbaT Registered User regular
    Sheep wrote: »
    Also, let's stop stipulating that it was Zimmerman crying out for help. Forensic evidence has proven that the person screaming for help was NOT Zimmerman.

    No, it hasn't.

    The methodology used for voice identification by the Orlando Sentinel's 2 experts was fundamentally flawed. Proper methodology is to compare 2 recordings each speaking the same words/phrases. Optimally you'd want both recordings to use the same type of speech - eg, comparing screams to screams, whispers to whispers, etc.

    The Sentinel's experts compared Zimmerman's conversational voice on his 911 call to screams of "Help!" on the other 911 tape. Those are not similar words/phrases, nor are they similar types of speech (conversational voice vs screaming). It's like comparing a thumb-print to a pinky-print, and then saying that because the 2 prints are different, they could not have come from the same hand.

    Florida law enforcement later recorded Zimmerman's voice using a proper methodology - they had him lie on the ground and scream "Help!" But AFAIK the results of their voice ID analysis, using the properly-collected recordings, have not been made public.

  • emp123emp123 Registered User regular
    BubbaT wrote: »
    emp123 wrote: »
    Shado red wrote: »
    emp123 wrote: »
    I wonder what Florida harassment laws look like and whether Zimmerman's actions would fall under them.

    Um, scroll up. BubbaT posted Florida's harassment law on this page. ;-)

    He posted stalking laws. ;-)

    Stalking and harassment seem to be pretty intertwined in Florida law, at least in terms of the act of physically following someone (as opposed to, say, Sexual Harassment).

    From the statute I posted earlier:
    (a) “Harass” means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress in such person and serves no legitimate purpose.

    (b) “Course of conduct” means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of “course of conduct.” Such constitutionally protected activity includes picketing or other organized protests.
    http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/filestores/web/statutes/fs07/ch0784/Section_0784.048.HTM


    From another Florida statute, regarding the "harassment" of victims and witnesses.
    (3) As used in this section, the term:
    (a) “Harassment” means a course of conduct directed at a specific person that:
    1. Causes substantial emotional distress in such person; and
    2. Serves no legitimate purpose.
    (b) “Course of conduct” means a series of acts over a period of time, however short, indicating a continuity of purpose.
    http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0900-0999/0914/Sections/0914.24.html

    Both refer to "a series of acts", rather than single instances of the behavior. So in order for Zimmerman to "harass" Martin, he would have had to follow Martin on multiple occasions. Even if Zimmerman had followed other people around the neighborhood previously, the "specific person" criteria makes those other followings irrelevant to whether Zimmerman was stalking/harassing Trayvon specifically.

    Zimmerman would have had to follow Trayvon specifically on multiple occasions, to legally constitute harassment and/or stalking.

    I think you stopped bolding too soon, see the now bolded and underlined. It is possible for a series of events to take place within moments of each other. Didnt Zimmerman follow Martin, lose him, find him again (basing this off the conversation overheard by Martin's girlfriend) and then engage in a scuffle which ultimately resulted in Martin's death? The following him, losing him, following him could be considered a series of events even though it is contained within an overarching event.

    camo_sig2.png
  • BubbaTBubbaT Registered User regular
    emp123 wrote: »
    BubbaT wrote: »
    emp123 wrote: »
    Shado red wrote: »
    emp123 wrote: »
    I wonder what Florida harassment laws look like and whether Zimmerman's actions would fall under them.

    Um, scroll up. BubbaT posted Florida's harassment law on this page. ;-)

    He posted stalking laws. ;-)

    Stalking and harassment seem to be pretty intertwined in Florida law, at least in terms of the act of physically following someone (as opposed to, say, Sexual Harassment).

    From the statute I posted earlier:
    (a) “Harass” means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress in such person and serves no legitimate purpose.

    (b) “Course of conduct” means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of “course of conduct.” Such constitutionally protected activity includes picketing or other organized protests.
    http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/filestores/web/statutes/fs07/ch0784/Section_0784.048.HTM


    From another Florida statute, regarding the "harassment" of victims and witnesses.
    (3) As used in this section, the term:
    (a) “Harassment” means a course of conduct directed at a specific person that:
    1. Causes substantial emotional distress in such person; and
    2. Serves no legitimate purpose.
    (b) “Course of conduct” means a series of acts over a period of time, however short, indicating a continuity of purpose.
    http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0900-0999/0914/Sections/0914.24.html

    Both refer to "a series of acts", rather than single instances of the behavior. So in order for Zimmerman to "harass" Martin, he would have had to follow Martin on multiple occasions. Even if Zimmerman had followed other people around the neighborhood previously, the "specific person" criteria makes those other followings irrelevant to whether Zimmerman was stalking/harassing Trayvon specifically.

    Zimmerman would have had to follow Trayvon specifically on multiple occasions, to legally constitute harassment and/or stalking.

    I think you stopped bolding too soon, see the now bolded and underlined. It is possible for a series of events to take place within moments of each other. Didnt Zimmerman follow Martin, lose him, find him again (basing this off the conversation overheard by Martin's girlfriend) and then engage in a scuffle which ultimately resulted in Martin's death? The following him, losing him, following him could be considered a series of events even though it is contained within an overarching event.

    I dunno, that seems like a stretch to me. As you said, these different elements took place within one over-arching event.

    I would also think the fight is separate from any stalking/harassment. I'd put that as it's own thing above and beyond stalking/harassment, with whoever threw the first punch likely committing assault.


    That said, I'm not a judge, and I've already disagreed strongly with at least one FL judge in this thread (RE the Marissa Alexander case).

  • Just_Bri_ThanksJust_Bri_Thanks Seething with rage from a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPA regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    But what if they only work on thugs, and not crazy gun nuts. It's not like Kryptonite makes lex luthor sick, right?

    Actually, it gave him cancer.

    Some days I just want to smack people with a rolled up newspaper. Or a phone book.
    A folding chair is looking like an attractive option right now too...
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Ha, didn't know that.

    My point is that there's this fixation on the skittles as though they have any meaning, because a colorful candy helps reinforce the emotional response that Martin was a child (though really he was a "minor," because upper teens is getting big enough to move past childhood and pose a real threat to others).

    I'm gonna suggest that there is little to no correlation between skittles consumption and violent behavior. Somewhere, right now, a hardened killer is probably eating skittles...and loving them.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Also, even assuming he lost sight of Martin, his following him that night would almost certainly still be considered a single act. If suggesting otherwise makes you feel warm and fuzzy, cool. But I'm pretty sure the "however short" bit doesn't apply here...it was still a single act from Zimmerman’s perspective.

    now, if he had followed him twice within a couple hours, sure, maybe.

  • SheepSheep Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    But what if they only work on thugs

    What thug?

    QlBGc.jpg
  • NODeNODe Registered User
    I think the skittles/iced tea is also intended to speak to the fact that he wasn't out on a crime spree, he went out to get snacks. It underlines the tragic nature of the event.
    Smug "I don't think anyone was ever killed by skittles arf arf" comments are pretty pointless.

  • mythagomythago Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    My point is that there's this fixation on the skittles as though they have any meaning, because a colorful candy helps reinforce the emotional response that Martin was a child (though really he was a "minor," because upper teens is getting big enough to move past childhood and pose a real threat to others).

    No, the point of the Skittles is that a) Martin was present in that neighborhood because he was buying candy and iced tea from a convenience store, and b) he was not carrying anything that could conceivably been mistaken for, much less realistically used as, a weapon. He wasn't found with a knife or a gun in his pocket, such that Zimmerman's dad could say "Martin pulled a weapon on my son! See!", or that anyone could argue that Martin was objectively a threat and so even if Zimmerman didn't know the kid was armed, he got lucky with the self-defense.

    What NODe said. Waiting for the first "but you can beat somebody to death with a soda can!".

    Three lines of plaintext:
    obsolete signature form
    replaced by JPEGs.
  • DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    Which brings us back to "Don't bring skittles to a gun fight." and the fact that you can beat people to death with your bare hands. Him being unarmed does not preclude him from being a threat. Man its almost like we have been over this no less than 4 times in this thread.

    If I was kidnapped, woke up in a lab, told they were going to replace my vocal cords with those of Tony Jay, and lock me in a sound booth until the day I die I would look those bastards right in the eye and say "Alright you sons of bitches lets do this. This one is for the children."
  • Linespider5Linespider5 It’s cool to have a code name. It’s not that weird.Registered User regular
    Maybe it's best if everyone just sits back and allows the case to develop on its own? Right now it feels like a lot of people are trying to score victory points over each other by debating syntax, analogies, and anecdotes over which side of the hypothetical line the ball landed on. The only people keeping score are same the people trying to make the goals.

    But have at it if that's the only way to participate, I guess.

    2014png.png
  • mythagomythago Registered User regular
    Detharin wrote: »
    Which brings us back to "Don't bring skittles to a gun fight." and the fact that you can beat people to death with your bare hands. Him being unarmed does not preclude him from being a threat. Man its almost like we have been over this no less than 4 times in this thread.

    Man, it's almost like you didn't bother to read. Please re-read the first sentence there. The point is not "Martin could not possibly have been a threat ever". The point, AGAIN, is that Martin was not a sekrit mugger or burglar, and Zimmerman can't point to the presence of a weapon as a reason for being in fear of harm.

    There are women who are 4'10" and 90 pounds soaking wet who are Krav Maga instructors and could snap your neck while playing Angry Birds. Does that mean if a 6'6" guy with 200 pounds of muscle sees a tiny little thing walking around his neighborhood and shoots her, that's OK because dude, she MIGHT have been a threat, who knows?

    Three lines of plaintext:
    obsolete signature form
    replaced by JPEGs.
  • Just_Bri_ThanksJust_Bri_Thanks Seething with rage from a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPA regular
    I can only hope that if I die before the proper time, I some brand of colorful candy on my person.

    Some days I just want to smack people with a rolled up newspaper. Or a phone book.
    A folding chair is looking like an attractive option right now too...
  • emp123emp123 Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Also, even assuming he lost sight of Martin, his following him that night would almost certainly still be considered a single act. If suggesting otherwise makes you feel warm and fuzzy, cool. But I'm pretty sure the "however short" bit doesn't apply here...it was still a single act from Zimmerman’s perspective.

    now, if he had followed him twice within a couple hours, sure, maybe.

    It all depends on how Florida interprets a short time. You can go from self defense to murder 1 in a split second, I dont see why you couldnt harass someone twice during the same overall incident (the amount of time Zimmerman lost sight of Martin could be considered a cooling off period which could lead to the second "encounter" with Martin to be a separate act).

    camo_sig2.png
  • DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    mythago wrote: »

    Man, it's almost like you didn't bother to read. Please re-read the first sentence there. The point is not "Martin could not possibly have been a threat ever". The point, AGAIN, is that Martin was not a sekrit mugger or burglar, and Zimmerman can't point to the presence of a weapon as a reason for being in fear of harm.

    There are women who are 4'10" and 90 pounds soaking wet who are Krav Maga instructors and could snap your neck while playing Angry Birds. Does that mean if a 6'6" guy with 200 pounds of muscle sees a tiny little thing walking around his neighborhood and shoots her, that's OK because dude, she MIGHT have been a threat, who knows?

    Man its like you almost didn't bother to read the thread. It doesn't matter what is in Martins pockets, whether he had 10 years of Krav Maga, and orange belt from the local McDojo, or whatever else training. What matters is who started the physical fight. If Martin started then fight, then Zimmerman was in the right to defend himself. That is what the case hinges on.

    Every thing else is emotional bullshit to obfuscate the issue because ultimately if Zimmerman was attacked, he was in the right.

    Detharin on
    If I was kidnapped, woke up in a lab, told they were going to replace my vocal cords with those of Tony Jay, and lock me in a sound booth until the day I die I would look those bastards right in the eye and say "Alright you sons of bitches lets do this. This one is for the children."
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Sheep wrote: »
    But what if they only work on thugs

    What thug?

    Well, assuming that Martin actually attacked first, if your response to being followed is to assault somebody "thug" may well be an accurate descriptor.

    The alleged tangential involvement in theft and drugs increases the odds.

    Still, that's the "even if" scenario. It's entirely possible that Martin was a perfectly innocent skittles-bearing angel, who had merely been misunderstood.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    NODe wrote: »
    I think the skittles/iced tea is also intended to speak to the fact that he wasn't out on a crime spree, he went out to get snacks. It underlines the tragic nature of the event.
    Smug "I don't think anyone was ever killed by skittles arf arf" comments are pretty pointless.

    However, if he attacked Zimmerman then the fun part is that he was indeed a criminal. A violent one, even. That he he was coming home from a skittles run doesn't change that one bit.

  • mythagomythago Registered User regular
    Detharin wrote: »
    Every thing else is emotional bullshit to obfuscate the issue because ultimately if Zimmerman was attacked, he was in the right.

    No. If Zimmerman reasonably believed he was in fear of great bodily harm or death, AND he was not the sole aggressor, he was in the right.

    If he assaulted Martin and then Martin pulled a gun to fight him off, he would have a very strong argument of "I had to shoot or he was going to kill me". It's much harder for him to argue that he was afraid Martin was going to kill him bare-handed.
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Well, assuming that Martin actually attacked first, if your response to being followed is to assault somebody "thug" may well be an accurate descriptor.

    The alleged tangential involvement in theft and drugs increases the odds.

    Still, that's the "even if" scenario. It's entirely possible that Martin was a perfectly innocent skittles-bearing angel, who had merely been misunderstood.

    It's also entirely possible that "angel" and "thug" are not the only two options here, particularly if we're not trying to slant the discussion.

    Three lines of plaintext:
    obsolete signature form
    replaced by JPEGs.
  • emp123emp123 Registered User regular
    Detharin wrote: »
    mythago wrote: »

    Man, it's almost like you didn't bother to read. Please re-read the first sentence there. The point is not "Martin could not possibly have been a threat ever". The point, AGAIN, is that Martin was not a sekrit mugger or burglar, and Zimmerman can't point to the presence of a weapon as a reason for being in fear of harm.

    There are women who are 4'10" and 90 pounds soaking wet who are Krav Maga instructors and could snap your neck while playing Angry Birds. Does that mean if a 6'6" guy with 200 pounds of muscle sees a tiny little thing walking around his neighborhood and shoots her, that's OK because dude, she MIGHT have been a threat, who knows?

    Man its like you almost didn't bother to read the thread. It doesn't matter what is in Martins pockets, whether he had 10 years of Krav Maga, and orange belt from the local McDojo, or whatever else training. What matters is who started the physical fight. If Martin started then fight, then Zimmerman was in the right to defend himself. That is what the case hinges on.

    Every thing else is emotional bullshit to obfuscate the issue because ultimately if Zimmerman was attacked, he was in the right.

    Wait what? Who started the fight doesnt matter. If Zimmerman started the fight, then it depends on whether he reasonably believed that he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he had exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant. If Martin started the fight then it just depends on whether he reasonably believed that he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm.

    camo_sig2.png
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    True, it is a bit of a false dichotomy.

    However, given any veracity to Zimmerman’s story, I'd say that at that moment Martin's actions leaned more toward the thug end of the spectrum.

  • emp123emp123 Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Sheep wrote: »
    But what if they only work on thugs

    What thug?

    Well, assuming that Martin actually attacked first, if your response to being followed is to assault somebody "thug" may well be an accurate descriptor.

    Frightened would probably be better.

    Sure thug could be accurate given that scenario, but that doesnt mean it necessarily is.

    camo_sig2.png
  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    mythago wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    My point is that there's this fixation on the skittles as though they have any meaning, because a colorful candy helps reinforce the emotional response that Martin was a child (though really he was a "minor," because upper teens is getting big enough to move past childhood and pose a real threat to others).

    No, the point of the Skittles is that a) Martin was present in that neighborhood because he was buying candy and iced tea from a convenience store, and b) he was not carrying anything that could conceivably been mistaken for, much less realistically used as, a weapon. He wasn't found with a knife or a gun in his pocket, such that Zimmerman's dad could say "Martin pulled a weapon on my son! See!", or that anyone could argue that Martin was objectively a threat and so even if Zimmerman didn't know the kid was armed, he got lucky with the self-defense.

    What NODe said. Waiting for the first "but you can beat somebody to death with a soda can!".

    Or, you know, your fists/the side walk.

    PSN: allenquid
  • DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    emp123 wrote: »

    Wait what? Who started the fight doesnt matter. If Zimmerman started the fight, then it depends on whether he reasonably believed that he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he had exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant. If Martin started the fight then it just depends on whether he reasonably believed that he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm.

    If you start a fight, and then are getting your butt kicked it is going to be really hard to escape at least a manslaughter charge if you shoot them. This thing is going to hinge on the prosecution proving Zimmerman was the physical aggressor. Everything else is largely irrelevant.

    If I was kidnapped, woke up in a lab, told they were going to replace my vocal cords with those of Tony Jay, and lock me in a sound booth until the day I die I would look those bastards right in the eye and say "Alright you sons of bitches lets do this. This one is for the children."
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    emp123 wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Sheep wrote: »
    But what if they only work on thugs

    What thug?

    Well, assuming that Martin actually attacked first, if your response to being followed is to assault somebody "thug" may well be an accurate descriptor.

    Frightened would probably be better.

    Sure thug could be accurate given that scenario, but that doesnt mean it necessarily is.

    Hence "may well."

    Earlier I spoke more concretly, but that's because I was focused more on making a statement about zomgskittles.

  • DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    What we need is a white shirt with a big skittles logo in the middle surrounded by "So good, its worth dying for" with some fake blood stains around the stomach area.

    If I was kidnapped, woke up in a lab, told they were going to replace my vocal cords with those of Tony Jay, and lock me in a sound booth until the day I die I would look those bastards right in the eye and say "Alright you sons of bitches lets do this. This one is for the children."
  • Jubal77Jubal77 Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    emp123 wrote: »
    Detharin wrote: »
    mythago wrote: »

    Man, it's almost like you didn't bother to read. Please re-read the first sentence there. The point is not "Martin could not possibly have been a threat ever". The point, AGAIN, is that Martin was not a sekrit mugger or burglar, and Zimmerman can't point to the presence of a weapon as a reason for being in fear of harm.

    There are women who are 4'10" and 90 pounds soaking wet who are Krav Maga instructors and could snap your neck while playing Angry Birds. Does that mean if a 6'6" guy with 200 pounds of muscle sees a tiny little thing walking around his neighborhood and shoots her, that's OK because dude, she MIGHT have been a threat, who knows?

    Man its like you almost didn't bother to read the thread. It doesn't matter what is in Martins pockets, whether he had 10 years of Krav Maga, and orange belt from the local McDojo, or whatever else training. What matters is who started the physical fight. If Martin started then fight, then Zimmerman was in the right to defend himself. That is what the case hinges on.

    Every thing else is emotional bullshit to obfuscate the issue because ultimately if Zimmerman was attacked, he was in the right.

    Wait what? Who started the fight doesnt matter. If Zimmerman started the fight, then it depends on whether he reasonably believed that he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he had exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant. If Martin started the fight then it just depends on whether he reasonably believed that he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm.

    LOL yes it does. It is the core of the case with the state law in place. If Martin attacked Zimmerman then he will walk. It doesnt matter that he ignored the 911 operator (ask the guy from denver about this), it doesnt matter he followed him through public property, it doesnt matter that he was armed. If it is true that Trayvon truely followed Zimmerman back to his car and attacked him then he will walk. That is what the prosc has to prove.
    If he assaulted Martin and then Martin pulled a gun to fight him off, he would have a very strong argument of "I had to shoot or he was going to kill me". It's much harder for him to argue that he was afraid Martin was going to kill him bare-handed.

    Thing is you dont have to retreat in florida to use deadly force.

    Jubal77 on
    steam_sig.png
  • Jubal77Jubal77 Registered User regular
    BubbaT wrote: »
    Jubal77 wrote: »
    Edit: It is at this point people like to cling to the detective statement. Well what if he couldnt catch Zimmerman in a lie? They would have been right back where they started and have wasted resources trying.

    I think it's still worth a try, if the detective in charge is that convinced Zimmerman is lying. It's not a ton of resources that would be expended, and the stakes are pretty high. I mean, we are talking about a dead person here, not a stolen carton of smokes.

    The argument of "if it doesn't work, we'll have wasted time and resources" could apply to many steps in the criminal justice system. Heck, it could apply to prosecuting a case entirely. Any time the prosecution loses at trial, the state has expended time and resources, without much to show for it. I'm not sure I find this argument compelling. The state's interest should be in justice, not in conserving resources.

    This is valid. I will give you that. But apparently the Police Department didnt think devoting the resources was worth the time with the evidence they had in place. That is at least my opinion.

    steam_sig.png
  • valiancevaliance Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Kagera wrote: »
    valiance wrote: »
    Zimmerman is going to walk. I will be shocked beyond belief if he sees the inside of a jail cell over this.

    He was already in jail until he bailed out.

    oi, I meant in jail due to being found guilty of manslaughter/murder 2/whatever they've decided to charge him with. sorry for being unclear

    valiance on
This discussion has been closed.