Don't like the snow? You can make a bookmark with the following text instead of a url: javascript:snowStorm.toggleSnow(). Clicking it will toggle the snow on and off.
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

1101102104106107147

Posts

  • SammyFSammyF Registered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    Shado red wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Bhaalen wrote: »
    He wasn't expecting to get in a fist fight with the kid, he just wanted to know what was going on and what the kid was doing. Not that Martin had any expectation to answer crazy dude following him's question

    How do you know what Zimmerman was thinking? Not to mention, Zimmerman has a past history of assault. Please please please, put two and two together.

    How do you know?

    Zimmerman being racist is irrelevant. Being racist does not justify Martin allegedly bashing his skull in to street. The requirement is to show, specifically, that Zimmerman actually did something justifying Martin. Not pointing at Zimmerman's history and saying "C'mooooooon".

    Shady as fuck, as much as he is, is not proof of his guilt.

    doesn't the involvement of racism legally magnify the punishment to deter hate crimes above crimes with no broad social vice (other than killing a dude)

    For a hate crime it would have to be proven that the crime was motivated by race, or other protected class. Proving that Zimmerman is racist in an of itself wouldn't elevate the crime to a hate crime.

    Even if you could prove that Zimmerman initially followed Martin because Martin was black I don't think that this would elevate it to a hate crime. You would have to prove Zimmerman murdered Martin because he was black.

    how do you prove something like that

    Usually you have a --
    without a written or recorded explicit declaration

    -- oh, never mind.

  • DerrickDerrick Registered User regular
    There's no evidence that Martin started the fight.

    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.

    "The welfare of each of us is dependent fundamentally upon the welfare of all of us."
    Spoiler:
    -Theodore Roosevelt
  • SammyFSammyF Registered User regular
    edited May 2012
    Derrick wrote: »
    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.

    Florida's statute is written like that:
    776.012 Use of force in defense of person. — A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
    (1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
    (2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

    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.

    SammyF on
  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    Derrick wrote: »
    . You don't die from a scuffle with a 17 year old as a grown man in the prime of life.
    Last I checked it's entirely possible. Especially should one be bashing their skull in to the curb.

    PSN: allenquid
  • Xenogear_0001Xenogear_0001 Registered User regular
    See, I saw the wound on the back of Zimmerman's head and thought maybe he struck his head as he was knocked down. One would think he'd have had a lot more visible damage had someone been repeatedly bashing his noggin into concrete.

    steam_sig.png
  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    See, I saw the wound on the back of Zimmerman's head and thought maybe he struck his head as he was knocked down. One would think he'd have had a lot more visible damage had someone been repeatedly bashing his noggin into concrete.

    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.

    PSN: allenquid
  • BubbaTBubbaT Registered User regular
    lordlundar wrote: »
    BubbaT wrote: »
    The shooter claims his would-be attacker "air swung" his arms at the shooter's car, and was carrying a weapon (a 3-foot pipe/bat), which was then never found?

    Just to point this out, I'm willing to bet the "weapon" was a cane or walking stick.

    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.

  • BhaalenBhaalen Registered User
    Quid wrote: »
    Bhaalen wrote: »
    He wasn't expecting to get in a fist fight with the kid, he just wanted to know what was going on and what the kid was doing. Not that Martin had any expectation to answer crazy dude following him's question

    How do you know what Zimmerman was thinking? Not to mention, Zimmerman has a past history of assault. Please please please, put two and two together.

    How do you know?

    Zimmerman being racist is irrelevant. Being racist does not justify Martin allegedly bashing his skull in to street. The requirement is to show, specifically, that Zimmerman actually did something justifying Martin. Not pointing at Zimmerman's history and saying "C'mooooooon".

    Shady as fuck, as much as he is, is not proof of his guilt.

    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

    Be careful. Your productivity will drop if you click this link.
  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    We already established cmon isn't proof.

    And I already gave my opinion on the wounds.

    PSN: allenquid
  • BhaalenBhaalen Registered User
    edited May 2012
    Quid wrote: »
    We already established cmon isn't proof.

    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?

    Bhaalen on
    Be careful. Your productivity will drop if you click this link.
  • Shado redShado red Registered User
    See, I saw the wound on the back of Zimmerman's head and thought maybe he struck his head as he was knocked down. One would think he'd have had a lot more visible damage had someone been repeatedly bashing his noggin into concrete.

    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.
    Umm, after nearly a minute of being beaten, George was trying to get his head off the concrete, trying to move with Trayvon on him, into the grass.

    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.

  • emp123emp123 Registered User regular
    bowen wrote: »
    Because Zimmerman told us.

    A past history doesn't mean anything.
    Xaquin wrote: »
    bowen wrote: »
    Xaquin wrote: »
    bowen wrote: »
    Xaquin wrote: »
    bowen wrote: »
    He was just an innocent kid!

    wasn't he?

    what was he doing?

    Before being tailed? Nothing.

    Being followed and questioned doesn't give you authority to, allegedly, beat someone's head into the ground after sneaking back up on them, allegedly.

    ok, well take out the alleged stuff and you have

    And there is nothing illegal about following and questioning someone you think is suspicious, either. Which is where this all breaks down. At what point did Martin get on top of and start beating this man, allegedly?

    Is there anything wrong/illegal with feeling threatened by someone following you for no good reason?

    No but that in no way gives you the right to assault them. But, however, if in the process of assaulting them you give the person a belief they may be under server bodily harm, they can kill you. Going by what I see here, I wouldn't trust anyone knowing the nuances of the situations at large, and how they're separate and distinct, let alone a teenager.

    The problem comes down to, who attack who first. If it was Martin, which we have no proof for, Zimmerman was not guilty by reason of self defense. If it was Zimmerman, which we have no proof for, Zimmerman was guilty of murder in probably the 2nd degree. However negligent homicide or manslaughter can be applied to Zimmerman because he put himself into a really shitty situation and pretty much led to the death of Martin through those actions.

    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).

    camo_sig2.png
  • Xenogear_0001Xenogear_0001 Registered User regular
    Personally, I think it's far more likely Zimmerman started the kerfuffle and Martin was going to end it--except Zimmerman had a gun. From all I've seen, read, and heard about this, that's my take. Guess we'll see what evidence turns up during the trial.

    steam_sig.png
  • emp123emp123 Registered User regular
    edited May 2012
    BubbaT wrote: »
    If a there's a finding of fact that a "preponderance of the evidence" (ie, a 51% chance) that the suspect acted in self-defense, then what's the point of going to trial? The prosecution will just lose at trial anyways. If they can't meet the standard for 51%, then how in the world are they going to meet the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" needed to convict?

    It isn't even a new out or second bite of the apple. Florida judges are able to set aside a jury verdict in any criminal case - not just SYG-related ones - if they feel the evidence does not support the verdict. All the SYG pre-trial motion does is move the judge's decision to the beginning of the court process on SYG-related cases, rather than delaying it until after the jury has convicted (judges can't set aside acquittals, only convictions).


    BTW - that "gangbanger" case featured a guy who "suddenly remembered" he was in fear for his life because he was being shot at.

    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.

    BubbaT wrote: »
    California's SYG law is actually broader than Florida's, I think. It allows the "defender" to pursue, rather than simply not retreat. And it retains Florida's burden on the prosecution to disprove self-defense.
    A defendant is not required to retreat. He or she is entitled to stand his or her ground and defend himself or herself and, if reasonably necessary, to pursue an assailant until the danger of (death/bodily injury/ <insert crime>) has passed. This is so even if safety could have been achieved by retreating.

    The People have the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in lawful (self-defense/ [or] defense of another). If the People have not met this burden, you must find the defendant not guilty of <insert crime(s) charged>.
    http://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/calcrim/3400/3470.html
    mythago wrote: »
    California's law is NOT broader than Florida's. It doesn't provide civil immunity, and it doesn't allow the defendant - before any trial - to make a motion with a showing on "preponderance of the evidence" (that is, more likely than not), and get an easy shot at a self-defense claim before getting to make it all over again at trial. California doesn't allow pursuit, period; it allows pursuit IF reasonably necessary in order to defend oneself from the danger. (So, let's say I attack you with the obvious intent to kill, you fire at me, and I run around a corner to pick up a gun we both know is lying there. You have the right to pursue me to stop me from picking up that gun and killing you. You don't have the right to hunt me down if there's no further danger.) I don't see that Florida actually prohibits pursuit.

    I'd argue the Marissa Alexander case is an example of Florida prohibiting "pursuit". The judge in that case ruled that since she returned from the (locked) garage to the house, that she went from a safe area to a dangerous area, and therefore that was proof that she didn't feel threatened.

    CA's law and FL's law are each broader in different areas. Especially with how CA's law has been as much defined through case law as it has through legislative text. A 2005 CA court decision found that SYG was available even to people using illegally-owned guns - in that case, a convicted felon who shot a would-be attacker. Even though it's a felony for a convicted felon to even possess a gun under any other circumstance.

    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).

    emp123 on
    camo_sig2.png
  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    Bhaalen wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    We already established cmon isn't proof.

    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?

    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.

    PSN: allenquid
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    You don't die from a scuffle with a 17 year old as a grown man in the prime of life.

    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.

    Why is it only racism or assault? I wouldn't say either. What I would say is Zimmerman was CLEARLY wrong in approaching that kid. His irresponsibility lead to Treyvon's death. If they somehow determine that Treyvon turned on him, so what? If a guy chases a lion around and then gets bitten are you gonna blame the lion? Seriously.

    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).

  • BhaalenBhaalen Registered User
    mcdermott wrote: »
    You don't die from a scuffle with a 17 year old as a grown man in the prime of life.

    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.

    Why is it only racism or assault? I wouldn't say either. What I would say is Zimmerman was CLEARLY wrong in approaching that kid. His irresponsibility lead to Treyvon's death. If they somehow determine that Treyvon turned on him, so what? If a guy chases a lion around and then gets bitten are you gonna blame the lion? Seriously.

    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.

    Be careful. Your productivity will drop if you click this link.
  • BhaalenBhaalen Registered User
    Quid wrote: »
    Bhaalen wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    We already established cmon isn't proof.

    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?

    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.

    Anyone that thinks we should skip over due process aren't even worth talking about really.

    Be careful. Your productivity will drop if you click this link.
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Bhaalen wrote: »
    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.

    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.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Bhaalen wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Bhaalen wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    We already established cmon isn't proof.

    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?

    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.

    Anyone that thinks we should skip over due process aren't even worth talking about really.

    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.

  • BhaalenBhaalen Registered User
    edited May 2012
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Bhaalen wrote: »
    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.

    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.

    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.

    Bhaalen on
    Be careful. Your productivity will drop if you click this link.
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Physical assault at all is a pretty impulsive response to anything short of an overt threat of imminent physical assault against yourself.

    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.

  • DerrickDerrick Registered User regular
    I keep saying it because it's true. A fistfight doesn't turn deadly until people start adding weapons in, in almost ALL cases. A law that says you can shoot and kill someone for getting a bloody nose is a ridiculously stupid law. It, in effect, says that assault in even the mildest form is punishable by death without either judge or jury.

    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.

    "The welfare of each of us is dependent fundamentally upon the welfare of all of us."
    Spoiler:
    -Theodore Roosevelt
  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    Okay here's a problem. This:
    Bhaalen wrote: »
    I think the evidence shows he was probably just as afraid for his life.

    Has nothing to do with this:
    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.

    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.

    PSN: allenquid
  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    edited May 2012
    Derrick wrote: »
    I keep saying it because it's true. A fistfight doesn't turn deadly until people start adding weapons in, in almost ALL cases.

    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:

    Derrick wrote: »
    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.

    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.

    Quid on
    PSN: allenquid
  • DerrickDerrick Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    Derrick wrote: »
    I keep saying it because it's true. A fistfight doesn't turn deadly until people start adding weapons in, in almost ALL cases.

    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:

    Derrick wrote: »
    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.

    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?

    "The welfare of each of us is dependent fundamentally upon the welfare of all of us."
    Spoiler:
    -Theodore Roosevelt
  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    Derrick wrote: »
    Oh, okay. So if I trip a guy does gravity become my deadly weapon?

    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.
    Derrick wrote: »
    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?

    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.

    PSN: allenquid
  • BhaalenBhaalen Registered User
    Quid wrote: »
    Okay here's a problem. This:
    Bhaalen wrote: »
    I think the evidence shows he was probably just as afraid for his life.

    Has nothing to do with this:
    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.

    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.

    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.

    Be careful. Your productivity will drop if you click this link.
  • BhaalenBhaalen Registered User
    edited May 2012
    Physical assault at all is a pretty impulsive response to anything short of an overt threat of imminent physical assault against yourself.

    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.


    Bhaalen on
    Be careful. Your productivity will drop if you click this link.
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Bhaalen wrote: »
    Physical assault at all is a pretty impulsive response to anything short of an overt threat of imminent physical assault against yourself.

    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).

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited May 2012
    Hell, for all we know Trayvon was casing houses for burglary. He was found with a bunch of jewelry that didn't seem to be his and supposedly "a friend gave him," right? I mean, if this is the game we're playing.

    mcdermott on
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    And the kind of kid involved in neighborhood burglaries, and maybe dealing some drugs, is also the kind of kid to be dumb enough to assault somebody as well. Assumptions are fun. So which of us is right?
    Spoiler:

  • BhaalenBhaalen Registered User
    mcdermott wrote: »
    And the kind of kid involved in neighborhood burglaries, and maybe dealing some drugs, is also the kind of kid to be dumb enough to assault somebody as well. Assumptions are fun. So which of us is right?
    Spoiler:

    Ok I'm done talking to you now. Your obviously trolling me.

    Be careful. Your productivity will drop if you click this link.
  • YarYar Registered User regular
    valiance wrote: »
    Yar wrote: »
    Well, McNeil "got away with it" for more than a year, which so far is a lot better than Zimmerman did. But in the end that isn't a good example.

    No, not really. I suppose "got away with it" is an imprecise term, legally speaking, but I'm not a lawyer and I think we all know what it means. Anyone know? I have this suspicion that SYG is pretty racist, but really no grounds for it other than the Martin, McNeil and Alexander cases.

    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.

  • BhaalenBhaalen Registered User
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Bhaalen wrote: »
    Physical assault at all is a pretty impulsive response to anything short of an overt threat of imminent physical assault against yourself.

    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 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.

    Be careful. Your productivity will drop if you click this link.
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Bhaalen wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Bhaalen wrote: »
    Physical assault at all is a pretty impulsive response to anything short of an overt threat of imminent physical assault against yourself.

    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 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.

    Ok I'm done talking to you now. Your obviously trolling me.

    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.

  • BhaalenBhaalen Registered User
    How many total previous incidents? Of those, how many total victims involved? Were multiple altercations with the same person? These are all relevant.

    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.


    Be careful. Your productivity will drop if you click this link.
  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    Bhaalen wrote: »
    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.

    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:
    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).

    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.

    PSN: allenquid
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Bhaalen wrote: »
    How many total previous incidents? Of those, how many total victims involved? Were multiple altercations with the same person? These are all relevant.

    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.

    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.

  • BhaalenBhaalen Registered User
    Quid wrote: »
    Bhaalen wrote: »
    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.

    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:
    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).

    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.

    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.

    Be careful. Your productivity will drop if you click this link.
This discussion has been closed.