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
Usually you have a --
-- oh, never mind.
All we know is that a grown man was losing a fist fight to a kid (and had very very minor injuries from it) and pulled out a gun and killed him. This after stalking the kid in a threatening manner, losing him, and then finding him again.
Most states have a provision in self defense that the response be proportional to the threat. You don't die from a scuffle with a 17 year old as a grown man in the prime of life.
"There is not a man of us who does not at times need a helping hand to be stretched out to him, and then shame upon him who will not stretch out the helping hand to his brother."
Florida's statute is written like that:
Whatever Zimmerman could construed to have reasonably believed at the time is up to the jury after both sides have had an opportunity to present evidence.
Steam Id: Jager2
And see this is possible evidence against Martin! Get a professional to determine one way or the other if the wound was substantial.
Claiming a 17 year old could never beat up and older person doesn't cut it. Nor do things like what was on their persons.
Except they never found any cane or walking stick either, according to the article. Whatever the weapon was supposed to be - whether it was a lead pipe or a spiked bat or a cane made out of duct tape and balsa wood - it never existed.
Unless the shooter for some reason removed the weapon from the scene. But that makes no sense, because the presence of the weapon corroborates the shooter's story, while its absence impugns the shooter's credibility.
Ok, once again, I never said Zimmerman was racist. And where are you getting this "bashed his skull in" stuff? Zimmerman has very minor wounds from the altercation.
Minor wounds + past history of assaults (not one but three!)=cmooooooon
And I already gave my opinion on the wounds.
Pedantry is my complaint. Common sense says he's at fault. Save the scientific objectivity for a case that needs it. Or at least refrain from acting like he's not at fault. I mean, we get it. Innocent before proven guilty. Can we move on and discuss how crappy this guy is without someone crapping that out?
I thought I read somewhere that Zimmerman was able to shift, so his head was banging against the grass.
Found this It was from Zimmerman's father.
That he should have received more visible damage is kind of a minor point anyway. I don't think Zimmerman will have trouble convincing a jury of "fear of serious bodily injury" given the photo.
Under Florida law it doesnt matter who attacked who first (well, it does, but only as it relates to immunity from civil and criminal proceedings; you can still raise the SYG defense).
Steam Id: Jager2
The problem with this is there are varying levels of evidence required to advance through criminal proceedings. Its been a while, but I believe it goes something like this (from least to highest):
Reasonable Belief - you can stop and search someone
Probable Cause - you can arrest and charge someone
Preponderance of the Evidence - mainly civil, but it does play into some defenses
Beyond a Reasonable Doubt - needed to find someone criminally guilty
Basically, you can arrest and charge someone when you have probable cause (but your investigation is still incomplete) and under Florida law this is where you raise the SYG immunity claim. This can result in the bouncing of cases that dont meet preponderance of the evidence, but have sufficient probable cause.
And then you go to trial where the defense has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt and you can once again raise the SYG defense, but this time youre arguing that even though you shot him it was in self defense so its totally cool.
The first is a bigger issue than the second since youre preventing the criminal process from occurring.
Florida's SYG law has been interpreted to allow someone to pursue as well (there was that case where a guy chased a thief for a couple of blocks and then stabbed him to death) so CA and FL law are similar in this regard (although I dont know how far you can pursue someone in CA).
As for using an illegal gun to defend yourself, why should that matter? And even if youre alleging self defense that doesnt get you out of other charges, so its possible that the ex-con who killed a dude was charged with felon in possession of a firearm.
Shit, if there was proof that Zimmerman started the fight with Martin and then Martin started beating him bloody (like, clearly there was a reasonable fear of GBH or death) and then shot he Martin, Zimmerman wouldnt be able to be convicted of murder/manslaughter, but he could still be charged with assault (and possibly receive gun enhancements depending on what that 10 year minimum for possession, 20 year minimum for using and life for killing law says).
No because a number of people have very much suggested due process should be ignored in his case as well as completely meaningless evidence Apparently you missed that part while worrying over the supposed pedantry.
You can keep saying this, it doesn't make it true. This is a provably false statement, as I need only find a single example of this happening for you to be wrong. And expand it from "die" to "receive great bodily harm," and it's not even a particularly reasonable statement. Not as a generality. It depends entirely on the 17-year-old. My friend's brother was six-foot-something and like 250 football-playing pounds at 17. Yes, he could pretty easily deal great bodily harm to more than a few grown men in a scuffle.
Focusing on Martin's age is just another attempt to use generalities to avoid having to argue specifics. I mean, he's just 17! Just a kid! Just had Skittles! Can't possibly be a threat, right?!
Wrong.
Same as the other example, with "the unarmed mentally handicapped man who was walking his dog." That description is used in a way that suggests this description implies harmlessness. But there's no reason a man can't be a threat simply because he is unarmed, mentally handicapped, or walking his dog (nor the combination of the three). Hell, I'd consider mental handicap to be more threatening because this is somebody you don't necessarily expect to react rationally or reasonably.
Reading more of the specifics, sure it sounds shady as hell. But people want to act like the generalities somehow make it "obvious" that this was wrong. But they don't make it obvious at all.
You heard it here first, teenagers are animals and cannot be expected to control themselves.
Also, this is not how criminal culpability works. One irresponsible (or reckless) act at the beginning of a chain of events does not necessarily mean you are culpable for a death at the end of that chain. Even in this case, where the death comes at your own hand. If the other party (in this case Martin) acts unreasonably, or illegally, and up until then you were acting lawfully, that can easily break this chain of supposed culpability from the initial irresponsibility (in this case, Zimmerman's).
I said that was a bad analogy. Thats not fair. And I'm not saying he was justified in beating the crap outta Zimmerman, but Treyvon was probably fearing for his life too. As much as you dont like it, his age DOES matter. He can't do certain things because of it like I dont know, carry a gun.
Anyone that thinks we should skip over due process aren't even worth talking about really.
And unless Zimmerman attacked him first, I don't see how that's relevant.
If he's impulsive enough to turn around and attack somebody for following him (which many include in their "even if" scenarios, including your admittedly bad* lion analogy) then it's probably a damn good thing he couldn't carry a gun.
* - Whether or not you admit this analogy is bad, it gives some insight into your thought process (and don't worry you are not alone here). It's the reason why most people aren't willing to accept Zimmerman's criminal innocence even under the most forgiving "even if" scenarios, because to them he made the initial mistake by "poking the bear" so to speak. So "even if" he was attacked afterward, it's his own bad fault, and bad judgment, that led to it. Victim blaming 101.
Well, without such people we probably wouldn't even have this thread, so....
Then if you lump in those who believe we should totes have due process but that a guilty verdict is the only reasonable outcome from that due process, well then we definitely wouldn't have the thread even if somebody else had posted the OP.
Im confused. Why would he have to impulsively turn and attack? And the lion analogy was bad because I don't think he was an animal turning on someone like that. I think the evidence shows he was probably just as afraid for his life. Zimmerman has a history of violence. He picked a woman up and threw her down for god sakes. Why are you not able to see this? If I saw ANYONE in my life do that, I would no longer associate with that person.
Your trying so hard to be objective that your not actually being objective at all lol.
Punching somebody for "feeling threatened" (short of an imminent threat of actual physical harm) is actually a greater overreaction than shooting somebody for an unarmed attack. The law reflect this. The step from non-assault to assault is supposed to be a pretty huge hurdle, because it instantly takes you way to far down the road to somebody suffering great bodily harm. Or death.
And sure, Zimmerman has a "history of violence." Sometimes I wonder what would happen if I ever had to defend myself using deadly force. I wonder what folks like you would dig up on me. And whether or not you would associate with him is irrelevant at all in a discussion of whether or not he should go to prison.
Call me crazy, but I don't want wackos like Zimmerman running around acting out their Judge Dredd fantasies.
I also keep coming back to the fact that Martin, and not Zimmerman, is the one who in this situation has a legitimate reason to fear for his life or that great bodily harm was intended. Grown men do not follow around minors in the middle of the night, in the rain, armed with a deadly weapon to chat.
Does your "threat of great bodily harm" argument hold water if Martin had noticed Zimmerman following him a second time after losing him (repeat offense, by the way, hence STALKING) and subsequently shot him 3 times in the chest? Because honestly, between a wacko stalking me at night and a fist fight with a high schooler, I know which one I'd be more frightened by.
"There is not a man of us who does not at times need a helping hand to be stretched out to him, and then shame upon him who will not stretch out the helping hand to his brother."
Has nothing to do with this:
Martin did not know any of that. Martin did not know he had a gun. Martin, up to that point did not know Zimmerman. Stop acting as if any of that information is relevant to Martin's decisions. Up to the altercation he just knows Zimmerman's some douche bag following him around. If Martin was afraid for his life and attacked someone he doesn't know for following him he did, in fact, overreact.
A weapon has nothing to do with him being 17. So you're still wrong on that point. And in this case the ground would be the weapon assuming Zimmerman's story is true.
So hey looks like according to your definition deadly force was used!
Edit:
Ooh are we playing the what if game? What if Martin had a gun and was waving it around? What if Martin's friends were there and they all ganged up on Zimmerman? What if Zimmerman was high on PCP? What if they're pod people, is it really even killing then?
If you can prove that actually happened by all means go ahead. I imagine Martin's family would be grateful.
Oh, okay. So if I trip a guy does gravity become my deadly weapon? I mean, there are certainly provable instances where it's deadly!
No, because that's stupid.
As to your second point (if you can call it that), it's really not worthy of a response. I'm asking, if the situation is reversed, is it still okay to kill someone?
"There is not a man of us who does not at times need a helping hand to be stretched out to him, and then shame upon him who will not stretch out the helping hand to his brother."
If you bash his skull against it it is. So how about we stick with what Zimmerman claimed happened rather than whatever made up case you're clinging to.
It wasn't because it wasn't what happened. Work with the actual situation and justify your argument. As much trouble as you seem to have doing that.
Its not relevant to Martins decision. Wow your soo... Ok, I'm gonna calm down. Its relevant to US! Was Zimmerman threatning Treyvon? Most likely yes. You wanna know why I think that? He's the type of guy to throw women down on the ground, and to get multiple assault charges. Including one on a police officer.
You just proved yourself wrong. I can't believe you didn't notice as you were typing it lol. Treyvon Martin was most likely the 5th assault victim of Zimmerman and got killed for actually being able to defend himself.
Based on your assumptions, maybe.
However, the kind of person who finds themselves getting physical on one situation won't necessarily do so in another. You're pretending to know the whole story in the previous cases he was involved with (already a mistake) then you feel comfortable applying that to assume what you think happened in this case as well (wrong again).
Ok I'm done talking to you now. Your obviously trolling me.
I guess my point was that McNeil was black and shot a white guy, and for more than a year the cops and DA all took his word for it and left him alone. Only after a new DA came in and got repeated requests to revisit the issue did they arrest him, and then he was convicted of murder and even lost his appeals. It depends on how you look at it.
Ok I missed this one. How many assaults before a pattern emerges? 8? 9? Is there never a pattern? There's a difference between a pattern based on previous evidence, and an assumption.
How many total previous incidents? Of those, how many total victims involved? Were multiple altercations with the same person? These are all relevant. Also, circumstances are relevant. For each.
As for "threw a woman down," yes that's generally bad. But even then mutual domestic violence does happen. So again, I'm not going to pretend to know the whole story based on whatever I've read in various stories on the guy.
No, I'm not. I'm making a point. Deciding what somebody's likely actions are based on what personal history the media is feeding you, which is imperfect at best, is a game that goes both ways.
You can't tell that your stretching to fit some agenda or world view you have? We know how many victims and how many altercations. On top of that, none were with the same person. That just makes your argument here even worse.
We are not talking about us. We are talking about why Martin would have attacked Zimmerman. I know this because this is the quote you were replying to:
Which means McD was talking about, you know, the actual system of law. Which means everything you stated there is irrelevant as to why that would have happened.
So four previous incidents, with four previous victims. Good. Now we just need circumstances.
Of course, who are we going to trust as a source for a complete view of the circumstances in all four incidents?
Or maybe we should not play amateur juror using the media as the prosecution (and introducing evidence that would never be admissible anyway).
I've been involved in at least four altercations over the years. One resulted in non-judicial punishment for assault. So now I wonder, if I were involved in a self-defense shooting, how the media would frame all of those incidents. Yes, I do have an agenda. My agenda is that I don't think it's legitimate to pretend you know all the relevant information, then throw around assumptions based on it, just so you can feel good in the judgment that you'd have settled on regardless of how little information you may have had. Shit isn't always what it seems.
Especially in cases as charged as this one.
Your making the assumption that Treyvon turned on Zimmerman. I'm not. It would be reckless if Treyvon turned on him out of anger. Your not even willing to entertain the idea that he was afraid for his life. It's kinda strange really.