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
Posts
Failing to prove that it's Zimmerman's voice is evidence that it's Martin's voice. Not 100% conclusive evidence, but better than nothing.
But enought to disprove eye witness accounts?
And by the same standard, failing to prove it's Martin's voice is evidence that it's Zimmerman's voice.
Namely SYG. It specifically states that an individual cannot be charged without probable cause. There are many experts on the webs now perplexed that the Proscecutor went for 2nd Degree and state an opinion that the Prosc did this to try to appease the masses demanding justice. With what I have seen I tend to agree. And so the Prosc used a charge she may not be able to win in order to get a man in jail without bail because the the bail procedure for 2nd degree is very lengthy.
Edit: With information at hand I simply find anyone that cheers this situation to be equally hypocritcal as myself
It would provide strong opposing evidence to an eyewitness claiming that Zimmerman was screaming, and weak supporting evidence to an eyewitness claiming Martin was screaming. Also, eyewitness testimony after having what, a couple weeks to simmer? That's definitely not going to be a slam dunk.
Oh, no. Testing the audio against Zimmerman's voice and finding a low probability of a match is completely different from not testing it against Martin at all.
If they do have probable cause, then it's perfectly legal. If they don't have probable cause, then Florida has legalized murder as long as you claim self-defense. And have you considered the possibility that the prosecutor charged him with murder because she believes that's the crime he actually committed?
Its not murder if Martin attacked first... we dont know who did. That is what the Prosc will have to prove to get 2nd Degree and what makes this case so slippery. Because if they cant then the defense can sit on SYG. This is an anomoly case. It doesnt allow you to break into peoples homes and murder them. It doesnt allow you to shoot someone who ran into your car. This particular case had just enough to it to stand and be controversial.
I'm more interested in what defense he uses and his evidence.
Typical self defense requires you to try and flee first before resorting to lethal force. The big change with this law is that you do not have to do that.
Yes, and "better than nothing" is certainly an impressive standard of evidence in a criminal trial.
If you allow a dead-men-tell-no-tales excuse then like I said, legalized murder. Does this not sound absolutely asinine to you? "We can't prove the dead guy didn't attack you, therefore you're free to go?"
I find it funny that you think you're a rational being with good ideas about things.
That is not unique to this case or this law. A lack of evidence will put a damper on any case.
Evidence is cumulative!
So I assume you'd like the victim to sit there and take it or be a MANLY MAN and go home and put some meat on the bruises and learn from his mistakes?
I don't know where you're holier than thou attitude is coming from when your solution is to cut off their hands or feed them to a yak or some bullshit.
Zimmerman is arrested and going on trial. As per our social contract, justice will be served.
I think the problem here is that your assumptions are crazy and not an immediate, obvious, or rational conclusion as you'd like to believe.
No, my position is to be able to defend yourself when someone is bashing your head on concrete like Zimmerman was.
Good for you.
To me, it's equally ridiculous to claim that someone can be justified in ending a life because they got their nose broken.
No, although I love the part where you've turned Martin into some kind of Bruce Lee clone. I'm saying it should not be enough to claim self-defense.
I do not think its ridiculous to defend yourself when your life is threatened, including ending the life of the attacker. What would you suggest? Free Kickboxing and Bruce Lee Martial Arts training for all?
The stand your ground law makes a good talking point for the media. I'm not sure that it will really have any bearing on this case. According to Zimmerman's account he was on the ground with Martin on top of him. He was getting his head knocked into concrete while he is calling out for help.
If that is true, can you honestly say that he was in a position where retreat was an available option to him?
That stand your ground exists, and that he doesn't have to show that he attempted to remove himself from the situation seems to be a moot point to me.
Which is what I'm arguing. If Martin was on top of Zimmerman pounding his head, then there would be no recourse except to injure or kill him to stop. How else do you expect the attacker to stop? When you have brain damage?
No, I'm saying that Zimmerman's account reads like "Gee, I was just walking along minding my own business, when all of a sudden this scary black guy jumps out at me, and I try to run but it's too late and he smashes my nose and wrestles me to the ground and starts beating my head against the pavement, so I had no choice but to pull out my gun that he didn't notice and shoot him."
There is eye witness that Zimmerman was definately taken down. Other than that the account reads more like "I saw a suspicious teen wandering around on a rainy night. I follow him. Lost him. He attacked me when I returned to my car. I shot him."
Since you're so convinced of his innocence, you should probably wear this:
(I'm pretty sure that would be valuable information to have if it existed.)
Is there a reason why you chose the pink one?
There is no evidence that he was shot in the back.
http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/04/12/travyon-martins-mother-i-believe-it-was-an-accident/
This is descending into crazyland. You don't come out after Murder charges have been filed against the man who killed your son and call it an accident. The charge, by definition, requires Zimmerman to have a mindset of ill will, hatred, spite, etc., - not "this is all spiraling out of my control, oh no I've accidentally killed someone! If only I could turn back time and undo it!"
Yet any given piece should probably meet some minimum standard before being admitted for consideration. I didn't think this was a controversial position, but I guess it it.
Also, a whole lot of not much is still basically not much.
You're right, I misremembered that.
Martin beat Zimmerman back to his own car?
No Martin ambushed Zimmerman as he was returning to his car.
Yeah. Sure.
When in reality as a society sometimes our desire to see somebody pay after a tragedy outweighs the actual evidence of malice, or even recklessness.
Saw this recently with a cyclist who was killed by a driver who had a suspended license. It was determined that it was an accident, and the suspended license played no part, but the cycling community freaked out that there weren't at least manslaughter charges. Because "ZOMG suspended license."
That's a pretty big point to misremember. Sure you shouldn't reevaluate how sure you are in your judgment of this case?
So as Zimmerman leaves his car to chase after Martin, Zimmerman is between Martin and his car.
Then Zimmerman loses Martin and goes back to his car.
Then Martin is between Zimmerman and his car? How exactly did he get there? Or know where to go?