Head lacerations.



According to a fire department report, Zimmerman had "abrasions to his forehead," "bleeding/tenderness to his nose" and a "small laceration to the back of his head" when he was treated at the scene.

CNN article used as a source.

There were traces of weed in his system. How many people do you know have become aggressive after smoking?

Hazardous Harry wrote:There were traces of weed in his system. How many people do you know have become aggressive after smoking?

There were traces, yes, but the corner said it was not possible to check how long the THC had been in his system (It must have entered in the last 72 hours, though).

(Playing the Devil's advocate)

Chowderhead wrote:

Spoiler:

Head lacerations.

Spoiler:

According to a fire department report, Zimmerman had "abrasions to his forehead," "bleeding/tenderness to his nose" and a "small laceration to the back of his head" when he was treated at the scene.

CNN article used as a source.

Medical report also noted a broken nose.

Hazardous Harry wrote:There were traces of weed in his system. How many people do you know have become aggressive after smoking?

Not many.

But it can certainly heighten paranoia and I've known more violently inclined people who were not placated by it either.

Frazzled wrote:
Medical report also noted a broken nose.

It's only said a tender nose so far as I can see, unless you're looking at another source.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

But it can certainly heighten paranoia...

A stranger following you at night might not help either.

...and I've known more violently inclined people who were not placated by it either.

From what I can tell he doesn't seem to have a very violent history. The worst he's been arrested for is graffiti.

Frazzled wrote:

Chowderhead wrote:

Spoiler:

Head lacerations.

Spoiler:

According to a fire department report, Zimmerman had "abrasions to his forehead," "bleeding/tenderness to his nose" and a "small laceration to the back of his head" when he was treated at the scene.

CNN article used as a source.

Medical report also noted a broken nose.

I noticed that as well, however, CNN reported it with the tender nose. It could be that that was the statement given by Zimmerman, and upon further examination, the broken nose became apparent.

Hazardous Harry wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Medical report also noted a broken nose.

It's only said a tender nose so far as I can see, unless you're looking at another source.

Fair enough, another report.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18093420

Frazzled, I figured it out. The reason it says tenderness is because that line was taken from the Fireman's (First one on the scene) report of Zimmerman.

Between the bruises on the guy and the scrapped knuckles that the kid had, its more than enough evidence that Zimmerman was telling the truth when he said that he was defending himself, or at least enough evidence to raise that whole "reasonable doubt" malarkey that you Americans have going on.

Not guilty, case closed, bring on the next one...

PhantomViper wrote:Between the bruises on the guy and the scrapped knuckles that the kid had, its more than enough evidence that Zimmerman was telling the truth when he said that he was defending himself, or at least enough evidence to raise that whole "reasonable doubt" malarkey that you Americans have going on.

Not guilty, case closed, bring on the next one...

You know, there's due process, witnesses to talk to to, a trial, and all the other stuff to go through.

The jury could convict him. If it were me, I would. He was told not to bring a gun, broke protocol, and chased this kid. Trayvon had every human right to defend himself from a perceived threat.

The first thing I think most people think when they see those pictures is they hardly look life threatening. It doesn't actually take much to bash in someones head, and they must have cleaned up a lot of blood. Scalp wounds bleed profusely even superficial ones. Apparently not his...then again I don't know what paramedics call minor bleeding; non arterial?

"Bleeding tenderness to his nose, and a small laceration to the back of his head. All injuries have minor bleeding," paramedic Michael Brandy wrote about Zimmerman's injuries in the report.

In any event it supports Zimmerman's claim of self defense. In other news the FBI can not (or will not) identify the voice crying for help as either person. It seems more and more likely that Zimmerman will go free without regard to this going to trial.

There will be a trial to forestal a riot. Afterwards there will be a riot.

Chowderhead wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:Between the bruises on the guy and the scrapped knuckles that the kid had, its more than enough evidence that Zimmerman was telling the truth when he said that he was defending himself, or at least enough evidence to raise that whole "reasonable doubt" malarkey that you Americans have going on.

Not guilty, case closed, bring on the next one...

You know, there's due process, witnesses to talk to to, a trial, and all the other stuff to go through.

The jury could convict him. If it were me, I would. He was told not to bring a gun, broke protocol, and chased this kid. Trayvon had every human right to defend himself from a perceived threat.

Of course there is, you need to appease all those PC minded leftist whiners that you have in your country and spend a few million dollars in the process.

Also convicting the guy based on made up stuff is really simple, I hear:

- he was never told to not bring anything, the operator just told him that it wasn't necessary to chase the kid;
- there is no such thing as "protocol" regarding how two civilians interact with each other;
- Trayvon may have had every right to defend himself, but according to the actual law, and the fact that he actually had bruises Zimmerman also had the right to shoot and kill him...

But is nice to know you would convict someone without even taking notice of the law, just based on your prejudices...

Frazzled wrote:

Chowderhead wrote:

Spoiler:

Head lacerations.

Spoiler:

According to a fire department report, Zimmerman had "abrasions to his forehead," "bleeding/tenderness to his nose" and a "small laceration to the back of his head" when he was treated at the scene.

CNN article used as a source.

Medical report also noted a broken nose.

As reported by the family doctor, real non bias source there............



I still don't see why he hasn't been sent down when they know he chased down Trayvon Martin and initiated the incident, how can you claim self defence in those circumstances, oh America how I will never understand you.

PhantomViper wrote:Of course there is, you need to appease all those PC minded leftist whiners that you have in your country and spend a few million dollars in the process.

Also convicting the guy based on made up stuff is really simple, I hear:

- he was never told to not bring anything, the operator just told him that it wasn't necessary to chase the kid;
- there is no such thing as "protocol" regarding how two civilians interact with each other;
- Trayvon may have had every right to defend himself, but according to the actual law, and the fact that he actually had bruises Zimmerman also had the right to shoot and kill him...

But is nice to know you would convict someone without even taking notice of the law, just based on your prejudices...

People who want due process (whatever the outcome) when someone has been shot dead are now "PC minded leftist whiners"... fantastic.

Also, Stand-your-Ground does have certain limitations to it, even in Florida; the recent Marissa Alexander case is example enough. If Zimmerman was the first person to initiate, then stand your ground doesn't apply anymore. You don't get to pick a fight and then shoot the other person when they swing back. Seeing as we still don't have an entirely clear picture of how events unfolded between the two of them, it's impossible to say who started things; this of course does lean towards Zimmerman going free.

Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Medical report also noted a broken nose.

As reported by the family doctor, real non bias source there............

"Hey doc, I got in a fight, I need you to write that I have a broken nose"
"But your nose isn't broken...."
"Come on doc, you know my family. We've been through gak together..."
"Oh, well OK then. I'll risk my medical license for this easily discernable lie."

...does this really happen? Seriously?

biccat wrote:

Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Medical report also noted a broken nose.

As reported by the family doctor, real non bias source there............

"Hey doc, I got in a fight, I need you to write that I have a broken nose"
"But your nose isn't broken...."
"Come on doc, you know my family. We've been through gak together..."
"Oh, well OK then. I'll risk my medical license for this easily discernable lie."

...does this really happen? Seriously?

"Hey doc, I gave birth to my baby in Kenya, but I need to you to sign this birth certificate that says I gave birth here"
"But that kid is 3 years old!"
"Come on doc, you know us, that baby could be president some day!"
"Oh, well OK then. I'll risk my medical license for this easily discernable lie."

Since when do you have a problem with wild speculation

streamdragon wrote:
People who want due process (whatever the outcome) when someone has been shot dead are now "PC minded leftist whiners"... fantastic.

Also, Stand-your-Ground does have certain limitations to it, even in Florida; the recent Marissa Alexander case is example enough. If Zimmerman was the first person to initiate, then stand your ground doesn't apply anymore. You don't get to pick a fight and then shoot the other person when they swing back. Seeing as we still don't have an entirely clear picture of how events unfolded between the two of them, it's impossible to say who started things; this of course does lean towards Zimmerman going free.

You've just defeated your own argument.

If this wasn't about a white guy that shot a black guy, with these evidences the case would never reach the actual trial by jury phase.

But since this IS about a white guy that shot a black guy, you are going to have and expensive and highly publicized trial where Zimmerman is found not guilty.

MAYBE it will have the positive side effect of getting Stand-your-Ground looked at, because I agree with you that people shouldn't get to pick a fight and then shoot the other person and claim "Stand-your-Ground".

PhantomViper wrote:

Of course there is, you need to appease all those PC minded leftist whiners that you have in your country and spend a few million dollars in the process.

Man, the internets never ceases to surprise me
Someday I'm gonna make my students read this so they take their classes more seriously

PhantomViper wrote:

streamdragon wrote:
People who want due process (whatever the outcome) when someone has been shot dead are now "PC minded leftist whiners"... fantastic.

Also, Stand-your-Ground does have certain limitations to it, even in Florida; the recent Marissa Alexander case is example enough. If Zimmerman was the first person to initiate, then stand your ground doesn't apply anymore. You don't get to pick a fight and then shoot the other person when they swing back. Seeing as we still don't have an entirely clear picture of how events unfolded between the two of them, it's impossible to say who started things; this of course does lean towards Zimmerman going free.

You've just defeated your own argument.

If this wasn't about a white guy that shot a black guy, with these evidences the case would never reach the actual trial by jury phase.

But since this IS about a white guy that shot a black guy, you are going to have and expensive and highly publicized trial where Zimmerman is found not guilty.

MAYBE it will have the positive side effect of getting Stand-your-Ground looked at, because I agree with you that people shouldn't get to pick a fight and then shoot the other person and claim "Stand-your-Ground".

Of course it doesn't help that just this month the same state threw a black woman in prison for firing her gun to stop her husband from beating her, then claim protection under the same law that Zimmerman is claiming protection under, and still get thrown in jail.

Black woman fires a warning shot to save her life, doesn't kill anyone, go to jail.
Hispanic guy kills black guy, goes free.

Same law, two completely different outcomes.

That is why people want a trial.

No one has claimed these are photoshopped yet? For shame!

d-usa wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

streamdragon wrote:
People who want due process (whatever the outcome) when someone has been shot dead are now "PC minded leftist whiners"... fantastic.

Also, Stand-your-Ground does have certain limitations to it, even in Florida; the recent Marissa Alexander case is example enough. If Zimmerman was the first person to initiate, then stand your ground doesn't apply anymore. You don't get to pick a fight and then shoot the other person when they swing back. Seeing as we still don't have an entirely clear picture of how events unfolded between the two of them, it's impossible to say who started things; this of course does lean towards Zimmerman going free.

You've just defeated your own argument.

If this wasn't about a white guy that shot a black guy, with these evidences the case would never reach the actual trial by jury phase.

But since this IS about a white guy that shot a black guy, you are going to have and expensive and highly publicized trial where Zimmerman is found not guilty.

MAYBE it will have the positive side effect of getting Stand-your-Ground looked at, because I agree with you that people shouldn't get to pick a fight and then shoot the other person and claim "Stand-your-Ground".

Of course it doesn't help that just this month the same state threw a black woman in prison for firing her gun to stop her husband from beating her, then claim protection under the same law that Zimmerman is claiming protection under, and still get thrown in jail.

Black woman fires a warning shot to save her life, doesn't kill anyone, go to jail.
Hispanic guy kills black guy, goes free.

Same law, two completely different outcomes.

That is why people want a trial.

It's an example of why it's generally a bad idea to fire warning shots. You shouldn't draw your gun unless you're planning on using it immediately, and by use I don't mean firing a warning shot.

It's also an example of how mandatory minimum sentencing laws are ridiculous and horrible, just like any other form of zero tolerance policy.

Hordini wrote:

d-usa wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

streamdragon wrote:
People who want due process (whatever the outcome) when someone has been shot dead are now "PC minded leftist whiners"... fantastic.

Also, Stand-your-Ground does have certain limitations to it, even in Florida; the recent Marissa Alexander case is example enough. If Zimmerman was the first person to initiate, then stand your ground doesn't apply anymore. You don't get to pick a fight and then shoot the other person when they swing back. Seeing as we still don't have an entirely clear picture of how events unfolded between the two of them, it's impossible to say who started things; this of course does lean towards Zimmerman going free.

You've just defeated your own argument.

If this wasn't about a white guy that shot a black guy, with these evidences the case would never reach the actual trial by jury phase.

But since this IS about a white guy that shot a black guy, you are going to have and expensive and highly publicized trial where Zimmerman is found not guilty.

MAYBE it will have the positive side effect of getting Stand-your-Ground looked at, because I agree with you that people shouldn't get to pick a fight and then shoot the other person and claim "Stand-your-Ground".

Of course it doesn't help that just this month the same state threw a black woman in prison for firing her gun to stop her husband from beating her, then claim protection under the same law that Zimmerman is claiming protection under, and still get thrown in jail.

Black woman fires a warning shot to save her life, doesn't kill anyone, go to jail.
Hispanic guy kills black guy, goes free.

Same law, two completely different outcomes.

That is why people want a trial.

It's an example of why it's generally a bad idea to fire warning shots. You shouldn't draw your gun unless you're planning on using it immediately, and by use I don't mean firing a warning shot.

It's also an example of how mandatory minimum sentencing laws are ridiculous and horrible, just like any other form of zero tolerance policy.

Agree on both counts.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SilverMK2 wrote:No one has claimed these are photoshopped yet? For shame!

Why would he photoshop those? He probably just told the cops "look, I'm in trouble, but I know you are all racists so help me out. Just rough me up a little, then take a picture, and we will say the dead black kid did it!"

(Of course I am joking here)

Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:
I still don't see why he hasn't been sent down when they know he chased down Trayvon Martin and initiated the incident, how can you claim self defence in those circumstances, oh America how I will never understand you.

Maybe because "they" don't know any such thing, and that detectives already testified that had no evidence to contradict Zimmerman's story.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PhantomViper wrote:

streamdragon wrote:
People who want due process (whatever the outcome) when someone has been shot dead are now "PC minded leftist whiners"... fantastic.

Also, Stand-your-Ground does have certain limitations to it, even in Florida; the recent Marissa Alexander case is example enough. If Zimmerman was the first person to initiate, then stand your ground doesn't apply anymore. You don't get to pick a fight and then shoot the other person when they swing back. Seeing as we still don't have an entirely clear picture of how events unfolded between the two of them, it's impossible to say who started things; this of course does lean towards Zimmerman going free.

You've just defeated your own argument.

If this wasn't about a white guy that shot a black guy, with these evidences the case would never reach the actual trial by jury phase.

But since this IS about a white guy that shot a black guy, you are going to have and expensive and highly publicized trial where Zimmerman is found not guilty.

MAYBE it will have the positive side effect of getting Stand-your-Ground looked at, because I agree with you that people shouldn't get to pick a fight and then shoot the other person and claim "Stand-your-Ground".

Zimmerman's not white. However he has a white name and the MSM went after it like a wiener dog after a dropped sausage on that basis, even falsifying 911 tapes to support it. Zimmeran's name was Jorge Zera this wouldn't have even made it to the local news.

PhantomViper wrote:

streamdragon wrote:
People who want due process (whatever the outcome) when someone has been shot dead are now "PC minded leftist whiners"... fantastic.

Also, Stand-your-Ground does have certain limitations to it, even in Florida; the recent Marissa Alexander case is example enough. If Zimmerman was the first person to initiate, then stand your ground doesn't apply anymore. You don't get to pick a fight and then shoot the other person when they swing back. Seeing as we still don't have an entirely clear picture of how events unfolded between the two of them, it's impossible to say who started things; this of course does lean towards Zimmerman going free.

You've just defeated your own argument.

If this wasn't about a white guy that shot a black guy, with these evidences the case would never reach the actual trial by jury phase.

But since this IS about a white guy that shot a black guy, you are going to have and expensive and highly publicized trial where Zimmerman is found not guilty.

MAYBE it will have the positive side effect of getting Stand-your-Ground looked at, because I agree with you that people shouldn't get to pick a fight and then shoot the other person and claim "Stand-your-Ground".

How on earth did I defeat my own argument? I pointed out that even if Zimmerman feared for his life when Martin was attacking him (something I highly doubt, frankly), IF Zimmerman was the initiator (which evidence suggests he is) then Stand your Ground no longer applies, and Zimmerman's defense goes right out the window. He started a fight, he escalated said fight, and it ended with him shooting someone in the chest at nearly point blank range. The coroner's report [said that the gunshot that killed Martin was fired from 18" or less. You're also talking about a grown man against a teenager half his size.

And Zimmerman is hispanic, not "white" at least in the caucasian sense. This is a huge deal because an unarmed teenager was gunned down on his way home, by a neighborhood watch guy who was told by police not to engage. His watch group ALSO has rules against engaging. Obviously, there are nuances beyond that. But to paint this as only a 'black against white' issue is downright foolish.

I haven't posted much on the topic because im not much interested, but as I expected, its doubtless fake outrage from blatantly outrageous overt Racist- Spike Lee that is driving things. Surely the fact that he wasn't charged to begin with tells you something? Ive lived and worked in the States, its not the fething wild west. If you do something wrong, you get charged and tried! Surely the fact this didn't happen speaks volumes?!

I'm glad he shot the fether. If it was me I would have shot him and buried him in my back yard then pleased ignorance. Gun shots? I never heard nuthin officer.

Saved the tax payers some money, and stop them having to pay for all these farcical bs lynch mob law suits.

Frazzled wrote:

Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:
I still don't see why he hasn't been sent down when they know he chased down Trayvon Martin and initiated the incident, how can you claim self defence in those circumstances, oh America how I will never understand you.

Maybe because "they" don't know any such thing, and that detectives already testified that had no evidence to contradict Zimmerman's story.

They do have the calls that Martin made to his girlfriend where he mentions being followed by someone. Again, Zimmerman did this against both the police request that he stay in his car, and against the policy of his neighborhood watch group.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mattyrm wrote: I haven't posted much on the topic because im not much interested, but as I expected, its doubtless fake outrage from blatantly outrageous overt Racist- Spike Lee that is driving things. Surely the fact that he wasn't charged to begin with tells you something? Ive lived and worked in the States, its not the fething wild west. If you do something wrong, you get charged and tried! Surely the fact this didn't happen speaks volumes?!

I'm glad he shot the fether. If it was me I would have shot him and buried him in my back yard then pleased ignorance. Gun shots? I never heard nuthin officer.

Saved the tax payers some money, and stop them having to pay for all these farcical bs lynch mob law suits.

First off, you're disgusting if this is a serious post.

Secondly, the officer that arrived on the scene DID want to charge Zimmerman. It was the DA that refused to do it, not the officer on scene.

streamdragon wrote: It was the DA that refused to do it, not the officer on scene.

If the DA said the bloke didn't want charging, then that's good enough for me.

If the plumber says your toilet is ok, that's good enough for me, if the mechanic says my car is ok, that's good enough too. If the carpenter says my skirting board is alright, that's fine as well.

But... the top dog.. the fething DA said its fine, but no no, you want me to agree with.. what.. you a guy on the internet, and racist movie maker Spike Lee.

Cheers then, ill just be over here laughing.

mattyrm wrote:
I'm glad he shot the fether. If it was me I would have shot him and buried him in my back yard then pleased ignorance. Gun shots? I never heard nuthin officer.

Saved the tax payers some money, and stop them having to pay for all these farcical bs lynch mob law suits.

Was this post supposed to make sense?

Hazardous Harry wrote:

mattyrm wrote:
I'm glad he shot the fether. If it was me I would have shot him and buried him in my back yard then pleased ignorance. Gun shots? I never heard nuthin officer.

Saved the tax payers some money, and stop them having to pay for all these farcical bs lynch mob law suits.

Was this post supposed to make sense?

No not really, I was just taking the piss.

The point was, the people who know what they are talking about didn't see fit to charge the guy, so who gives a feth?

Zimmerman states that once the disptacher tells him to not follow he did in fact turnaround and started heading back to his truck, and thats when Martin appeared and came at him.

mattyrm wrote:

Hazardous Harry wrote:

mattyrm wrote:
I'm glad he shot the fether. If it was me I would have shot him and buried him in my back yard then pleased ignorance. Gun shots? I never heard nuthin officer.

Saved the tax payers some money, and stop them having to pay for all these farcical bs lynch mob law suits.

Was this post supposed to make sense?

No not really, I was just taking the piss.

The point was, the people who know what they are talking about didn't see fit to charge the guy, so who gives a feth?

But isn't that exactly the problem? If people are basing whether or not to charge someone based off "oh, the victim was just some black punk" then no wonder there's a riot brewing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Zimmerman states that once the disptacher tells him to not follow he did in fact turnaround and started heading back to his truck, and thats when Martin appeared and came at him.

Then Zimmerman is blatantly lying, even if he did turn around before Martin approached him he would still have had to have pursued after the call ended if the map of the incident is accurate at all.

mattyrm wrote:

Hazardous Harry wrote:

mattyrm wrote:
I'm glad he shot the fether. If it was me I would have shot him and buried him in my back yard then pleased ignorance. Gun shots? I never heard nuthin officer.

Saved the tax payers some money, and stop them having to pay for all these farcical bs lynch mob law suits.

Was this post supposed to make sense?

No not really, I was just taking the piss.

The point was, the people who know what they are talking about didn't see fit to charge the guy, so who gives a feth?

This proves that we really need a font for sarcasm on dakka

Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:

This proves that we really need a font for sarcasm on dakka

I suggest Comic Sans.

d-usa wrote:"Hey doc, I gave birth to my baby in Kenya, but I need to you to sign this birth certificate that says I gave birth here"
"But that kid is 3 years old!"
"Come on doc, you know us, that baby could be president some day!"
"Oh, well OK then. I'll risk my medical license for this easily discernable lie."

Since when do you have a problem with wild speculation

So now you're accusing me of being a "birther"? Obvious defects with your counter aside, you're wrong. I've never advocated that Obama was born in Kenya (unlike the Associated Press).

d-usa wrote:Of course it doesn't help that just this month the same state threw a black woman in prison for firing her gun to stop her husband from beating her, then claim protection under the same law that Zimmerman is claiming protection under, and still get thrown in jail.

She didn't fire at him to stop her husband from beating her, she fired it as a warning shot.

That's not stand your ground. That's manslaughter, at least.

d-usa wrote:Same law, two completely different outcomes.

Two completely different sets of facts, two completely different outcomes. Amazing.

Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:

mattyrm wrote:No not really, I was just taking the piss.

This proves that we really need a font for sarcasm on dakka

Let's reel in the shock comments, people. Some rhetoric is so explosive that the moderation staff doesn't care whether your comment is sincere or sarcastic -- it's just the difference between being rude/prejudiced on one hand or flaming on the other and both of those are against our rules. This discussion will not benefit from shock therapy so please keep the points and resulting argument from getting overblown.

Then Zimmerman is blatantly lying, even if he did turn around before Martin approached him he would still have had to have pursued after the call ended if the map of the incident is accurate at all.

Is the actual event occurred right outside his truck, guess what Sherlock, it supports (again) what he's saying.

Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:

mattyrm wrote:

Hazardous Harry wrote:

mattyrm wrote:
I'm glad he shot the fether. If it was me I would have shot him and buried him in my back yard then pleased ignorance. Gun shots? I never heard nuthin officer.

Saved the tax payers some money, and stop them having to pay for all these farcical bs lynch mob law suits.

Was this post supposed to make sense?

No not really, I was just taking the piss.

The point was, the people who know what they are talking about didn't see fit to charge the guy, so who gives a feth?

This proves that we really need a font for sarcasm on dakka

It's been suggested more than once in nuts and bolts. I suggested balloon animal font...sadly still no sarcasm font...let alone balloon animals.

Frazzled wrote:

Then Zimmerman is blatantly lying, even if he did turn around before Martin approached him he would still have had to have pursued after the call ended if the map of the incident is accurate at all.

Is the actual event occurred right outside his truck, guess what Sherlock, it supports (again) what he's saying.

Don't make comments like this, or your posting privileges will be suspended.
Reds8n

biccat wrote:
"Hey doc, I got in a fight, I need you to write that I have a broken nose"
"But your nose isn't broken...."
"Come on doc, you know my family. We've been through gak together..."
"Oh, well OK then. I'll risk my medical license for this easily discernable lie."

...does this really happen? Seriously?

No. Doctors would never falsely diagnose someone, they're all paragons of moral virtue, and completely immune to any and all client pressure.

Witness testifying Martin was on top of Zimmerman wailing on him. If accruate, unless Zimmerman started the actual fight then he's pretty much in the clear. Thats legally justified self defense boys and girls.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/trayvon-martin/martin-zimmerman-witness-758903

Frazzled wrote:

Zimmerman's not white. However he has a white name and the MSM went after it like a wiener dog after a dropped sausage on that basis, even falsifying 911 tapes to support it. Zimmeran's name was Jorge Zera this wouldn't have even made it to the local news.

For once, I agree with Frazz. This thing became a media circus because it was presented as more white v. black hate crime.
Honestly, if we're going to say Zimmerman is white, then we have to say Barack Obama is white as well.
How many people will claim that?

Frazzled wrote:Witness testifying Martin was on top of Zimmerman wailing on him. If accruate, unless Zimmerman started the actual fight then he's pretty much in the clear. Thats legally justified self defense boys and girls.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/trayvon-martin/martin-zimmerman-witness-758903

Unless he confronted Martin first, and the wailing was a result of Martin defending himself against Zimmerman.

And that is really the crux of this issue, and it will be a cluster trying to proof this in court.

Even if he is found innocent, I will still be happy that he at least faced a trial though.

mattyrm wrote:

Hazardous Harry wrote:

mattyrm wrote:
I'm glad he shot the fether. If it was me I would have shot him and buried him in my back yard then pleased ignorance. Gun shots? I never heard nuthin officer.

Saved the tax payers some money, and stop them having to pay for all these farcical bs lynch mob law suits.

Was this post supposed to make sense?

No not really, I was just taking the piss.

The point was, the people who know what they are talking about didn't see fit to charge the guy, so who gives a feth?

So, just because one police officer didn't charge Zimmerman, that means that no one is ever allowed to have opinions on it ever?

Just like if one politician says something, we all have to agree with him because we're not politicians.

yup.

streamdragon wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:
I still don't see why he hasn't been sent down when they know he chased down Trayvon Martin and initiated the incident, how can you claim self defence in those circumstances, oh America how I will never understand you.

Maybe because "they" don't know any such thing, and that detectives already testified that had no evidence to contradict Zimmerman's story.

They do have the calls that Martin made to his girlfriend where he mentions being followed by someone. Again, Zimmerman did this against both the police request that he stay in his car, and against the policy of his neighborhood watch group.

http://www.wagist.com/2012/dan-linehan/evidence-that-trayvon-martin-doubled-back

I've posted that link and pictures from the site before. Martin doubling back would be seem to indicate Zimmerman was NOT following him at the time of the confrontation. The fact that Martin sems to have made it to the house he was staying at and then heads back to where he saw Zimmerman seems to contradict or negate a lot of your 'evidence'.

CptJake wrote:

streamdragon wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:
I still don't see why he hasn't been sent down when they know he chased down Trayvon Martin and initiated the incident, how can you claim self defence in those circumstances, oh America how I will never understand you.

Maybe because "they" don't know any such thing, and that detectives already testified that had no evidence to contradict Zimmerman's story.

They do have the calls that Martin made to his girlfriend where he mentions being followed by someone. Again, Zimmerman did this against both the police request that he stay in his car, and against the policy of his neighborhood watch group.

http://www.wagist.com/2012/dan-linehan/evidence-that-trayvon-martin-doubled-back

I've posted that link and pictures from the site before. Martin doubling back would be seem to indicate Zimmerman was NOT following him at the time of the confrontation. The fact that Martin sems to have made it to the house he was staying at and then heads back to where he saw Zimmerman seems to contradict or negate a lot of your 'evidence'.

That evidence really doesn't hold any weight for me. That entire website is basically one big "He is not guilty" collection. So for that site to post an interpretation of the events that would make Martin the bad guy is not surprising. There is not even an attempt at being impartial there, I would think that they would at least add the information from the phone call between Martin and his GF that was going on at the same time. The evidence form that phone call seems to suggest that at one point Zimmerman was on top of Martin, so for all we know Zimmerman attacked Martin, Martin got the upper hand, then was shot in self defense by the guy starting the physical fight.

Your site seems to suggest that Martin ran all the way to his house, went inside, then came back outside to confront Zimmerman. The testimony from the GF who was on the phone with Martin suggest that he made it close to home, stopped to catch his breath since he was almost home already, and was confronted by Zimmerman there.

Not saying that there is any proof that your site is completely fabricated or anything like that. But the collection of articles posted on there makes me not take it that seriously. Nothing personal of course.

No problem, BUT if the timeline on that site is close to accurate, it throws out a lot of the other speculation here. And no one has yet to show a timeline and map that contradicts this one....

The real point is that the 'evidence' Zimmerman followed (or 'chased down' as one poster put it) Martin who then turned around and confronted his 'stalker' is at least as much in the speculation and theory catagory as the theory at the link I provided. There is NO evidence Zimmerman chased down anyone. If you take 'chased down' as an accurate account of what happened you just may lack understanding of what happened.


And I submit that so far, all the 'facts' released tend to support Zimmerman's story and this timeline. Those who completely disregard them haven't really presented anything factual.

What? No discussion that autopsy concluded martin was shot at "intermediate" range? Also, head wounds bleed easily, they always look worse than they are. Regardless of who threw the first punch, zimmerman is guilty, guilty of instigating a fight that led to the death of another human being. In Las vegas a man was convcted of murder because he got into a fight with another man, KO'ed him, the guy hit is head on the concrete sidewalk and died. As a neighborhood watch captain, zimmerman knew you're NEVER supposed to confront a suspicious person, EVER. PERIOD. Who threw the first punch is irrelevant.

CptJake wrote:No problem, BUT if the timeline on that site is close to accurate, it throws out a lot of the other speculation here. And no one has yet to show a timeline and map that contradicts this one....

The real point is that the 'evidence' Zimmerman followed Martin who then turned around and confronted his 'stalker' is at least as much in the speculation and theory catagory as the theory at the link I provided.

And I submit that so far, all the 'facts' released tend to support Zimmerman's story and this timeline. Those who completely disregard them haven't really presented anything factual.

True that, and even if Martin doubled back and attacked Zimmerman the legal question will most likely boil down to just a couple of questions:

1) Was this entire event which resulted in Martins death caused by Zimmerman's decision to follow Martin?
2) Was Zimmerman's intent to confront Martin and did he initiate the actual confrontation?
3) If the entire event can be traced back to Zimmerman's actions, can he then claim self defense for stopping a fight that he caused?

So basically "who caused/started the fight" and then "does self defense then apply".

I know at this point pretty much all of us are just making a judgement based on very few actually known "facts".

Exalted Pariah wrote:What? No discussion that autopsy concluded martin was shot at "intermediate" range?

Just out of curiosity, do you know what "intermediate range" means in this context?

d-usa wrote:So basically "who caused/started the fight" and then "does self defense then apply".

No, you've got it backwards.

1) Does self defense apply? (i.e. was Zimmerman in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm?)
2) Can Zimmerman claim self defense? (i.e. did Zimmerman start the fight?)

I don't think "who started the fight" will ever be resolved one way or the other. But there's not enough evidence to suggest that Zimmerman started the fight, so he shouldn't be convicted as long as the first question is met.

Exalted Pariah wrote:What? No discussion that autopsy concluded martin was shot at "intermediate" range? Also, head wounds bleed easily, they always look worse than they are. Regardless of who threw the first punch, zimmerman is guilty, guilty of instigating a fight that led to the death of another human being. In Las vegas a man was convcted of murder because he got into a fight with another man, KO'ed him, the guy hit is head on the concrete sidewalk and died. As a neighborhood watch captain, zimmerman knew you're NEVER supposed to confront a suspicious person, EVER. PERIOD. Who threw the first punch is irrelevant.

You do know that in autopsy speak 'intermediate range' is 1 to 18 inches, right?

And you do understand that who confronted who has NOT been determined yet, right?

And that if Martin did indeed double back to Zimmerman there is a decent chance Martin initiated the confrontation/started the fight, right?

CptJake wrote:

Exalted Pariah wrote:What? No discussion that autopsy concluded martin was shot at "intermediate" range? Also, head wounds bleed easily, they always look worse than they are. Regardless of who threw the first punch, zimmerman is guilty, guilty of instigating a fight that led to the death of another human being. In Las vegas a man was convcted of murder because he got into a fight with another man, KO'ed him, the guy hit is head on the concrete sidewalk and died. As a neighborhood watch captain, zimmerman knew you're NEVER supposed to confront a suspicious person, EVER. PERIOD. Who threw the first punch is irrelevant.

You do know that in autopsy speak 'intermediate range' is 1 to 18 inches, right?

And you do understand that who confronted who has NOT been determined yet, right?

And that if Martin did indeed double back to Zimmerman there is a decent chance Martin initiated the confrontation/started the fight, right?

Could Martin have claimed self defense for attacking Zimmerman if he thought he was a thread because he was following him? I know that also would depend on if he doubled back to confront him.

d-usa wrote:Could Martin have claimed self defense for attacking Zimmerman if he thought he was a threat because he was following him? I know that also would depend on if he doubled back to confront him.

It would depend, following wouldn't justify it. Zimmerman would have had to communicate a threat (in my admittedly limited understanding of the law.)

LoneLictor wrote:
So, just because one police officer didn't charge Zimmerman, that means that no one is ever allowed to have opinions on it ever?

Just like if one politician says something, we all have to agree with him because we're not politicians.

See, this is why I don't bother replying to you, its like you just invent things from every post I type. When the feth did I say "No one is ever allowed an opinion ever!"

I said, If the guy who is the expert (DA) didn't bother charging the guy, then I'm not interested in a story because I instantly write it off as media hysteria.. and then fething Spike Lee gets involved and I fully dont give a gak. America is a civilised nation goverenmed by the rule of law. If the DA says "feth it" then 99% of the time, its the right call. He is the expert, you and Spike Lee aren't.

Simple fact is, maybe the soldier in me is good at following orders, but that's the way I roll. I don't believe a total halfwit would get to be the DA in the first place, and secondly the DA knows the law, so instantly after 5 minutes reading the story, I think "feth it, non story" and move on.

Now, maybe, the DA fethed it up and it was a racist murder. But if your going to question absolutely everything you wont get anything done, you wont trust the doctor, you wont trust the dentist, and you will believe CIA affiliated Free mason Muslim ninja's blew up the twin towers.

I'm not interested in this story as a result of the evidence, I doubt the guy did anything wrong, and its more likely I am right and you are wrong. If it turns out I'm wrong, then feth me, ill be surprised and Ill come back and say "I was wrong, you were right, well done" but generally, how I get on in life, is by listening to an expert on the topic in hand, and if its not that interesting as a result of said experts advice, moving on.

Which Is why as I stated earlier I initially didn't post. Not that interested. If the DA says its good enough, then its good enough. If it comes out in the future that the DA is corrupt and incompetent, then Ill come back for a discussion.

Your allowed an opinion on whatever you like, I don't have to read it though.

CptJake wrote:

d-usa wrote:Could Martin have claimed self defense for attacking Zimmerman if he thought he was a threat because he was following him? I know that also would depend on if he doubled back to confront him.

It would depend, following wouldn't justify it. Zimmerman would have had to communicate a threat (in my admittedly limited understanding of the law.)

So potentially we could have had a Martin defended himself against Zimmerman, who then defended himself against Martin kind of situation?

I know this will be an interesting case to watch when it actually starts. I have no idea how it will turn out, and I don't really have a stake in this and not too much of an opinion although at this point I lean towards guilty. I am happy he got charged, so at this point I am happy to let the court system decide actual guilt.

No, while I saw foxnews had a "expert"(all experts on tv are "experts" btw) say it could mean 1-18 inches, I'll wait for the trial. Also, I was just wondering why there was no discussion on it, not trying to make a point.

Exalted Pariah wrote:No, while I saw foxnews had a "expert"(all experts on tv are "experts" btw) say it could mean 1-18 inches, I'll wait for the trial. Also, I was just wondering why there was no discussion on it, not trying to make a point.

Because 1-18" isn't that relevant. What is relevant was and remains "Who started what and when?"

Further: ...and which facts can and cannot be proven in a court of law should this go to trial.

Exalted Pariah wrote:No, while I saw foxnews had a "expert"(all experts on tv are "experts" btw) say it could mean 1-18 inches, I'll wait for the trial. Also, I was just wondering why there was no discussion on it, not trying to make a point.

Well your whole "Zimmerman is GUILTY!!" schtick is pretty uninformed. You seem to be injecting a lot of emotion vice looking at what little evidence has been presented and willfully ignoring the FACT that neither you nor I know WHO started the fight or WHO confronted who, making your guilty verdict premature at best.

Exalted Pariah wrote:What? No discussion that autopsy concluded martin was shot at "intermediate" range? Also, head wounds bleed easily, they always look worse than they are. Regardless of who threw the first punch, zimmerman is guilty, guilty of instigating a fight that led to the death of another human being. In Las vegas a man was convcted of murder because he got into a fight with another man, KO'ed him, the guy hit is head on the concrete sidewalk and died. As a neighborhood watch captain, zimmerman knew you're NEVER supposed to confront a suspicious person, EVER. PERIOD. Who threw the first punch is irrelevant.

You're not good with whole law thing are ya boy? Justifiable self defense can be used when in reasonable fear of death or grievous harm and when the defendant is not the aggressor instigating the actual illegal event. Your above statement has zilcho to do with that.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

d-usa wrote:

CptJake wrote:

Exalted Pariah wrote:What? No discussion that autopsy concluded martin was shot at "intermediate" range? Also, head wounds bleed easily, they always look worse than they are. Regardless of who threw the first punch, zimmerman is guilty, guilty of instigating a fight that led to the death of another human being. In Las vegas a man was convcted of murder because he got into a fight with another man, KO'ed him, the guy hit is head on the concrete sidewalk and died. As a neighborhood watch captain, zimmerman knew you're NEVER supposed to confront a suspicious person, EVER. PERIOD. Who threw the first punch is irrelevant.

You do know that in autopsy speak 'intermediate range' is 1 to 18 inches, right?

And you do understand that who confronted who has NOT been determined yet, right?

And that if Martin did indeed double back to Zimmerman there is a decent chance Martin initiated the confrontation/started the fight, right?

Could Martin have claimed self defense for attacking Zimmerman if he thought he was a thread because he was following him? I know that also would depend on if he doubled back to confront him.

No. He was not in imminent fear of death of grievous harm. Further, following is not even illegal.

No. He was not in imminent fear of death of grievous harm.

Well, he should have been. Hindsight is 20/20 though.

mattyrm wrote:

LoneLictor wrote:
So, just because one police officer didn't charge Zimmerman, that means that no one is ever allowed to have opinions on it ever?

Just like if one politician says something, we all have to agree with him because we're not politicians.

See, this is why I don't bother replying to you, its like you just invent things from every post I type. When the feth did I say "No one is ever allowed an opinion ever!"

I said, If the guy who is the expert (DA) didn't bother charging the guy, then I'm not interested in a story because I instantly write it off as media hysteria.. and then fething Spike Lee gets involved and I fully dont give a gak. America is a civilised nation goverenmed by the rule of law. If the DA says "feth it" then 99% of the time, its the right call. He is the expert, you and Spike Lee aren't.

Simple fact is, maybe the soldier in me is good at following orders, but that's the way I roll. I don't believe a total halfwit would get to be the DA in the first place, and secondly the DA knows the law, so instantly after 5 minutes reading the story, I think "feth it, non story" and move on.

Now, maybe, the DA fethed it up and it was a racist murder. But if your going to question absolutely everything you wont get anything done, you wont trust the doctor, you wont trust the dentist, and you will believe CIA affiliated Free mason Muslim ninja's blew up the twin towers.

I'm not interested in this story as a result of the evidence, I doubt the guy did anything wrong, and its more likely I am right and you are wrong. If it turns out I'm wrong, then feth me, ill be surprised and Ill come back and say "I was wrong, you were right, well done" but generally, how I get on in life, is by listening to an expert on the topic in hand, and if its not that interesting as a result of said experts advice, moving on.

Which Is why as I stated earlier I initially didn't post. Not that interested. If the DA says its good enough, then its good enough. If it comes out in the future that the DA is corrupt and incompetent, then Ill come back for a discussion.

Your allowed an opinion on whatever you like, I don't have to read it though.

Waaait, what? Please restate this in a way so that it makes a lick of sense. It looks like you just retyped your old post, except you tried to include as many words and vague, passive aggressive insults are possible. And you talked about yourself a lot too.

CptJake wrote:

Exalted Pariah wrote:No, while I saw foxnews had a "expert"(all experts on tv are "experts" btw) say it could mean 1-18 inches, I'll wait for the trial. Also, I was just wondering why there was no discussion on it, not trying to make a point.

Well your whole "Zimmerman is GUILTY!!" schtick is pretty uninformed. You seem to be injecting a lot of emotion vice looking at what little evidence has been presented and willfully ignoring the FACT that neither you nor I know WHO started the fight or WHO confronted who, making your guilty verdict premature at best.

But he is guilty, guilty of confronting a suspicious person. He should not have done that. And to those that say he was getting back in his truck when martin attacked him, how come the witnesses only saw them where martin was shot? In between the communitys' buildings, far away from the road and zimmermans truck? I don't know if its murder and I don't care. What I care about is that because zimmerman made the decision to follow martin AND confront him, martin is dead.

@LoneLictor

1. Police officers don't charge people for crimes. They arrest them for crimes or suspicion of crimes.

2. The police officers on the scene DID arrest Zimmerman

3. The District Attorneys office, probably an ADA, chose not to charge Zimmerman with a crime.

mattyrm wrote:CIA affiliated Free mason Muslim ninja's blew up the twin towers.

you signed a confidentiality agreement! The CIA paramilitary activities division Freemason deist ninjas are on their way to your flat.

Exalted Pariah wrote:

CptJake wrote:

Exalted Pariah wrote:No, while I saw foxnews had a "expert"(all experts on tv are "experts" btw) say it could mean 1-18 inches, I'll wait for the trial. Also, I was just wondering why there was no discussion on it, not trying to make a point.

Well your whole "Zimmerman is GUILTY!!" schtick is pretty uninformed. You seem to be injecting a lot of emotion vice looking at what little evidence has been presented and willfully ignoring the FACT that neither you nor I know WHO started the fight or WHO confronted who, making your guilty verdict premature at best.

But he is guilty, guilty of confronting a suspicious person. He should not have done that. And to those that say he was getting back in his truck when martin attacked him, how come the witnesses only saw them where martin was shot? In between the communitys' buildings, far away from the road and zimmermans truck? I don't know if its murder and I don't care. What I care about is that because zimmerman made the decision to follow martin AND confront him, martin is dead.

What evidence is ther Zimmerman confronted Martin? None of the witnesses we've heard about state that. The phone calls do not indicate it. You have NOTHING that indicates Zimmerman confronted Martin. It is pure speculation on your part until the prosecutor discloses some evidence. Until you can admit that to yourself you are gonna have issues communicating effectively on this topic.

Again, look at the timeline I posted. It seems to use known time/distances and indicates Zimmerman had stopped following Martin. If you doubt that link, show something credible that refutes it.

Even if he did 'confront' Martin, what law makes it illegal to confront a suspicious person? What exactly would he be 'guilty' of?

Not necessarily guilty, but provocation invalidates self defense until a reasonable fear for life exists and then self defense is back.

But again, right now, no one posting here has anything resembling proof that Zimmerman did confront Martin let alone initiate the physical altercation.

All that has to be established if the prosecution hopes to get a conviction.

I think we two have actually run around this horn together before, and you have convinced me that Zimmerman did not actively provoke Martin.

I still believe that Zimmerman approached the situation with malice aforethought. It's a personal conviction though not a legal one. Legally speaking I'm pretty sure Zimmerman is golden. The trial will only waste the time and money of the State of Florida and the breath of countless demagogues.

AustonT wrote:I think we two have actually run around this horn together before, and you have convinced me that Zimmerman did not actively provoke Martin.

I still believe that Zimmerman approached the situation with malice aforethought. It's a personal conviction though not a legal one. Legally speaking I'm pretty sure Zimmerman is golden. The trial will only waste the time and money of the State of Florida and the breath of countless demagogues.

Here I disagree with you. It probably is not a waste of money if it brings a resolution either way. No decision is going to please everyone, BUT a decision by a judge does force both sides to present their evidence and the public will end up better informed (if they allow themselves to be) and the official answer will be given. There is worth to that in my mind.

Clearly, it looks like Martin was standing his ground against a weird stalker who he feared was doing to do him imminent bodily harm. As it turned out, he was right; he should have shot Zimmerman instead.

Ouze wrote:Clearly, it looks like Martin was standing his ground against a weird stalker who he feared was doing to do him imminent bodily harm. As it turned out, he was right; he should have shot Zimmerman instead.

Are we really getting where we think this instead of "No one should have shot anyone."?

Bromsy wrote:

Ouze wrote:Clearly, it looks like Martin was standing his ground against a weird stalker who he feared was doing to do him imminent bodily harm. As it turned out, he was right; he should have shot Zimmerman instead.

Are we really getting where we think this instead of "No one should have shot anyone."?

how about the US starts cracking down on gun ownership,
gun-related crime and incidents like this will drop in rate,
just a suggestion.



and BTW you can hear Zimmerman saying F**king C**N on the call to the police so thats evidence of malice before the altercation

Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:

Bromsy wrote:

Ouze wrote:Clearly, it looks like Martin was standing his ground against a weird stalker who he feared was doing to do him imminent bodily harm. As it turned out, he was right; he should have shot Zimmerman instead.

Are we really getting where we think this instead of "No one should have shot anyone."?

how about the US starts cracking down on gun ownership,
gun-related crime and incidents like this will drop in rate,
just a suggestion.

That ship sailed a long time ago. Guns, with decent maintenance will last a long ass time - you can make guns illegal but you can't make them disappear.

Bromsy wrote:

Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:

Bromsy wrote:

Ouze wrote:Clearly, it looks like Martin was standing his ground against a weird stalker who he feared was doing to do him imminent bodily harm. As it turned out, he was right; he should have shot Zimmerman instead.

Are we really getting where we think this instead of "No one should have shot anyone."?

how about the US starts cracking down on gun ownership,
gun-related crime and incidents like this will drop in rate,
just a suggestion.

That ship sailed a long time ago. Guns, with decent maintenance will last a long ass time - you can make guns illegal but you can't make them disappear.

I know but's nice to dream

AustonT wrote:@LoneLictor

1. Police officers don't charge people for crimes. They arrest them for crimes or suspicion of crimes.

2. The police officers on the scene DID arrest Zimmerman

3. The District Attorneys office, probably an ADA, chose not to charge Zimmerman with a crime.

See Auston gets its. Why do I need to retype my post? Anybody with the ability to read properly can understand it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LoneLictor wrote:
Waaait, what? Please restate this in a way so that it makes a lick of sense. It looks like you just retyped your old post, except you tried to include as many words and vague, passive aggressive insults are possible. And you talked about yourself a lot too.

See above, as I said, your literally the only person on the board ive got no interest in speaking to. What I wrote made total sense, it can be summed up in ten words, and as a result I think your being willfully ignorant in order to provoke a reponse.

And its working curse you!

Here is the ten words by the way..

If the DA said no prosecution required, I trust him.

Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:

Bromsy wrote:

Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:

Bromsy wrote:

Ouze wrote:Clearly, it looks like Martin was standing his ground against a weird stalker who he feared was doing to do him imminent bodily harm. As it turned out, he was right; he should have shot Zimmerman instead.

Are we really getting where we think this instead of "No one should have shot anyone."?

how about the US starts cracking down on gun ownership,
gun-related crime and incidents like this will drop in rate,
just a suggestion.

That ship sailed a long time ago. Guns, with decent maintenance will last a long ass time - you can make guns illegal but you can't make them disappear.

I know but's nice to dream

Yeah, but why half ass it - dream that all the guns in the world turn into bacon. Then we can go back to muscle driven combat and really lord it over the women again, like god intended. Plus we'd have a delicious snack.

mattyrm wrote: I haven't posted much on the topic because im not much interested, but as I expected, its doubtless fake outrage from blatantly outrageous overt Racist- Spike Lee that is driving things. Surely the fact that he wasn't charged to begin with tells you something? Ive lived and worked in the States, its not the fething wild west. If you do something wrong, you get charged and tried! Surely the fact this didn't happen speaks volumes?!

I'm glad he shot the fether. If it was me I would have shot him and buried him in my back yard then pleased ignorance. Gun shots? I never heard nuthin officer.

Saved the tax payers some money, and stop them having to pay for all these farcical bs lynch mob law suits.

If you were my neighbor I'd do everything in my power to see you go to jail for life.

Ouze wrote:Clearly, it looks like Martin was standing his ground against a weird stalker who he feared was doing to do him imminent bodily harm. As it turned out, he was right; he should have shot Zimmerman instead.

He didn't have a gun, kind of a durr statement and yet totally relevant. Had Trayvon had a gun this would have never gotten to the news. Because a Juvenal delinquent (you can add black if you feel like it matters) shooting a man in the streets isn't news

Bromsy wrote:Are we really getting where we think this instead of "No one should have shot anyone."?

Absolutely. We can all hold hands and talk about peace until the cows come home. Violence, naked force,[or the credible threat thereof] has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst.R. Hienlein

Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:
and BTW you can hear Zimmerman saying F**king C**N on the call to the police so thats evidence of malice before the altercation

1. no you can't
2. prove it
3. Don't circumvent the language filter, we all know what fething means

Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:

I know but's nice to dream

Dream in your own country. We have guns, that's why your country doesn't GET to dream here; just in case you had forgotten.

mattyrm wrote:

Hazardous Harry wrote:

mattyrm wrote:
I'm glad he shot the fether. If it was me I would have shot him and buried him in my back yard then pleased ignorance. Gun shots? I never heard nuthin officer.

Saved the tax payers some money, and stop them having to pay for all these farcical bs lynch mob law suits.

Was this post supposed to make sense?

No not really, I was just taking the piss.

The point was, the people who know what they are talking about didn't see fit to charge the guy, so who gives a feth?

Because they didn't know what they were talking about. The police officer let a man who had killed someone else go after a short series of questions about an event that had no witnesses except the killer in question. How the feth is that ok? What kind of police officer walks up to a the scene of a killing, looks at the killer and hears "it was self defense" and just whimsically rides his car home feeling good about himself? Stand your ground is about establishing innocence, not blanketly avoiding investigation because you don't feel like it was needed. Someone fething died. A kid. There is a process involved when someones life involved that has to go beyond the short decisions of a DA in an office.

ShumaGorath wrote:

mattyrm wrote: I haven't posted much on the topic because im not much interested, but as I expected, its doubtless fake outrage from blatantly outrageous overt Racist- Spike Lee that is driving things. Surely the fact that he wasn't charged to begin with tells you something? Ive lived and worked in the States, its not the fething wild west. If you do something wrong, you get charged and tried! Surely the fact this didn't happen speaks volumes?!

I'm glad he shot the fether. If it was me I would have shot him and buried him in my back yard then pleased ignorance. Gun shots? I never heard nuthin officer.

Saved the tax payers some money, and stop them having to pay for all these farcical bs lynch mob law suits.

If you were my neighbor I'd do everything in my power to see you go to jail for life.

So your moral judgement on him hinges on proximity? I'd have grabbed a shovel. Neighbors ought to help neighbors.

'Love thy neighbour'
Seems like the bible approves Bromsy...

Bromsy wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

mattyrm wrote: I haven't posted much on the topic because im not much interested, but as I expected, its doubtless fake outrage from blatantly outrageous overt Racist- Spike Lee that is driving things. Surely the fact that he wasn't charged to begin with tells you something? Ive lived and worked in the States, its not the fething wild west. If you do something wrong, you get charged and tried! Surely the fact this didn't happen speaks volumes?!

I'm glad he shot the fether. If it was me I would have shot him and buried him in my back yard then pleased ignorance. Gun shots? I never heard nuthin officer.

Saved the tax payers some money, and stop them having to pay for all these farcical bs lynch mob law suits.

If you were my neighbor I'd do everything in my power to see you go to jail for life.

So your moral judgement on him hinges on proximity? I'd have grabbed a shovel. Neighbors ought to help neighbors.

How can I respond to this without getting banned?

ShumaGorath wrote:

Bromsy wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

mattyrm wrote: I haven't posted much on the topic because im not much interested, but as I expected, its doubtless fake outrage from blatantly outrageous overt Racist- Spike Lee that is driving things. Surely the fact that he wasn't charged to begin with tells you something? Ive lived and worked in the States, its not the fething wild west. If you do something wrong, you get charged and tried! Surely the fact this didn't happen speaks volumes?!

I'm glad he shot the fether. If it was me I would have shot him and buried him in my back yard then pleased ignorance. Gun shots? I never heard nuthin officer.

Saved the tax payers some money, and stop them having to pay for all these farcical bs lynch mob law suits.

If you were my neighbor I'd do everything in my power to see you go to jail for life.

So your moral judgement on him hinges on proximity? I'd have grabbed a shovel. Neighbors ought to help neighbors.

How can I respond to this without getting banned?

"That's horrendous and immoral, I disagree. I'm no Kato Kaelin."


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just for reference I wouldn't say that, it's Florida. You dispose of bodies in the Everglades.

purplefood wrote:'Love thy neighbour'
Seems like the bible approves Bromsy...

That's me, on the side of the saints.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AustonT wrote:
"That's horrendous and immoral, I disagree. I'm no Kato Kaelin."


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just for reference I wouldn't say that, it's Florida. You dispose of bodies in the Everglades.

I did forget about the stupidly high water table. You win this round.

AustonT wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Bromsy wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

mattyrm wrote: I haven't posted much on the topic because im not much interested, but as I expected, its doubtless fake outrage from blatantly outrageous overt Racist- Spike Lee that is driving things. Surely the fact that he wasn't charged to begin with tells you something? Ive lived and worked in the States, its not the fething wild west. If you do something wrong, you get charged and tried! Surely the fact this didn't happen speaks volumes?!

I'm glad he shot the fether. If it was me I would have shot him and buried him in my back yard then pleased ignorance. Gun shots? I never heard nuthin officer.

Saved the tax payers some money, and stop them having to pay for all these farcical bs lynch mob law suits.

If you were my neighbor I'd do everything in my power to see you go to jail for life.

So your moral judgement on him hinges on proximity? I'd have grabbed a shovel. Neighbors ought to help neighbors.

How can I respond to this without getting banned?

"That's horrendous and immoral, I disagree. I'm no Kato Kaelin."


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just for reference I wouldn't say that, it's Florida. You dispose of bodies in the Everglades.

That does not adequately convey the disgust I feel for you all.

Tell us what you really feel Shuma...

ShumaGorath wrote:Because they didn't know what they were talking about. The police officer let a man who had killed someone else go after a short series of questions about an event that had no witnesses except the killer in question. How the feth is that ok? What kind of police officer walks up to a the scene of a killing, looks at the killer and hears "it was self defense" and just whimsically rides his car home feeling good about himself? Stand your ground is about establishing innocence, not blanketly avoiding investigation because you don't feel like it was needed. Someone fething died. A kid. There is a process involved when someones life involved that has to go beyond the short decisions of a DA in an office.

Talk about not knowing what you are talking about. Zimmerman was taken to the police station in cuffs.

What process do you feel was not followed now that you hopefully understand Zimmerman was not just left at the scene by the cops.

Bromsy wrote:

I did forget about the stupidly high water table. You win this round.

and the Alligators and wild hogs. The latter of which will happily munch on human flesh...I don't actually know if gators do or if that's a myth.

ShumaGorath wrote:

That does not adequately convey the disgust I feel for you all.

/shrug
Can't win em all I suppose.

CptJake wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:Because they didn't know what they were talking about. The police officer let a man who had killed someone else go after a short series of questions about an event that had no witnesses except the killer in question. How the feth is that ok? What kind of police officer walks up to a the scene of a killing, looks at the killer and hears "it was self defense" and just whimsically rides his car home feeling good about himself? Stand your ground is about establishing innocence, not blanketly avoiding investigation because you don't feel like it was needed. Someone fething died. A kid. There is a process involved when someones life involved that has to go beyond the short decisions of a DA in an office.

Talk about not knowing what you are talking about. Zimmerman was taken to the police station in cuffs.

What process do you feel was not followed now that you hopefully understand Zimmerman was not just left at the scene by the cops.

Read the end of my post, I acknowledge. He was then set free with minimal investigation. That's the process that I feel was missing, the process that actually establishes any of his claims as truth. You don't take someone that has killed someone else while alone with them and believe their story and pat them on the back as they leave the station. [b]You do some god damn police work and then put it in front of a court of law to determine their innocence.[/i]


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AustonT wrote:

Bromsy wrote:

I did forget about the stupidly high water table. You win this round.

and the Alligators and wild hogs. The latter of which will happily munch on human flesh...I don't actually know if gators do or if that's a myth.

ShumaGorath wrote:

That does not adequately convey the disgust I feel for you all.

/shrug
Can't win em all I suppose.

The cowardice of the people on this forum is shocking sometimes. That not only are so many people ok with letting justice be abandoned, that they're somehow appalled that there is even an attempt at a trial is appalling. There is no moral high ground in this country anymore. You know what I'd do if a kid half my size was suspicious? I wouldn't confront him with a gun. You know what I would do if he attacked me without a weapon? I wouldn't murder him point blank with my little push button problem solver. Zimmermans actions were those of a coward. If he's innocent then he's innocent, the court will decide. But he's a coward and so are his supporters.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I mean, look at this. You're discussing how you would bury a teenagers body after aiding in his murder. How is no mod doing anything about this? Why am I the one that keeps getting banned for this stuff

ShumaGorath wrote:How is no mod doing anything about this? Why am I the one that keeps getting banned for this stuff

You can go ahead and stop trying to make this about you. I think you'll find an in-thread warning specifically about the language you're referencing. As you very well know, all non-public moderation is confidential.

Manchu wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:How is no mod doing anything about this? Why am I the one that keeps getting banned for this stuff

You can go ahead and stop trying to make this about you. I think you'll find an in-thread warning specifically about the language you're referencing. As you very well know, all non-public moderation is confidential.

Confidential, except when you make an edit to the thread which implies action was taken. I still see people talking about feeding a kids body to alligators.

Unless that metaphorical kid is posting on the site, that doesn't break any of the rules, right?

@ShumaGorath:

Personally, I prefer to forestall exactly the kind of moral outrage you are venting right now by editing posts. When the comment has been talked about and passed over and the discussion continues, there is neither a need nor is it appropriate to subtract that part of the discussion. The hope is that someone like you will come along, looking for a fight, and see something like that and then continue to read and realize the fight is over and your side has already won. So there's no need to mount the soapbox yourself. If you wish to continue this discussion, please PM me.

Shuma, I was taking the slash because reading this thread it seems people think if you disagree with ass-raping the guy who it was deemed by the authorities wasn't worth prosecuting, your some sort of weirdo who thinks murder is A-OK.

As I said, if the authorities do feth all, then I don't believe there is an issue 99.9% of the time, America isn't a lawless country.

I full on don't believe that anything happened, because the guy didnt get prosecuted! How hard is that to grasp? It seems to be a circus, and it doesn't sound to me like it warrants a court case.

As I said, I dont think you get to be DA if your a dumb feth.

Why should I take notice of blokes on the internet, and not the DA and the local authorities? Why aren't you out "investigating" every crime the authorities don't decide to prosecute? This kind of thing happens tens of thousands of times a year, but your acting all butt hurt because Spike Lee and the mainstream media got involved?

Do me a favour!

You cant see my point here?! Your acting irrationally because you read all the bs in the media and decided its an enormous travesty of justice! How do you know what really happened? And your sure it was a cold blooded murder of a lovely young kid despite the fact that the actual legal professionals didn't decide to charge the guy initially?!

Hogwash I say. Maybe the DA got it wrong (very slim chance) but it still doesn't warrant all of the gak that this thread and the media have ran up.

As I said, I hope the bloke gets off scot free, proves me right again.

ShumaGorath wrote:
The cowardice of the people on this forum is shocking sometimes. That not only are so many people ok with letting justice be abandoned, that they're somehow appalled that there is even an attempt at a trial is appalling. There is no moral high ground in this country anymore. You know what I'd do if a kid half my size was suspicious? I wouldn't confront him with a gun. You know what I would do if he attacked me without a weapon? I wouldn't murder him point blank with my little push button problem solver. Zimmermans actions were those of a coward. If he's innocent then he's innocent, the court will decide. But he's a coward and so are his supporters.

I mean, look at this. You're discussing how you would bury a teenagers body after aiding in his murder. How is no mod doing anything about this? Why am I the one that keeps getting banned for this stuff

I have bolded some of your text; I'll answer you by make biggering the text that applies below.

CptJake wrote:

AustonT wrote:I think we two have actually run around this horn together before, and you have convinced me that Zimmerman did not actively provoke Martin.

I still believe that Zimmerman approached the situation with malice aforethought. It's a personal conviction though not a legal one. Legally speaking I'm pretty sure Zimmerman is golden. The trial will only waste the time and money of the State of Florida and the breath of countless demagogues.

Here I disagree with you. It probably is not a waste of money if it brings a resolution either way. No decision is going to please everyone, BUT a decision by a judge does force both sides to present their evidence and the public will end up better informed (if they allow themselves to be) and the official answer will be given. There is worth to that in my mind.

The case doesn't have the evidence to support prosecution and I have little doubt it will lead to unanimous acquittal, if not dismissal. At this point with the State AG acting as a Special Prosecutor the case isn't about the law anymore it's pure politics. Bypassing a grand jury for a second degree murder charge just highlights how weak the case really is. With the situation charged the way it is I doubt anyone who hasn't already become better informed, will come away with anything more than a heated opinion. Just another wedge to drive us apart.

ShumaGorath wrote: Zimmermans actions were those of a coward.

This got written as I was posting..

Leading on from what I wrote about your "certainty" and me merely siding with the guys who we trust to do this gak for a living, first of all, how does that make a coward?

And most importantly, where does your certainty come from? There is no ambiguity in your statement. How is it that you are so utterly utterly certain? Did you see some camera footage or something? If so, direct me to it. Ill happily admit if Im wrong, but..well.. it seems a bit silly to display that kinda certainty surely?

mattyrm wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote: Zimmermans actions were those of a coward.

This got written as I was posting..

Leading on from what I wrote about your "certainty" and me merely siding with the guys who we trust to do this gak for a living, first of all, how does that make a coward?

And most importantly, where does your certainty come from? There is no ambiguity in your statement. How is it that you are so utterly utterly certain? Did you see some camera footage or something? If so, direct me to it. Ill happily admit if Im wrong, but..well.. it seems a bit silly to display that kinda certainty surely?

Certainty of what? That the act of killing a youth with a lethal weapon when said youth himself was unarmed is cowardly? I have certainty of that because insofar as I can deem things to be acts of cowardice that one certainly applies. About his guilt? I'm not certain either way. I said in my post that whether he is prosecuted or not is an issue of law. Laws don't have opinions. They aren't intelligent arbiters, they're just rules. Rules can be missaplied, but this is a nation of laws and any judgement set down by the courts is something I'll have to deal with.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The case doesn't have the evidence to support prosecution and I have little doubt it will lead to unanimous acquittal, if not dismissal. At this point with the State AG acting as a Special Prosecutor the case isn't about the law anymore it's pure politics. Bypassing a grand jury for a second degree murder charge just highlights how weak the case really is. With the situation charged the way it is I doubt anyone who hasn't already become better informed, will come away with anything more than a heated opinion. Just another wedge to drive us apart.

Better a wedge cast in a court of law than a wedge hit home in a DAs office without public oversight. The courts exist to determine truth, there is reasonable public outcry in an event that is anything but cut and dry. This never should of been ignored in the first place. Were his wounds deemed impossible to self inflict? By the very nature of the situation "Stand your ground" doesn't apply, so there never should of been a lack of trial to begin with. This is justice, whether for Zimmerman or Martin. It shouldn't of had to come to this, but it did. Here we are.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mattyrm wrote:
As I said, I dont think you get to be DA if your a dumb feth.

Why should I take notice of blokes on the internet, and not the DA and the local authorities? Why aren't you out "investigating" every crime the authorities don't decide to prosecute? This kind of thing happens tens of thousands of times a year, but your acting all butt hurt because Spike Lee and the mainstream media got involved?

Do me a favour!

I'm acting "butt hurt" because people are showing their true colors and having fun at the death of a kid. It speaks volumes that you think I'm the one out of line. I'm not going to blankly believe the DA because the facts of the case don't line up. They mishandled it from the beginning and are now being coerced into action by public opinion. I have respect for the law system in this country, but I'm not going to blankly believe that the practitioners of it are somehow flawless. People make mistakes. This was an apparent one. Deal with it.

ShumaGorath wrote:
Certainty of what? That the act of killing a youth with a lethal weapon when said youth himself was unarmed is cowardly? I have certainty of that because insofar as I can deem things to be acts of cowardice that one certainly applies. About his guilt? I'm not certain either way. I said in my post that whether he is prosecuted or not is an issue of law. Laws don't have opinions. They aren't intelligent arbiters, they're just rules. Rules can be missaplied, but this is a nation of laws and any judgement set down by the courts is something I'll have to deal with.

Yes exactly, and that's why we have people to make the big decisions. As I said, I can understand where your coming from, if you have catalogued the events in your head and the bloke shot an unarmed kid for no reason at all, then nobody would say the guy wouldn't deserve to go to prison, the point I am trying to get across is that we cant be everywhere at once, so we trust the professionals to get gak done, and thus the world keeps turning.

So, obviously laws don't have opinions, but legal professionals do, and they get trusted to do their jobs and exercise their professional opinions.

That being the crux of my argument, if none of us where there, and none of us witnessed the event, but the local authorities deemed there no need to prosecute, then why should we not listen to the guys who are paid to make those calls for a living?

The simple fact is, gak happens every day. Thousands of crimes and non-crimes cause incidents each and every day, and people do and don't get prosecuted depending on the opinions of the people who are paid to uphold the law, ergo, is it not pointless to instantly presume foul play when it is far more likely that there wasn't any, and the DA didn't prosecute him because the guy didn't need prosecuting?

Alls it boils down to is, I'm a sceptic. And if the guy didn't get prosecuted in the first place, then I think its highly unlikely he should be prosecuted at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShumaGorath wrote:[
I'm acting "butt hurt" because people are showing their true colors and having fun at the death of a kid. It speaks volumes that you think I'm the one out of line. I'm not going to blankly believe the DA because the facts of the case don't line up. They mishandled it from the beginning and are now being coerced into action by public opinion. I have respect for the law system in this country, but I'm not going to blankly believe that the practitioners of it are somehow flawless. People make mistakes. This was an apparent one. Deal with it.

I don't think your out of line... Your entitled to your opinion, and you aren't doing anything malevolent, so its hardly out of line.

I think your being a bit childish and naive, but not out of line.

ShumaGorath wrote:\
Better a wedge cast in a court of law than a wedge hit home in a DAs office without public oversight.

That particular ship has already sailed so your point is kind of moot. DAs routinely decide to or not to prosecute cases imagine what would happen if EVERY person arrested was tried for their alleged offenses, that is the entire reason the DA choses which cases go to trial and which do not.

That being the crux of my argument, if none of us where there, and none of us witnessed the event, but the local authorities deemed there no need to prosecute, then why should we not listen to the guys who are paid to make those calls for a living?

Because sometimes they feth it up, when they do it's our job. The job of the public, to reign back in their failure.

The simple fact is, gak happens every day. Thousands of crimes and non-crimes cause incidents each and every day, and people do and don't get prosecuted depending on the opinions of the people who are paid to uphold the law, ergo, is it not pointless to instantly presume foul play when it is far more likely that there wasn't any, and the DA didn't prosecute him because the guy didn't need prosecuting?

No, it's not. This wouldn't be so big if there wasn't something special about it. Black on white crime isn't uncommon, but the defense of "stand your ground" to excuse the killing of an unarmed teen is bs and you better expect people to demand that extra precautions be taken to ensure that everything was on the level. Pretending that we should just move on with out lives is defeatist and lazy.

Alls it boils down to is, I'm a sceptic. And if the guy didn't get prosecuted in the first place, then I think its highly unlikely he should be prosecuted at all.

How a skeptic can be the one that is certain of a lack of wrongdoing or failure is beyond me.

I foresee Zimmerman experiencing a Reginald Denny moment at some future date...

AustonT wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:\
Better a wedge cast in a court of law than a wedge hit home in a DAs office without public oversight.

That particular ship has already sailed so your point is kind of moot. DAs routinely decide to or not to prosecute cases imagine what would happen if EVERY person arrested was tried for their alleged offenses, that is the entire reason the DA choses which cases go to trial and which do not.

This case isn't routine. The idea of a DA deciding that a case involving a killing doesn't need to go to trial isn't even routine. People killing people isn't routine. Adults killing unarmed teens is extra not routine. Adults killing unarmed teens after being in contact with the police and being instructed not to confront the teen and then getting off because of a law that requires that the killer not be the initiator of confrontation is really really not routine.

Punk got shot. Punk deserved it. I don't see whats so difficult here.

It was proper justice right there.

I don't think your out of line... Your entitled to your opinion, and you aren't doing anything malevolent, so its hardly out of line.

I think your being a bit childish and naive, but not out of line.

This world is what we make it. If you can't insist that it be a good and just world and take all the effort that such an endevour involves than you shouldn't comment on the justness of it.

Mr Hyena wrote:Punk got shot. Punk deserved it. I don't see whats so difficult here.

It was proper justice right there.

And here I was thinking no one was going to say something stupid like this.

So, Mr Hyena, why did Martin deserve to be shot?

ShumaGorath wrote:
Because sometimes they feth it up, when they do it's our job. The job of the public, to reign back in their failure.

And thus, we arrive at my point.

If this was like.. Rodney King-esque footage or something, then yeah, I'm all up for action at that point. But if your going to jump onto gak this early, there's probably about another ten thousand cases you should be getting outraged about.

Oh yeah but we didn't have a circus, and Spike Lee never got involved for those.

I am clearly not defending first degree murder, I'm just saying its ridiculous getting excited about this gak at the moment, and when the guy gets off scot-free, ill be proven right, and you will have gotten outraged for nothing.

If Im wrong of course ill hold my hands out, but I've got the DA and you've got a movie director.. whos judgement do you trust on legal matters?

Hazardous Harry wrote:

Mr Hyena wrote:Punk got shot. Punk deserved it. I don't see whats so difficult here.

It was proper justice right there.

And here I was thinking no one was going to say something stupid like this.

So, Mr Hyena, why did Martin deserve to be shot?

Look at Zimmerman's head.

Even if you do believe in retributive justice, how does ending a life justly repay a non-maiming wound?

Mr Hyena wrote:

Hazardous Harry wrote:

Mr Hyena wrote:Punk got shot. Punk deserved it. I don't see whats so difficult here.

It was proper justice right there.

And here I was thinking no one was going to say something stupid like this.

So, Mr Hyena, why did Martin deserve to be shot?

Look at Zimmerman's head.

Yes, when people get into physical conflicts they get injured.

Your point?

Two people know the facts and one of them murdered the other one. How convienant...

Mr Hyena wrote:

Hazardous Harry wrote:

Mr Hyena wrote:Punk got shot. Punk deserved it. I don't see whats so difficult here.

It was proper justice right there.

And here I was thinking no one was going to say something stupid like this.

So, Mr Hyena, why did Martin deserve to be shot?

Look at Zimmerman's head.

Looks like he got into a fist fight with someone. What evidence exists that supports a claim that Zimmerman's use of deadly force was justified?

Manchu wrote:Even if you do believe in retributive justice, how does ending a life justly repay a non-maiming wound?

Violence deserves a zero acceptance policy with the most extreme of measures. For too long 'justice' (if we can call it that) has been far too light hence why disgusting gang culture is such a big problem.

Looks like he got into a fist fight with someone. What evidence exists that supports a claim that Zimmerman's use of deadly force was justified?

The lack of any counter evidence. If someone starts violently attacking me, I'd certainly shoot them no problem if I had a weapon. Violence is the beginning of an attempt at murder.

Manchu wrote:Even if you do believe in retributive justice, how does ending a life justly repay a non-maiming wound?

I think I already said it in this thread but its incredibly easy to bash someones skull in. Especially in the rear. I also tangentially pointed out that the lack of copious blood from his skull wounds indicates extremely minor wounds, but the point remains...easy to bash in a skull.

Mr Hyena wrote:

Manchu wrote:Even if you do believe in retributive justice, how does ending a life justly repay a non-maiming wound?

Violence deserves a zero acceptance policy with the most extreme of measures.

I agree. So yes, Zimmerman should get the electric chair.

Wow look at this endless loop of illogic we are now trapped in...

CT GAMER wrote:

Mr Hyena wrote:

Manchu wrote:Even if you do believe in retributive justice, how does ending a life justly repay a non-maiming wound?

Violence deserves a zero acceptance policy with the most extreme of measures.

I agree. So yes, Zimmerman should get the electric chair.

Wow look at this endless loop of illogic we are now trapped in...

Shame that Zimmerman has got more evidence on his side though.

I do think that people are making quick judgements from the safety of the internet as well btw.

If your a fat middle aged civvie who is unused to brawling, you have a firearm on you, and someone is beating you up, its perfectly reasonable to shoot them.

Not that Im saying thats what ahppened, I havent a clue and Ive not looked into it enough, as I said, I dont care enough to read too much at this point..

However, saying from the comfort of your chair "Ah! I wouldnt shoot him, Id just roll with the punch, tuck my chin in, and then follow it up with some punishing combinations!" is a bit ridiculous.

When untrained civvies are getting beaten, adrenalin and blind panic would have you shooting if you happened to be carrying a gun.

Well, unless you are hard as nails like me.. obviously I would just roll with the punch, tuck my chin in, and then follow it up with some punishing combinations!

Mr Hyena wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:

Mr Hyena wrote:

Manchu wrote:Even if you do believe in retributive justice, how does ending a life justly repay a non-maiming wound?

Violence deserves a zero acceptance policy with the most extreme of measures.

I agree. So yes, Zimmerman should get the electric chair.

Wow look at this endless loop of illogic we are now trapped in...

Shame that the only other person who can present a different story is dead though.

FIFY.

mattyrm wrote: I'm glad he shot the fether. If it was me I would have shot him and buried him in my back yard then pleased ignorance.

I think you are making up your position and just pushing buttons.
Allow me to demonstrate. For what? What would you, a Royal Marine, have shot him for exactly?
A 10-32(that's walking while being black according to a good black friend of mine.)?

No matter what we fine citizens of Dakka decide, we can't lose sight of the fact a child is dead.
Say whatever you want about whatever position, just don't forget that one little fact, please.

Hazardous Harry wrote:

Mr Hyena wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:

Mr Hyena wrote:

Manchu wrote:Even if you do believe in retributive justice, how does ending a life justly repay a non-maiming wound?

Violence deserves a zero acceptance policy with the most extreme of measures.

I agree. So yes, Zimmerman should get the electric chair.

Wow look at this endless loop of illogic we are now trapped in...

Shame that the only other person who can present a different story is dead though.

FIFY.

Exactly why Zimmerman is in the right. Also shame that the thug has no witnesses, no counter evidence, nothing.

No matter what we fine citizens of Dakka decide, we can't lose sight of the fact a thug is dead.

Fixed for truth.

AustonT wrote:

Manchu wrote:Even if you do believe in retributive justice, how does ending a life justly repay a non-maiming wound?

I think I already said it in this thread but its incredibly easy to bash someones skull in. Especially in the rear. I also tangentially pointed out that the lack of copious blood from his skull wounds indicates extremely minor wounds, but the point remains...easy to bash in a skull.

I'm not saying this as a criticism of what Zimmerman did in the heat of the moment but as a criticism of Mr. Hyena evaluating from a position of safety who deserved what now that everything is said and done.

mattyrm wrote:I do think that people are making quick judgements from the safety of the internet as well btw.

If your a fat middle aged civvie who is unused to brawling, you have a firearm on you, and someone is beating you up, its perfectly reasonable to shoot them.

Not that Im saying thats what ahppened, I havent a clue and Ive not looked into it enough, as I said, I dont care enough to read too much at this point..

However, saying from the comfort of your chair "Ah! I wouldnt shoot him, Id just roll with the punch, tuck my chin in, and then follow it up with some punishing combinations!" is a bit ridiculous.

When untrained civvies are getting beaten, adrenalin and blind panic would have you shooting if you happened to be carrying a gun.

Well, unless you are hard as nails like me.. obviously I would just roll with the punch, tuck my chin in, and then follow it up with some punishing combinations!

...Or break his instep and walk away.
Drama Queen.

Mr Hyena wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:

Mr Hyena wrote:

Manchu wrote:Even if you do believe in retributive justice, how does ending a life justly repay a non-maiming wound?

Violence deserves a zero acceptance policy with the most extreme of measures.

I agree. So yes, Zimmerman should get the electric chair.

Wow look at this endless loop of illogic we are now trapped in...

Shame that Zimmerman has got more evidence on his side though.

That isnt hard when you kill the only other person involved.

Try to follow along.

alarmingrick wrote:

mattyrm wrote: I'm glad he shot the fether. If it was me I would have shot him and buried him in my back yard then pleased ignorance.

I think you are making up your position and just pushing buttons.
Allow me to demonstrate. For what? What would you, a Royal Marine, have shot him for exactly?
A 10-32(that's walking while being black according to a good black friend of mine.)?

No matter what we fine citizens of Dakka decide, we can't lose sight of the fact a child is dead.
Say whatever you want about whatever position, just don't forget that one little fact, please.

Ive been over this a few times rick, I wouldnt have shot him, I was merely making a cheap point.

See above anyway, I would merely have dispatched him with my bare hands, and then invited 10-15 of his mates to join in so I could at least get warmed up before I went to the gym.

CT GAMER wrote:

Mr Hyena wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:

Mr Hyena wrote:

Manchu wrote:Even if you do believe in retributive justice, how does ending a life justly repay a non-maiming wound?

Violence deserves a zero acceptance policy with the most extreme of measures.

I agree. So yes, Zimmerman should get the electric chair.

Wow look at this endless loop of illogic we are now trapped in...

Shame that Zimmerman has got more evidence on his side though.

That isnt hard when you kill the only other person involved.

Try to follow along.

History is written by the victor. Until there is any counter-evidence, Zimmerman is in the right.

Mr Hyena wrote:

Exactly why Zimmerman is in the right. Also shame that the thug has no witnesses, no counter evidence, nothing.

No, it's exactly why Zimmerman is unlikely to go to jail. That doesn't mean he's in the right.

No matter what we fine citizens of Dakka decide, we can't lose sight of the fact a thug is dead.

Fixed for truth.

Depends on what you believe makes a person a thug. Does school truancy make him a thug, or do you need to be part of a gang? Or is it just the hoodie?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mr Hyena wrote:
History is written by the victor. Until there is any counter-evidence, Zimmerman is in the right.

You do understand that there's a difference between reality and history, right?

Depends on what you believe makes a person a thug. Does school truancy make him a thug, or do you need to be part of a gang? Or is it just the hoodie?

Starting a fist fight, a brawl of some kind. That is the purest, utter thuggery there is. School truancy isn't related. It just shows idiocy.

You do understand that there's a difference between reality and history, right?

Yup.

I pray that sooner rather than later your parents check up on what you are doing in your room and take your computer away...

CT GAMER wrote:
I pray that sooner rather than later your parents check up on what you are doing in your room and take your computer away...

Ah, classy. Assume the other side is a child.

Hazardous Harry wrote:

Mr Hyena wrote:

Exactly why Zimmerman is in the right. Also shame that the thug has no witnesses, no counter evidence, nothing.

No, it's exactly why Zimmerman is unlikely to go to jail. That doesn't mean he's in the right.

So why are you so certain he is in the wrong then? I mean, we could all be wrong right?

What if he really was being beaten up, so he panicked after several blows landed, and filled with adrenalin and fear grabbed his gun and shot him? Is that so wrong?

And being as the authorities didn't follow it up, don't you think that's actually more likely? I mean, they know more about crime scene investigation than you, shuma and Spike Lee right?

mattyrm wrote:I do think that people are making quick judgements from the safety of the internet as well btw.

If your a fat middle aged civvie who is unused to brawling, you have a firearm on you, and someone is beating you up, its perfectly reasonable to shoot them.

Not that Im saying thats what ahppened, I havent a clue and Ive not looked into it enough, as I said, I dont care enough to read too much at this point..

However, saying from the comfort of your chair "Ah! I wouldnt shoot him, Id just roll with the punch, tuck my chin in, and then follow it up with some punishing combinations!" is a bit ridiculous.

When untrained civvies are getting beaten, adrenalin and blind panic would have you shooting if you happened to be carrying a gun.

Well, unless you are hard as nails like me.. obviously I would just roll with the punch, tuck my chin in, and then follow it up with some punishing combinations!

Well, that rhetoric is certainly fascinating. When I got into guns, more experienced individuals I ran into would sometimes take me aside and express their belief that you'd better damn well be able to prove use of your weapon was a reasonable way to neutralize whatever threat you were facing.

In this case, I think we're dealing with an absence of information -- it's possible that Martin had Zimmerman on the ground and was beating his head in -- it also appears possible that they were both wrestling around on the ground or what have you. It's certainly a tricky situation.

Mr Hyena wrote:

Depends on what you believe makes a person a thug. Does school truancy make him a thug, or do you need to be part of a gang? Or is it just the hoodie?

Starting a fist fight, a brawl of some kind. That is the purest, utter thuggery there is. School truancy isn't related. It just shows idiocy.

So Zimmerman could very well be the thug here?

Would that mean the statement "Thug kills harmless kid" be more accurate?

Hazardous Harry wrote:

Mr Hyena wrote:

Depends on what you believe makes a person a thug. Does school truancy make him a thug, or do you need to be part of a gang? Or is it just the hoodie?

Starting a fist fight, a brawl of some kind. That is the purest, utter thuggery there is. School truancy isn't related. It just shows idiocy.

So Zimmerman could very well be the thug here?

Would that mean the statement "Thug kills harmless kid" be more accurate?

Nope, cause Zimmerman didn't start it. Theres also significant wounding on his head, indicating that Zimmerman was on the ground.

If your going to murder someone with a gun, why bother starting a fist fight first?

mattyrm wrote:

And being as the authorities didn't follow it up, don't you think that's actually more likely? I mean, they know more about crime scene investigation than you, shuma and Spike Lee right?

But they did follow it up, and it was recommended that he should be arrested. And then someone in the DAs office decides it's not worth the bother, which is very shocking given how much dispute there is over the matter.

Mr Hyena wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:
I pray that sooner rather than later your parents check up on what you are doing in your room and take your computer away...

Ah, classy. Assume the other side is a child.

You have control of how you present yourself. So far you have chosen poorly...

Vaerros wrote:
In this case, I think we're dealing with an absence of information -- it's possible that Martin had Zimmerman on the ground and was beating his head in -- it also appears possible that they were both wrestling around on the ground or what have you. It's certainly a tricky situation.

You hit the nail on the head old chap, and managed to explain it better in one sentence than I did in 100. There is no solid information, and the authorities didn't press, thus I find Shuma type levels of rage to be silly.

He might be a stone cold killer, he might not be at all, in such cases, I side with the authorities. We can but wait and see the outcome.

Mr Hyena wrote:

Nope, cause Zimmerman didn't start it.

You don't know that.

Theres also significant wounding on his head, indicating that Zimmerman was on the ground.

So? Just because he was losing a fight doesn't mean he didn't start it.

If your going to murder someone with a gun, why bother starting a fist fight first?

Not every murder is premeditated. But if Zimmerman started the fight with Martin, then started to fear for his life and shoot him, then that is still murder.

CT GAMER wrote:

Mr Hyena wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:
I pray that sooner rather than later your parents check up on what you are doing in your room and take your computer away...

Ah, classy. Assume the other side is a child.

You have control of how you present yourself. So far you have chosen poorly...

Poorly? I dunno. That depends. Supporting the kid is supporting thuggery however, and that can't be accepted.

So? Just because he was losing a fight doesn't mean he didn't start it.

But there is evidence right on zimmerman's head that he was attacked. Without any evidence to prove that it was the thug, how can you assume it was zimmerman that attacked? The safest call here is to side with the most evidence, and that is Zimmerman's story.

Hazardous Harry wrote:

mattyrm wrote:

And being as the authorities didn't follow it up, don't you think that's actually more likely? I mean, they know more about crime scene investigation than you, shuma and Spike Lee right?

But they did follow it up, and it was recommended that he should be arrested. And then someone in the DAs office decides it's not worth the bother, which is very shocking given how much dispute there is over the matter.

Yeah and I reckon the DAs office staff are the top of their game, as opposed to a cop on the ground.. but yeah like I said, It could be either way, it just seems silly to display the certainty you seem to in light of all these events.

Mr Hyena wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:
I pray that sooner rather than later your parents check up on what you are doing in your room and take your computer away...

Ah, classy. Assume the other side is a child.

You're giving us much else to base that belief on.
Before I send you off to ignore land, can you tell me what exactly is it that makes him a thug?
1) He's black
2) His age
3) The Skittles and Tea
4) The fact he was killed(ie he didn't win the fight)
Please feel free to select all that apply and any I may have missed.

alarmingrick wrote:

Mr Hyena wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:
I pray that sooner rather than later your parents check up on what you are doing in your room and take your computer away...

Ah, classy. Assume the other side is a child.

You're giving us much else to base that belief on.
Before I send you off to ignore land, can you tell me what exactly is it that makes him a thug?
1) He's black
2) His age
3) The Skittles and Tea
4) The fact he was killed(ie he didn't win the fight)
Please feel free to select all that apply and any I may have missed.

He started a fight. Thats it pure and simple.

Mr Hyena wrote:But there is evidence right on zimmerman's head that he was attacked.

I think Mr. Martin's wounds proved worse.

mattyrm wrote:

Yeah and I reckon the DAs office staff are the top of their game, as opposed to a cop on the ground.. but yeah like I said, It could be either way, it just seems silly to display the certainty you seem to in light of all these events.

You might be on to something there if there was absolutely no dispute about the case. For example, if Martin broke into Zimmerman's house wielding a machete and Zimmerman gunned him down, I wouldn't raise an eyebrow if he wasn't arrested.

But in this case, with this evidence, and Zimmerman's side of the story being in dispute, to not have him arrested looks like a massive cock up on the DAs side of things.

Mr Hyena wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:

Mr Hyena wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:
I pray that sooner rather than later your parents check up on what you are doing in your room and take your computer away...

Ah, classy. Assume the other side is a child.

You have control of how you present yourself. So far you have chosen poorly...

Poorly? I dunno. That depends. Supporting the kid is supporting thuggery however, and that can't be accepted.

I'm not listening to or commenting on the specifics of your moronic ramblings so you can save them.

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you had to be a bored kid caught up in the rush of trying to be an internet tough guy.

If you are an adult that is even worse...

Please consider editing your posts, you sound ridiculous even by dakka's impressive trolling standards.

alarmingrick wrote:

Mr Hyena wrote:But there is evidence right on zimmerman's head that he was attacked.

I think Mr. Martin's wounds proved worse.

That he was shot? Seems fair for attacking someone.

Mr Hyena wrote:

alarmingrick wrote:

Mr Hyena wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:
I pray that sooner rather than later your parents check up on what you are doing in your room and take your computer away...

Ah, classy. Assume the other side is a child.

You're giving us much else to base that belief on.
Before I send you off to ignore land, can you tell me what exactly is it that makes him a thug?
1) He's black
2) His age
3) The Skittles and Tea
4) The fact he was killed(ie he didn't win the fight)
Please feel free to select all that apply and any I may have missed.

He started a fight. Thats it pure and simple.

And you know that HE started it how exactly? Where you there?

Mr Hyena wrote:

But there is evidence right on zimmerman's head that he was attacked. Without any evidence to prove that it was the thug, how can you assume it was zimmerman that attacked? The safest call here is to side with the most evidence, and that is Zimmerman's story.

Only because he killed the only other guy who can definitely say different. How are you not getting that?

And you know that HE started it how exactly? Where you there?

I'm going by who has the most evidence for his side.

There is more evidence in Zimmerman's side than the thug. How can people not get this? Are people actually suggesting he should be found guilty on no basis? Give him a trial all you want, but its gonna just end up the same way if professionals can't see any different outcome.

Mr Hyena wrote:

And you know that HE started it how exactly? Where you there?

I'm going by who has the most evidence for his side.

There is more evidence in Zimmerman's side than the thug. How can people not get this? Are people actually suggesting he should be found guilty on no basis?

And ignore...

Mr Hyena wrote:

And you know that HE started it how exactly? Where you there?

I'm going by who has the most evidence for his side.

There is more evidence in Zimmerman's side than the thug. How can people not get this? Are people actually suggesting he should be found guilty on no basis? Give him a trial all you want, but its gonna just end up the same way if professionals can't see any different outcome.

There's a kid in the ground. HOW ARE YOU NOT GETTING THIS?
And since you must have evidence we haven't seen, please share.
If I recall correctly, there hasn't been a trial yet, so how have you seen all the evidence?

alarmingrick wrote:

Mr Hyena wrote:

And you know that HE started it how exactly? Where you there?

I'm going by who has the most evidence for his side.

There is more evidence in Zimmerman's side than the thug. How can people not get this? Are people actually suggesting he should be found guilty on no basis? Give him a trial all you want, but its gonna just end up the same way if professionals can't see any different outcome.

There's a kid in the ground. HOW ARE YOU NOT GETTING THIS?
And since you must have evidence we haven't seen, please share.
If I recall correctly, there hasn't been a trial yet, so how have you seen all the evidence?

Because the DA thinks its a no-go. Thats pretty telling.

Mr Hyena wrote:

alarmingrick wrote:

Mr Hyena wrote:

And you know that HE started it how exactly? Where you there?

I'm going by who has the most evidence for his side.

There is more evidence in Zimmerman's side than the thug. How can people not get this? Are people actually suggesting he should be found guilty on no basis? Give him a trial all you want, but its gonna just end up the same way if professionals can't see any different outcome.

There's a kid in the ground. HOW ARE YOU NOT GETTING THIS?
And since you must have evidence we haven't seen, please share.
If I recall correctly, there hasn't been a trial yet, so how have you seen all the evidence?

Because the DA thinks its a no-go. Thats pretty telling.

Oh, okay. So the DA said no-go, then he showed you evidence?
Or did he show you, then say no-go? And I'm still waiting on the proof
you have? Stop keeping us all in waiting....

alarmingrick wrote:

Mr Hyena wrote:

alarmingrick wrote:

Mr Hyena wrote:

And you know that HE started it how exactly? Where you there?

I'm going by who has the most evidence for his side.

There is more evidence in Zimmerman's side than the thug. How can people not get this? Are people actually suggesting he should be found guilty on no basis? Give him a trial all you want, but its gonna just end up the same way if professionals can't see any different outcome.

There's a kid in the ground. HOW ARE YOU NOT GETTING THIS?
And since you must have evidence we haven't seen, please share.
If I recall correctly, there hasn't been a trial yet, so how have you seen all the evidence?

Because the DA thinks its a no-go. Thats pretty telling.

Oh, okay. So the DA said no-go, then he showed you evidence?
Or did he show you, then say no-go? And I'm still waiting on the proof
you have? Stop keeping us all in waiting....

Wounded head, lack of any witnesses to show it was Zimmerman who started the fight, etc etc.

Whats yours? I'm sure you must have some evidence if you believe he is guilty.

Mr Hyena wrote:

alarmingrick wrote:

Mr Hyena wrote:

alarmingrick wrote:

Mr Hyena wrote:

And you know that HE started it how exactly? Where you there?

I'm going by who has the most evidence for his side.

There is more evidence in Zimmerman's side than the thug. How can people not get this? Are people actually suggesting he should be found guilty on no basis? Give him a trial all you want, but its gonna just end up the same way if professionals can't see any different outcome.

There's a kid in the ground. HOW ARE YOU NOT GETTING THIS?
And since you must have evidence we haven't seen, please share.
If I recall correctly, there hasn't been a trial yet, so how have you seen all the evidence?

Because the DA thinks its a no-go. Thats pretty telling.

Oh, okay. So the DA said no-go, then he showed you evidence?
Or did he show you, then say no-go? And I'm still waiting on the proof
you have? Stop keeping us all in waiting....

Wounded head, lack of any witnesses to show it was Zimmerman who started the fight, etc etc.

Have fun with Bi-cat in ignore land......

alarmingrick wrote:
A 10-32(that's walking while being black according to a good black friend of mine.

a few seconds on Google would have told you a 10-32 is a man with a gun. So if we rephrase your question to "would you a Royal Marine shoot a man with a gun?"
I feel like you can see the obviousness of the answer.

Manchu wrote:

AustonT wrote:

Manchu wrote:Even if you do believe in retributive justice, how does ending a life justly repay a non-maiming wound?

I think I already said it in this thread but its incredibly easy to bash someones skull in. Especially in the rear. I also tangentially pointed out that the lack of copious blood from his skull wounds indicates extremely minor wounds, but the point remains...easy to bash in a skull.

I'm not saying this as a criticism of what Zimmerman did in the heat of the moment but as a criticism of Mr. Hyena evaluating from a position of safety who deserved what now that everything is said and done.

Oh, well carry on then.

CT GAMER wrote:

Mr Hyena wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:
I pray that sooner rather than later your parents check up on what you are doing in your room and take your computer away...

Ah, classy. Assume the other side is a child.

You have control of how you present yourself. So far you have chosen poorly...

Hello pot please meet kettle. Maybe your mother will come take your computer away before you decide to actually move from rude to insulting.

CT GAMER wrote:

I'm not listening to or commenting on the specifics of your moronic ramblings so you can save them.

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you had to be a bored kid caught up in the rush of trying to be an internet tough guy.

If you are an adult that is even worse...

Please consider editing your posts, you sound ridiculous even by dakka's impressive trolling standards.

Too late.

Can people maybe stop announcing that they're putting someone on ignore like it's IRC or something?

Vaerros wrote:Can people maybe stop announcing that they're putting someone on ignore like it's IRC or something?

AustonT: sets user Vaerros to mode +m

AustonT wrote:

alarmingrick wrote:
A 10-32(that's walking while being black according to a good black friend of mine.

a few seconds on Google would have told you a 10-32 is a man with a gun. So if we rephrase your question to "would you a Royal Marine shoot a man with a gun?"
I feel like you can see the obviousness of the answer.

Hey man, I'm just repeating what my friend told me. I don't know if it's based on RL or not.

And the obvious answer would be no, he wouldn't. mattrm would catch the lead sent his way with his teeth and return fire with it.
At least if you listen to him tell it....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vaerros wrote:Can people maybe stop announcing that they're putting someone on ignore like it's IRC or something?

You have to be a member here longer than 2 days before you can start making such insane requests!
Welcome, BTW! But don't push it!

alarmingrick wrote:
You have to be a member here longer than 2 days before you can start making such insane requests!
Welcome, BTW! But don't push it!

Thanks, but I've been here for a bit(my other account is Ronin-Sage, but I decided to change my name).

You could have just asked for a name change.

Somebody killed somebody, but its okay because he was attacked. The guy with the gun said so.

True story based on the old dependable "But mom, he started it!" defense employed by small children everywhere.

Best way to stop any evidence to the contrary is to get rid of the witness, I learned that by watching Law & Order.

Look at me, I'm an expert!

d-usa wrote:Somebody killed somebody, but its okay because he was attacked. The guy with the gun said so.

True story based on the old dependable "But mom, he started it!" defense employed by small children everywhere.

Best way to stop any evidence to the contrary is to get rid of the witness, I learned that by watching Law & Order.

Look at me, I'm an expert!

Law & Order fan does not an expert make!

But, yeah, you're right on the rest of it.

AustonT wrote:You could have just asked for a name change.

It occurred to me, but reading the FAQ section on the topic kind of dissuaded me.

Vaerros wrote:

AustonT wrote:You could have just asked for a name change.

It occurred to me, but reading the FAQ section on the topic kind of dissuaded me.

Then you're just a Noob.

mattyrm wrote:

Vaerros wrote:
In this case, I think we're dealing with an absence of information -- it's possible that Martin had Zimmerman on the ground and was beating his head in -- it also appears possible that they were both wrestling around on the ground or what have you. It's certainly a tricky situation.

You hit the nail on the head old chap, and managed to explain it better in one sentence than I did in 100. There is no solid information, and the authorities didn't press, thus I find Shuma type levels of rage to be silly.

He might be a stone cold killer, he might not be at all, in such cases, I side with the authorities. We can but wait and see the outcome.

The original issue in this case is that the authorities initially elected not to investigate in any depth. And a lot of folks think that seems strange and wrong when an unarmed teenager winds up dead at the hands of a guy who is bigger, older, armed and has chosen to take on the role of neighborhood watchman and should be (as a general rule and as a specific policy of neighborhood watch groups) avoiding confrontations and violence.

The DA's decision not to pursue it may have been reasonable in his opinion based on the legal situation as it stands in Florida, based on the Stand Your Ground law, and how high a burden it puts on the state to demonstrate that the killer could not possibly have been acting in self defense, before it can even go to trial. He may have figured that the judge would throw it out as it looked to him like Zimmerman could make even a half-decent case that it was self defense. But a situation like this also calls into question whether the law in Florida, and particularly the way it is applied there, is right or should be changed.

It may well turn out that Zimmerman was defending himself, and he may justly be found not guilty. But I do think, from the info we have, the situation called for more investigation in the first place, which shouldn't have required a pubic outcry to make happen, but did. If people had just sat and waited, there would be no outcome. Now there will be.

d-usa wrote:Somebody killed somebody, but its okay because he was attacked. The guy with the gun said so.

True story based on the old dependable "But mom, he started it!" defense employed by small children everywhere.

Best way to stop any evidence to the contrary is to get rid of the witness, I learned that by watching Law & Order.

Look at me, I'm an expert!

Dude, real experts watch The Wire.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mr Hyena wrote:

alarmingrick wrote:

Mr Hyena wrote:

alarmingrick wrote:

Mr Hyena wrote:

And you know that HE started it how exactly? Where you there?

I'm going by who has the most evidence for his side.

There is more evidence in Zimmerman's side than the thug. How can people not get this? Are people actually suggesting he should be found guilty on no basis? Give him a trial all you want, but its gonna just end up the same way if professionals can't see any different outcome.

There's a kid in the ground. HOW ARE YOU NOT GETTING THIS?
And since you must have evidence we haven't seen, please share.
If I recall correctly, there hasn't been a trial yet, so how have you seen all the evidence?

Because the DA thinks its a no-go. Thats pretty telling.

Oh, okay. So the DA said no-go, then he showed you evidence?
Or did he show you, then say no-go? And I'm still waiting on the proof
you have? Stop keeping us all in waiting....

Wounded head, lack of any witnesses to show it was Zimmerman who started the fight, etc etc.

Whats yours? I'm sure you must have some evidence if you believe he is guilty.

1) A wounded head is not evidence of who started the fight.
2) There are no impartial witnesses who have testified who started the fight. Only two people knew for certain who started it and one is dead.

But the injuries listed on Martin's autopsy taht we have seen so far do not include anything related to him being hit by Zimmerman. But it does include scratched knuckle. And Zimmerman did have damage consistent with being hit a few times.

Again, the info released is limited, but if Zimmerman started the fight I would expect there to be some mark/bruise/broken nose/tooth on Martin when the whole thing comes out.

So, a wounded head is not evidence of who started the fight. But if only one party has damage corresponding to being hit, you do start to develop a picture...

CptJake wrote:But the injuries listed on Martin's autopsy taht we have seen so far do not include anything related to him being hit by Zimmerman. But it does include scratched knuckle. And Zimmerman did have damage consistent with being hit a few times.

Again, the info released is limited, but if Zimmerman started the fight I would expect there to be some mark/bruise/broken nose/tooth on Martin when the whole thing comes out.

So, a wounded head is not evidence of who started the fight. But if only one party has damage corresponding to being hit, you do start to develop a picture...

Could you develop bruises from being shoved?

streamdragon wrote:Again, Zimmerman did this against both the police request that he stay in his car, and against the policy of his neighborhood watch group.

He was told that he "didn't have to follow him," not to "stay in his car."

Neigborhood watch rules are not laws. That point is moot.

Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:how about the US starts cracking down on gun ownership,
gun-related crime and incidents like this will drop in rate,
just a suggestion.

and BTW you can hear Zimmerman saying F**king C**N on the call to the police so thats evidence of malice before the altercation

Gun control only takes guns away from the law-abiding folks who would use them legally. The individuals that break the law obviously don't care about it, so why should they care about gun control laws?

And no, you can't. You can speculate on what was heard, but the FBI investigated and determined that what was said in the actual 911 recording was not discernible.

CT GAMER wrote:Two people know the facts and one of them murdered the other one. How convienant...

EXACTLY. TWO people know the facts. You are not one of the two. Therefore, logic dictates that you do not know the facts. Stating blatantly that one murdered the other is just ridiculous.


One last thing. It keeps on coming up that Martin was "half the size of Zimmerman." This is not true. While Zimmerman is approximately 5'7" and weighs in at 200 lbs, Martin was 6'2" and weighed around 150.

You could get away with saying that Martin was 3/4 the density of Zimmerman, but that's about it.

Hazardous Harry wrote:There were traces of weed in his system. How many people do you know have become aggressive after smoking?

pfftttt

Maybe he fell backwards onto the pavement or something? Doesn't look bruised up enough to be blunt trauma, nor does it look like the mark of a weapon at all.

The nose is odd though. Could've been punched.

What if.... Martin was his dope connection 0-0

Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:how about the US starts cracking down on gun ownership,
gun-related crime and incidents like this will drop in rate,
just a suggestion.

and BTW you can hear Zimmerman saying F**king C**N on the call to the police so thats evidence of malice before the altercation

Agreeing with nocturn here. Gun control does nothing but interfere with the rights of law abiding citizens. Criminals will always get guns illegally anyway. If you're the game of thugery, you're probably not worried in the least about getting arrested for illegal gun possession.

In boxing (as one example of an unarmed fighting contect) five or ten pounds is considered a substantial advantage, never mind fifty.

The difference between a teenager's build and strength and a grown man's is more than trivial. Some teens do work out and are athletic, but 150 v. 200? That's a lot smaller in fighting terms.

Samus_aran115 wrote:

Hazardous Harry wrote:There were traces of weed in his system. How many people do you know have become aggressive after smoking?

pfftttt

Maybe he fell backwards onto the pavement or something? Doesn't look bruised up enough to be blunt trauma, nor does it look like the mark of a weapon at all.

The nose is odd though. Could've been punched.

What if.... Martin was his dope connection 0-0

Um, the weed was in Martin's system. Not Zimmerman's, as far as I'm aware.

Mannahnin wrote:In boxing (as one example of an unarmed fighting contect) five or ten pounds is considered a substantial advantage, never mind fifty.

The difference between a teenager's build and strength and a grown man's is more than trivial. Some teens do work out and are athletic, but 150 v. 200? That's a lot smaller in fighting terms.

I'm not trying to state otherwise, I was just pointing out that when people were saying that Martin was half of Zimmerman's size, they were incorrect.

Only in a purely mathematical sense. In the sense of when you look at two dudes and size up that one is a lot bigger than the other, the size disparity is right around where we coloquially say that one is twice the size of the other.

When we warn a friend that the guy he's pissing off is twice his size, we're not busting out the scales. We mean the guy is a lot bigger; and that the size disparity is obvious at a glance. 200 vs 150 is a lot bigger.

True, but Zimmerman's weight advantage is diminished somewhat by Martin's height advantage.

Nocturn wrote:True, but Zimmerman's weight advantage is diminished somewhat by Martin's height advantage.

It would also be diminished by Martin's reach, and the fact that Zimmerman is carrying a lot of fat on him that Martin seemed to be lacking.

Weight is really only useful as a measure when both guys are in equally good shape. It MAY help in a grappling/wrestling situation but even then if the extra 50 is fat the fat guy may well get worn out fast.

And again, being bigger or smaller really has no bearing on the situation except to these internet judge/jury combinations.

Jake, you know better than that. Reach certainly helps, but in boxing and wrestling they don't put you in a different category of opponent based on your reach- they do it on weight. Because weight much more directly corresponds to strength and ability to absorb punishment.

Sure, weight doesn't tell the whole tale. 5'7" and 200lbs is overweight at a glance, but could still certainly be muscular. 6'2" and 150 is SKINNY. Not muscular. Not strong. I'm just under 6' and pushing 160 on a slender frame thanks to a little bit of an incipient gut; I am not a strong dude. 6'2" and 150 is a beanpole.

Mannahnin wrote:Jake, you know better than that. Reach certainly helps, but in boxing and wrestling they don't put you in a different category of opponent based on your reach- they do it on weight. Because weight much more directly corresponds to strength and ability to absorb punishment.

Sure, weight doesn't tell the whole tale. 5'7" and 200lbs is overweight at a glance, but could still certainly be muscular. 6'2" and 150 is SKINNY. Not muscular. Not strong. I'm just under 6' and pushing 160 on a slender frame thanks to a little bit of an incipient gut; I am not a strong dude. 6'2" and 150 is a beanpole.

No, I don't know better. I've fought with a guy in the pugil stick pit who had 75 pounds on me and about 6 inches reach, but who was a fat slob and lost his wind VERY fast. I also boxed against a guy I had 30 pounds on who was in FANTASTIC shape and he beat the snot outta me. In pro boxing and actual wrestling the weight classes keep guys in about the same condition on a somewhat equal basis due to the weight class. Take away the 'in about the same condition' and the weight really isn't as important.

But again, NONE of that makes any difference to this case unless you are the super cool internet judge/jury type.

Neither of them, as far as we know, were trained in either boxing or wrestling.

This also is assuming that what Martin's family said was correct. They stated that he was 6'3" and weighed "at most" 150 lbs. The police report states he was 6' and weighed 160 lbs. The coroner determined that Martin was 5'11" and 158 lbs.

At both 5'11" and 6', Martin still has a height advantage, and both respective weights are the average build for that height.

CptJake wrote:

No, I don't know better. I've fought with a guy in the pugil stick pit who had 75 pounds on me and about 6 inches reach, but who was a fat slob and lost his wind VERY fast. I also boxed against a guy I had 30 pounds on who was in FANTASTIC shape and he beat the snot outta me. In pro boxing and actual wrestling the weight classes keep guys in about the same condition on a somewhat equal basis due to the weight class. Take away the 'in about the same condition' and the weight really isn't as important.

But again, NONE of that makes any difference to this case unless you are the super cool internet judge/jury type.

Ironic given your above statement. How many people do kickboxing on here?

A Town Called Malus wrote:1) A wounded head is not evidence of who started the fight.
2) There are no impartial witnesses who have testified who started the fight. Only two people knew for certain who started it and one is dead.

"Presumption of innocence" - Look it up.

biccat wrote:

A Town Called Malus wrote:1) A wounded head is not evidence of who started the fight.
2) There are no impartial witnesses who have testified who started the fight. Only two people knew for certain who started it and one is dead.

"Presumption of innocence" - Look it up.

He admitted he killed him. So we know he is not innocent.

biccat wrote:

A Town Called Malus wrote:1) A wounded head is not evidence of who started the fight.
2) There are no impartial witnesses who have testified who started the fight. Only two people knew for certain who started it and one is dead.

"Presumption of innocence" - Look it up.

Right, so we should assume that Martin was innocent until someone proves, in a court of law, that he started the fight.

We assume both parties are innocent (thus making this whole thing a terrible accident), until evidence points to one or the other being guilty. If the evidence is inconclusive and no firm view can be established then it will remain a tragic accident which came about because of racial profiling coupled with judging someone on how they dress and being allowed to freely carry a gun in the street.

Assuming that one is innocent does not automatically mean that the other must be guilty.

A Town Called Malus wrote:Right, so we should assume that Martin was innocent until someone proves, in a court of law, that he started the fight.

Wrong.

That's not how it works.

A Town Called Malus wrote:We assume both parties are innocent (thus making this whole thing a terrible accident), until evidence points to one or the other being guilty. If the evidence is inconclusive and no firm view can be established then it will remain a tragic accident

Yes. Except Martin isn't on trial. So the presumption is irrelevant for him.

A Town Called Malus wrote:which came about because of racial profiling coupled with judging someone on how they dress and being allowed to freely carry a gun in the street.

No. We don't (normal people don't) presume racism.

An accident can occur without fault.

A Town Called Malus wrote:Assuming that one is innocent does not automatically mean that the other must be guilty.

You're right.

I'm not sure how you make such wildly inconsistent statements.

CptJake wrote:
Weight is really only useful as a measure when both guys are in equally good shape.

Physics disagree.

Do you ever say anything that isn't wrong?

biccat wrote:

A Town Called Malus wrote:We assume both parties are innocent (thus making this whole thing a terrible accident), until evidence points to one or the other being guilty. If the evidence is inconclusive and no firm view can be established then it will remain a tragic accident

Yes. Except Martin isn't on trial. So the presumption is irrelevant for him.

But Martins actions determine whether it was self defence or murder. So to get the truth that question must be answered. So in a sense he is on trial. If it is self defence then he would have been guilty of assault. If not then he would most likely be innocent of assault. If the evidence is inconclusive then no-one will ever know.

biccat wrote:

A Town Called Malus wrote:which came about because of racial profiling coupled with judging someone on how they dress and being allowed to freely carry a gun in the street.

No. We don't (normal people don't) presume racism.

An accident can occur without fault.

Why did Zimmerman report him as suspicious? Because he was a black teenager in a predominantly white neighbourhood. The conclusion that he was worth reporting was made based on his skin colour, not his actions. That is racial profiling. If he were peeking into peoples houses or cars then yes, he is acting suspiciously. If he is walking from a shop with a drink and some crisps then no, he's not.

biccat wrote:

A Town Called Malus wrote:Assuming that one is innocent does not automatically mean that the other must be guilty.

You're right.

I'm not sure how you make such wildly inconsistent statements.

I am actually two people.

A Town Called Malus wrote:I am actually two people.

Just 2?!?! Lucky!

A Town Called Malus wrote:Why did Zimmerman report him as suspicious? Because he was a black teenager in a predominantly white neighbourhood. The conclusion that he was worth reporting was made based on his skin colour, not his actions.

People assume he was profiling him. What evidence do you have that he was racist, aside from hearsay from uninvolved individuals?

So were the two felony charges Zimmerman faced in August, 2005 for assault on a law enforcement officer self defense as well?

(note: the charges were reduced to misdemeanor simple battery)

Zimmerman wrote on his Myspace page: ”2 felonies dropped to 1 misdemeanor!!!!!!!!!!! The man knows he was wrong and still got this lumps..."

So who the hell thought it was a good idea to hire a guy who assaults police officers to be on the watch and how can someone with a record of violent crime legally carry a gun?

dogma wrote:

CptJake wrote:Weight is really only useful as a measure when both guys are in equally good shape.

Physics disagree.

Do you ever say anything that isn't wrong?

That's uncalled for. He does. I disagree with him on this one, but he's not one of the serious trolls. I think Jake is a decent human being with whom I happen to disagree on a number of things, and I think he's actually interested in exchanging ideas and discussing stuff. On this particular point I think he's being inappropriately dismissive, but in fairness it's not like everyone on "my" side of the Martin/Zimmerman issue has been reasonable either. I think I've been respectful and reasonable, but he clearly has a different perspective on how important weight/size is in a physical confrontation. I think his anecdotes are legit, but I disagree that 50lbs of weight difference only matters between trained fighters. 5 or 10 lbs, sure.

He also had to "defend" himself twice from his wife by beating her...

Of course it helps to get charges dropped when you have a judge/magistrate in the family...

CT GAMER wrote:He also had to "defend" himself twice from his wife by beating her...

Of course it helps to get charges dropped when you have a judge/magistrate in the family...

That would be just as unethical as a family doctor claiming a broken nose, it would never happen.

d-usa wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:He also had to "defend" himself twice from his wife by beating her...

Of course it helps to get charges dropped when you have a judge/magistrate in the family...

That would be just as unethical as a family doctor claiming a broken nose, it would never happen.

Good point.

streamdragon wrote: The coroner's report [said that the gunshot that killed Martin was fired from 18" or less.

Unless it really said

http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/17/justice/florida-teen-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t1 wrote: According to the medical examiner's report, which was one of several documents on the case released Thursday by the office of special prosecutor Angela Corey, Martin died from a gunshot wound to chest fired from "intermediate range," within 36 inches.

CT GAMER wrote:1. So were the two felony charges Zimmerman faced in August, 2005 for assault on a law enforcement officer self defense as well?

(note: the charges were reduced to misdemeanor simple battery)

Zimmerman wrote on his Myspace page: ”2 felonies dropped to 1 misdemeanor!!!!!!!!!!! The man knows he was wrong and still got this lumps..."

2. So who the hell thought it was a good idea to hire a guy who assaults police officers to be on the watch and 3. how can someone with a record of violent crime legally carry a gun?

1. This is unrelated to the current court issue.

2. He wasn't hired to be neighborhood watch, he volunteered at a homeowner association meeting because nobody else wanted to do it. In September of 2011, the HOA thought he was doing a fine job and asked him to be the head of the neighborhood watch group, due to his success in catching a thief during his shift.

3. A Seminole county animal control officer actually recommended that Zimmerman carry a firearm instead of pepper spray because there was a period of time where a violent dog was wandering the neighborhood, and, in the animal control officer's professional opinion, "It'll take two or three seconds to take effect, but a quarter second for the dog to jump you."

While carrying concealed on a neighborhood watch posting is not recommended due to the propensity for situations (like the unfortunate one we are currently discussing) to occur, it is not illegal, and is a constitutional right.

And according to Zimmerman's booking record, at the time of his initial detainment, he was 5'8" and 185 lbs.

EDIT: When I posted his description earlier, I was unaware of his booking record, and could only post what had been stated in the news and online.

CT GAMER wrote:He also had to "defend" himself twice from his wife by beating her...

Of course it helps to get charges dropped when you have a judge/magistrate in the family...

Not to say he's right or wrong here, but in domestic violence cases--women are rarely charged even when they begin the altercations. The times when you see women charged are usually when they assault their significant other with the intent to cause serious injury with a weapon or the like.

And before anyone says it:
No, I'm not condoning spousal abuse.I certainly do not think it is okay for a husband to beat his wife or for a boyfriend to beat his girlfriend.

Mannahnin wrote: I think his anecdotes are legit, but I disagree that 50lbs of weight difference only matters between trained fighters. 5 or 10 lbs, sure.

I'm holding him to a higher standard because he is ex-military, and therefore seemingly knowledgeable regarding hand to hand combat.

Mannahnin wrote:but he clearly has a different perspective on how important weight/size is in a physical confrontation. I think his anecdotes are legit, but I disagree that 50lbs of weight difference only matters between trained fighters. 5 or 10 lbs, sure.

I read back, and tbh I don't really get where you stand. So I'll just say my piece:
Between well trained or even just trained fighters weight can mean a great deal and 5-10 lbs can make all the difference in the world. Between brawlers it means very little. I've trained in and instructed both the USMC and US Army fighting systems. When I was 150lbs I could wrap a majority of average dudes in a ball up to about 215lbs where sheer mass generally negated any advantages in training, experience, and the sheer bloody minded will to win. At the fight house in Benning a 140 lbs SF Major was on his way to beating me within an inch of my life, rogt after I layed a similar beating down on another guy who outmassed me by a good 40 lbs and was fit and reasonably trained...sometimes you just get beat. At a shade over 200 and a growth spurt later I have little to fear from anyone within 50lbs of myself. But with all of the advantages I have on my side I've been knocked flat by 150-175 lbs dudes. The point beig tha the actual mass and even training of the two is largely irrelevant. A 150 lb kid fueled by fear and aided by surprise could easily put a 200lbs man in a position where his life was legitimately in danger with no other recourse but to employ deadly force. That doesn't always mean "gun" but I would say with the benefit of experience that of a person much smaller than me made me legitimately believe he was trying to kill me I wouldn't stop until he was dead.

I don't believe in my heart that Trayvon Martin had the brutal frame of mind to kill a man wit his bare hands, but all I have to go on is a pretty dismal picture of a misogynist twitter account, the dubious account from his parents, and some pictures to frame an idea. In otherwords it's just a guess.

With regards to weight and age; almost as useless to the dialogue about the guilt or innocence of Zimmerman as the race of either party.

Nocturn wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:1. So were the two felony charges Zimmerman faced in August, 2005 for assault on a law enforcement officer self defense as well?

(note: the charges were reduced to misdemeanor simple battery)

Zimmerman wrote on his Myspace page: ”2 felonies dropped to 1 misdemeanor!!!!!!!!!!! The man knows he was wrong and still got this lumps..."

2. So who the hell thought it was a good idea to hire a guy who assaults police officers to be on the watch and 3. how can someone with a record of violent crime legally carry a gun?

1. This is unrelated to the current court issue.

2. He wasn't hired to be neighborhood watch, he volunteered at a homeowner association meeting because nobody else wanted to do it. In September of 2011, the HOA thought he was doing a fine job and asked him to be the head of the neighborhood watch group, due to his success in catching a thief during his shift.

3. A Seminole county animal control officer actually recommended that Zimmerman carry a firearm instead of pepper spray because there was a period of time where a violent dog was wandering the neighborhood, and, in the animal control officer's professional opinion, "It'll take two or three seconds to take effect, but a quarter second for the dog to jump you."

While carrying concealed on a neighborhood watch posting is not recommended due to the propensity for situations (like the unfortunate one we are currently discussing) to occur, it is not illegal, and is a constitutional right.

And according to Zimmerman's booking record, at the time of his initial detainment, he was 5'8" and 185 lbs.

EDIT: When I posted his description earlier, I was unaware of his booking record, and could only post what had been stated in the news and online.

It all speaks to his character. His Myspace page was also an interesting read...

He is an individual with a documented history of violent and illegal behavior who has assaulted police officers (and bragged about it) and even his own wife and then had family connections get him off or reduce charges.

He is a self-appointed vigilante with violent tendencies.

I wouldnt want this guy anywhere near my neighborhood.

Mannahnin wrote:

dogma wrote:

CptJake wrote:Weight is really only useful as a measure when both guys are in equally good shape.

Physics disagree.

Do you ever say anything that isn't wrong?

That's uncalled for. He does. I disagree with him on this one, but he's not one of the serious trolls. I think Jake is a decent human being with whom I happen to disagree on a number of things, and I think he's actually interested in exchanging ideas and discussing stuff. On this particular point I think he's being inappropriately dismissive, but in fairness it's not like everyone on "my" side of the Martin/Zimmerman issue has been reasonable either. I think I've been respectful and reasonable, but he clearly has a different perspective on how important weight/size is in a physical confrontation. I think his anecdotes are legit, but I disagree that 50lbs of weight difference only matters between trained fighters. 5 or 10 lbs, sure.

And yet, the witnesses seem to agree that Martin was on top of Zimmerman. And we know Zimmermans injuries seem to line up with getting beat upon, and the injuries we know Martin had (from the bit of the autopsy report that has made the news) do not support that Zimmerman was hitting him.

If weight was the deciding factor Zimmerman would have been on top of Martin beating him or would have subdued him.... So either Martin was a magic man who could void the laws of physics, OR in a street fight weight may not be as important as some make it out to be. I NEVER said 50 pounds doesn't make a difference, read what I actually said.

Jake wrote:Weight is really only useful as a measure when both guys are in equally good shape. It MAY help in a grappling/wrestling situation but even then if the extra 50 is fat the fat guy may well get worn out fast.

and

Jake wrote: Take away the 'in about the same condition' and the weight really isn't as important.

I think that beside my personal examples, this particular case highlights the point. Again, two folks with training and conditioning being equal, THE variable left is weight and minimizing the differences ensures a 'fair' fight in pro sports. Where weight is NOT the only variable, it is NOT as important. Please show me the fault in that line of thinking.

CT GAMER wrote:

Nocturn wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:1. So were the two felony charges Zimmerman faced in August, 2005 for assault on a law enforcement officer self defense as well?

(note: the charges were reduced to misdemeanor simple battery)

Zimmerman wrote on his Myspace page: ”2 felonies dropped to 1 misdemeanor!!!!!!!!!!! The man knows he was wrong and still got this lumps..."

2. So who the hell thought it was a good idea to hire a guy who assaults police officers to be on the watch and 3. how can someone with a record of violent crime legally carry a gun?

1. This is unrelated to the current court issue.

2. He wasn't hired to be neighborhood watch, he volunteered at a homeowner association meeting because nobody else wanted to do it. In September of 2011, the HOA thought he was doing a fine job and asked him to be the head of the neighborhood watch group, due to his success in catching a thief during his shift.

3. A Seminole county animal control officer actually recommended that Zimmerman carry a firearm instead of pepper spray because there was a period of time where a violent dog was wandering the neighborhood, and, in the animal control officer's professional opinion, "It'll take two or three seconds to take effect, but a quarter second for the dog to jump you."

While carrying concealed on a neighborhood watch posting is not recommended due to the propensity for situations (like the unfortunate one we are currently discussing) to occur, it is not illegal, and is a constitutional right.

And according to Zimmerman's booking record, at the time of his initial detainment, he was 5'8" and 185 lbs.

EDIT: When I posted his description earlier, I was unaware of his booking record, and could only post what had been stated in the news and online.

It all speaks to his character. His Myspace page was also an interesting read...

He is an individual with a documented history of violent and illegal behavior who has assaulted police officers (and bragged about it) and even his own wife and then had family connections get him off or reduce charges.

He is a self-appointed vigilante with violent tendencies.

I wouldnt want this guy anywhere near my neighborhood.

Wasn't there also some anti-mexican or latino comments on that myspace page as well?

Personal insults are not permitted on Dakka. -Mannahnin

CT GAMER wrote:
It all speaks to his character. His Myspace page was also an interesting read...

1. He is an individual with a documented history of violent and illegal behavior who has assaulted police officers (and bragged about it) and even 2. his own wife and then 3. had family connections get him off or reduce charges.

4. He is a self-appointed vigilante with violent tendencies.

I wouldnt want this guy anywhere near my neighborhood.

1. The incident here was dropped down to a misdemeanor(resisting without violence) with required alcohol treatment classes. It's not the first time, nor will it be the last time, that prosecutors will charge someone with a higher-level crime to get them to accept a plea bargain. They might not have any evidence to support their claim of the higher crime, but the accused party doesn't know that.

2. "In the same year (2005), Zimmerman's ex-fiance, Veronica Zuazo, filed a civil motion for a restraining order, alleging domestic violence. In retaliation, Zimmerman filed for a retraining order against Zuazo and both these claims were resolved with both restraining orders granted."

Allegations are not proof. It's he said/she said.

If they had proof that Zimmerman had engaged in domestic violence or spousal abuse, then he would have been charged appropriately.

3. You have no proof aside from your own opinion that this is the case. It's not about what you think you know, it's about what you can prove.

4. A vigilante, by definition, carries out punishment (based on crime) in place of what they deem an inadequate justice system. The term doesn't really apply here for several reasons.
A. Martin was not committing any crime.
B. Zimmerman was not trying to circumvent the justice system. If he was, he wouldn't have called the police.
C. Zimmerman's claim was that he fired his weapon in self defense. Until there is proof showing otherwise, or until he is convicted in court of intentionally shooting Martin, you cannot say with any amount of certainty that he was taking the law into his own hands.

2. http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/11808013-george-zimmermans-criminal-records-revealed
http://rollingout.com/culture/george-zimmerman-son-of-a-retired-judge-has-3-closed-arrests/
^I dislike this reference, because, as most of you will notice, it is biased against Zimmerman. I'm at work and don't really have the time to find a perfectly neutral yet accurate account.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

CptJake wrote: Where weight is NOT the only variable, it is NOT as important. Please show me the fault in that line of thinking.

As important as what?

You're not a bright man.

As important as skill.
As important as the element of surprise.
As important as physiological factors.

I'm not saying that all or any of these factors apply here, and I don't think that's what CptJake was saying either. I think he was trying to point out that there are other important factors to take into account, more than just a weight advantage/disadvantage.


EDIT: Spelling.


Please do not purposely insult others on this thread. I would like to see this thread not repeat what it's predecessor did, and actually stay open.

At the end of the day folks, from the evidence presented it definately sounds to me like he was getting a pasting off Martin, so he shot the lad.

Not such a big deal if you ask me. If you go around filling people in Stateside, be prepared to get slotted.. you lot are packing!

As I said, its alright being a keyboard warrior and saying "you should never shoot someone if you are merely being beaten up" and I have to ask, have you ever been properly beaten up? Before I became a steely eyed dealer of death, I was merely an average (though devilishly handsome) teenager, and when I was about 15 I was assaulted by two guys who tried to mug me. I think there were maybe two years older than me, one of them said "empty your pockets" to me in a quiet street and at that point I pushed him away and tried to flee, I was punched once and then got into a scuffle, I hit him several times and then had a searing pain in my head as I was hit a couple of times with what I later learned (mates stupid mother called the police, obviously my father wouldn't have) was three cricket stumps taped together, the lad I had hit then mashed me over the head with a sock with some pool balls in, and I was knocked unconscious and spent 24 hours in the hospital.

If as I was being hit with the stumps, I had a firearm on me, I would have whipped it out and gleefully slotted the pair of them.

Now, being as Im all grown up and Tommy Rockers, I probably wouldn't panic and have my blood rushing and my adrenalin pumping in the same situation, but seriously, if I was an out of shape untrained civvie who doesnt often engage in fist fights, and I was on the floor getting beaten up by some kid and I had a gun in my pocket, Im pretty sure the mixture of pain and ardrenalin would mean I would happily whip it out shoot the little fether.

Is that really so unreasonable?

No it's not, if that's what happened.

The point is that only a very brief investigation led to that conclusion, and no charges being filed against a guy, after he killed an unarmed teenager.

Reasonable people disagree about whether a more in-depth investigation should have been done, and charges filed.

mattyrm wrote:
Now, being as Im all grown up and Tommy Rockers, I probably wouldn't panic and have my blood rushing and my adrenalin pumping in the same situation, but seriously, if I was an out of shape untrained civvie who doesnt often engage in fist fights, and I was on the floor getting beaten up by some kid and I had a gun in my pocket, Im pretty sure the mixture of pain and ardrenalin would mean I would happily whip it out shoot the little fether.

Is that really so unreasonable?

It is if you started the confrontation, which is the crux of the matter.

d-usa wrote:

mattyrm wrote:
Now, being as Im all grown up and Tommy Rockers, I probably wouldn't panic and have my blood rushing and my adrenalin pumping in the same situation, but seriously, if I was an out of shape untrained civvie who doesnt often engage in fist fights, and I was on the floor getting beaten up by some kid and I had a gun in my pocket, Im pretty sure the mixture of pain and ardrenalin would mean I would happily whip it out shoot the little fether.

Is that really so unreasonable?

It is if you started the confrontation, which is the crux of the matter.

Yeah indeed, I agree with Manahins post as well.

Point is, I argued for so long with people like Shuma because I think so many people are reactionary and jumping in feet first. In no way do I support the events portraid by Spike Lee, I also dont condemn the guy if he was merely being a bit of a dick, then got a kicking and whilst this was happening whipped out his piece and shot the lad.

The point is obviously, that if nobody seems to know what's going on, it seems ridiculous to either aggressively vindicate Zimmerman, or aggressively attack him.

Doubtless as good of a picture of events as is possible will now be built up, but as I said in my first post, if it was good enough for the DA, then im 99% certain its going to be good enough for me regardless of reactionary nonsense months after the event, but lets wait and see.

To be honest, it sounds like they were both dicks, so I dont think I care either way. Clearly Zimmerman (past record) was a douchbag, and at the same time, Martin wasn't even remotely a "nice kid" was he!?

Remember that guy who got shot that started the London riots? He was a total, full blown, horrible scum bag. But on the news they were making out he was a saint who never meant "any real harm" I reckon the same thing has happened here... It seems everyone is a nice guy posthumously.

Even Jerry Falwell!

mattyrm wrote: The point is obviously, that if nobody seems to know what's going on, it seems ridiculous to either aggressively vindicate Zimmerman, or aggressively attack him.

This is the most sensible post in the entire thread, to my knowledge.

mattyrm wrote:

d-usa wrote:

mattyrm wrote:
Now, being as Im all grown up and Tommy Rockers, I probably wouldn't panic and have my blood rushing and my adrenalin pumping in the same situation, but seriously, if I was an out of shape untrained civvie who doesnt often engage in fist fights, and I was on the floor getting beaten up by some kid and I had a gun in my pocket, Im pretty sure the mixture of pain and ardrenalin would mean I would happily whip it out shoot the little fether.

Is that really so unreasonable?

It is if you started the confrontation, which is the crux of the matter.

Yeah indeed, I agree with Manahins post as well.

Point is, I argued for so long with people like Shuma because I think so many people are reactionary and jumping in feet first. In no way do I support the events portraid by Spike Lee, I also dont condemn the guy if he was merely being a bit of a dick, then got a kicking and whilst this was happening whipped out his piece and shot the lad.

The point is obviously, that if nobody seems to know what's going on, it seems ridiculous to either aggressively vindicate Zimmerman, or aggressively attack him.

Doubtless as good of a picture of events as is possible will now be built up, but as I said in my first post, if it was good enough for the DA, then im 99% certain its going to be good enough for me regardless of reactionary nonsense months after the event, but lets wait and see.

To be honest, it sounds like they were both dicks, so I dont think I care either way. Clearly Zimmerman (past record) was a douchbag, and at the same time, Martin wasn't even remotely a "nice kid" was he!?

Remember that guy who got shot that started the London riots? He was a total, full blown, horrible scum bag. But on the news they were making out he was a saint who never meant "any real harm" I reckon the same thing has happened here... It seems everyone is a nice guy posthumously.

Even Jerry Falwell!

I was with the crowd that was just unhappy that the entire thing got a quick "Martin was a thug who got what he had coming" dismissal. I play the "What if Zimmerman started the fight, can he claim self defense if he is the one that caused the situation?" card to show that to many it was not a clear cut issue. Not from a "Martin is a victim!" standpoint, but from a "What if Martin is a victim?" standpoint.

I am happy that the entire thing is getting a trial, all the evidence will be made public, and 12 people will decide instead of just one DA or ADA. I know that there are people that will be upset no matter what the outcome of the trial will be, but I am just happy that this came to trial irregardless of the outcome. If nothing else it may help set precedent for similar situations in the future. As a gun owner I prefer if there is a clear ruling instead of a backroom decision by a DA.

Monster Rain wrote:

mattyrm wrote: The point is obviously, that if nobody seems to know what's going on, it seems ridiculous to either aggressively vindicate Zimmerman, or aggressively attack him.

This is the most sensible post in the entire thread, to my knowledge.

I'll see you this one(and agree to a point), and raise you this:

d-usa wrote: I am happy that the entire thing is getting a trial, all the evidence will be made public, and 12 people will decide instead of just one DA or ADA. I know that there are people that will be upset no matter what the outcome of the trial will be, but I am just happy that this came to trial irregardless of the outcome. If nothing else it may help set precedent for similar situations in the future. As a gun owner I prefer if there is a clear ruling instead of a backroom decision by a DA.

I'm also glad a trial will decide it as opposed to a single person.

d-usa wrote:I am happy that the entire thing is getting a trial, all the evidence will be made public, and 12 people will decide instead of just one DA or ADA. I know that there are people that will be upset no matter what the outcome of the trial will be, but I am just happy that this came to trial irregardless of the outcome. If nothing else it may help set precedent for similar situations in the future. As a gun owner I prefer if there is a clear ruling instead of a backroom decision by a DA.

You really would prefer Zimmerman go to trial than a decision by a DA not to prosecute?

If you shoot someone and it's an absolutely clear case of self defense, would you rather go to trial to "clear things up" and "set precedent," or would you rather stay out of jail, not have your name dragged through the press, and not have the next 25+ years of your life in the hands of people who were too stupid to get out of jury duty?

Even if you're completely innocent, a criminal trial is a life altering event. Often not for the better.

biccat wrote:

d-usa wrote:I am happy that the entire thing is getting a trial, all the evidence will be made public, and 12 people will decide instead of just one DA or ADA. I know that there are people that will be upset no matter what the outcome of the trial will be, but I am just happy that this came to trial irregardless of the outcome. If nothing else it may help set precedent for similar situations in the future. As a gun owner I prefer if there is a clear ruling instead of a backroom decision by a DA.

You really would prefer Zimmerman go to trial than a decision by a DA not to prosecute?

If you shoot someone and it's an absolutely clear case of self defense, would you rather go to trial to "clear things up" and "set precedent," or would you rather stay out of jail, not have your name dragged through the press, and not have the next 25+ years of your life in the hands of people who were too stupid to get out of jury duty?

Even if you're completely innocent, a criminal trial is a life altering event. Often not for the better.

You're assuming that this definitely a case of self defense, which is very much in dispute.

Hazardous Harry wrote:You're assuming that this definitely a case of self defense, which is very much in dispute.

No I'm not.

I'm proposing an alternative set of facts: in a clear case of self defense with yourself as the shooter, would you rather have "a clear ruling instead of a backroom decision by a DA"? I wonder if d-usa's (and others who may have the same argument) preference for trials over decisions not to prosecute is motivated by the facts of the case or an actual desire for judicial clarity over prosecutoral discretion.

Hazardous Harry wrote:

biccat wrote:

d-usa wrote:I am happy that the entire thing is getting a trial, all the evidence will be made public, and 12 people will decide instead of just one DA or ADA. I know that there are people that will be upset no matter what the outcome of the trial will be, but I am just happy that this came to trial irregardless of the outcome. If nothing else it may help set precedent for similar situations in the future. As a gun owner I prefer if there is a clear ruling instead of a backroom decision by a DA.

You really would prefer Zimmerman go to trial than a decision by a DA not to prosecute?

If you shoot someone and it's an absolutely clear case of self defense, would you rather go to trial to "clear things up" and "set precedent," or would you rather stay out of jail, not have your name dragged through the press, and not have the next 25+ years of your life in the hands of people who were too stupid to get out of jury duty?

Even if you're completely innocent, a criminal trial is a life altering event. Often not for the better.

You're assuming that this definitely a case of self defense, which is very much in dispute.

Yes but that was my point in the first place mate, essentially there are thousands of crimes and non crimes each and every year that dont go to court. The authorities look at the case and say "No need to charge this guy, its not conjunctive to the public good" or what have you, and as I said in the first place, you and your pals half informed "rage" should be directed at the other tens of thousands of people that dont get charged in a year, but Spike Lee didnt play the race card for them.

As I said, maybe its because I'm good at following orders, but there is a system for a reason. The system works. If this is the way you want to play it, then you have to say that's the way its got to go for every crime that ever gets committed and could be in any way ambiguous. Old lady shoots a burglar but the burglar said he didnt deserve it and the legal professionals say she shouldn't be tried? feth them what do they know, Harry and Shuma said to drag her raggety auld ass off to court.

I got arrested for being pissed whilst on my mates 8 year old brothers fold up electric go-ped once.. the bobby saw me larking about and said "have you been drinking?" and when I said "Aye, ive had about 8 pints" I got arrested. When I got to the cop shop, I told the desk sergeant that the "vehicle" in question wasn't an electrically operated vehicle, and was classed as a toy and he basically gave me a caution and said "on your way" but no no, I should have got stuck in orange overalls and dragged to jail because what do legal professionals know? People on the internet might have been angry if they heard about it, and they know everything.

We have a system, my life is good, I trust the system. We don't know what happened, I don't, you don't, random outraged people on TV don't and Spike Lee doesn't. Only the legal professionals that actually sat at their desk and looked at all the available evidence do, and they decided not to prosecute.

I'm not saying that occasionally you don't get a bad apple (corruption) but you don't put everything to the torch because of that. In 99% of cases, if a law suit isn't brought against someone, its because it was pointless to do so. Throwing everything out of the window because celebrities and the internet say so, and then it goes "viral" and every fething numbskull with no knowledge of the facts suddenly has an opinion is totally fething stupid.

Needless to say, I stand by my judgement (I trust the guys at the top of the legal tree) and no doubt the guy will get off with it, and the state just wasted a million bucks on a trial because Spike Lee said so. If Im wrong, Ill happily say so, I don't care about Zimmerman one way or the other, but common sense tells me that the way we have always done things makes more sense than the outraged teenager from Leeds who read a bit about it on the internet.

Except that a majority of people, including a DA, don't think this is a clear cut case of self defense. But you know that of course.

d-usa wrote:Except that a majority of people, including a DA, don't think this is a clear cut case of self defense. But you know that of course.

Doesn't matter. Do you really want a country ruled by the mob? Who cares what "a DA" thinks? It's the DA in Sanford that matters. That DA in Sanford, Florida may think George Zimmerman is guilty as feth, but decided not to prosecute because there isn't enough evidence.

Anyway, Zimmerman will stand trial, and as far as I know (not much at all) it seems a tall task for the prosecutors to prove reasonable doubt. They may get a sympathetic jury, but assuming objectivity on the jury's part, I don't see him getting convicted. If Zimmerman is found not guilty, it will be quite interesting to see reactions.

d-usa wrote:Except that a majority of people, including a DA, don't think this is a clear cut case of self defense. But you know that of course.

What DA?

AustonT wrote:

d-usa wrote:Except that a majority of people, including a DA, don't think this is a clear cut case of self defense. But you know that of course.

What DA?

Sorry, I was talking about State Attorney/Special Prosecutor. My mistake.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:

d-usa wrote:Except that a majority of people, including a DA, don't think this is a clear cut case of self defense. But you know that of course.

Doesn't matter. Do you really want a country ruled by the mob? Who cares what "a DA" thinks? It's the DA in Sanford that matters. That DA in Sanford, Florida may think George Zimmerman is guilty as feth, but decided not to prosecute because there isn't enough evidence.

Anyway, Zimmerman will stand trial, and as far as I know (not much at all) it seems a tall task for the prosecutors to prove reasonable doubt. They may get a sympathetic jury, but assuming objectivity on the jury's part, I don't see him getting convicted. If Zimmerman is found not guilty, it will be quite interesting to see reactions.

This country is ruled by mobs, moreso every year, but that would be a different discussion for a different thread.

I also don't see a special prosecutor reviewing a case and finding that there is evidence to charge somebody "mob rule".

horse gak. its all political now. When did aspecial prosecutor not find something? This farce might not even make it past the summary hearing the way the evidence is trending.

I'm loading the 870 in anticipation of antics in response.

d-usa wrote:

AustonT wrote:

d-usa wrote:Except that a majority of people, including a DA, don't think this is a clear cut case of self defense. But you know that of course.

What DA?

Sorry, I was talking about State Attorney/Special Prosecutor. My mistake.

Elected official caves to public pressure. Say it ain't so.

AustonT wrote:

d-usa wrote:

AustonT wrote:

d-usa wrote:Except that a majority of people, including a DA, don't think this is a clear cut case of self defense. But you know that of course.

What DA?

Sorry, I was talking about State Attorney/Special Prosecutor. My mistake.

Elected official caves to public pressure. Say it ain't so.

Isn't that how democracy is meant to work?

d-usa wrote:Except that a majority of people, including a DA, don't think this is a clear cut case of self defense. But you know that of course.

And the point of this sentence is what exactly? That was the crux of my entire post!

a) There is a system.
b) The system works pretty well

Do you want to add a

c) Change the system when someone from Hollywood puts it on the internet?

You are quite correct, I did know that. I know it all, nothing I wrote contradicts anything. I didn't say I think Zimmerman is a nice guy or even innocent, I didn't say I have formed an opinion one way or the other because all I know about the case is heresy and speculation. I said surely the guys who work at the top of the tree should be the ones make the decisions, not a graphic designer from Poland who is outrages because he reads the internet.

Its a very simple statement. Its not even remotely unreasonable, do you agree with it or not?

And if your answer is no, when there are tens of thousands of arrests made each year in the US alone that don't result in prosecution, I want to know if you are also outraged about them, and if you think that you should have the facts from all of them as well? What's your solution? Scrap the current system, put each and every individual that has been arrested but escaped prosecution on a big TV show like X-Factor, and let people vote on if they think it should go to trial?

I'm not even joking, im being entirely reasonable and saying let the system do its job, your shouting your mouth off while sitting on the fence and making no effort to provide an alternative! If you think what I have said regarding allowing the law to work how the law works is ridiculous/pig ignorant/stupid, give me a reasonable working idea for a replacement system.

d-usa wrote:Except that a majority of people, including a DA, don't think this is a clear cut case of self defense. But you know that of course.

I can't imagine this is directed at my question, because I clearly stated that I don't think the Zimmerman case is a clear cut case of self defense.

But just out of curiosity, are you going to answer my question? Would you prefer a jury to prosecutor discretion?

Except the special prosecutor is part of the system and nothing was changed? The system is currently working the way it is supposed to work. Charges were not filed, case was reviewed, charges were filed.

They didn't even have to scrap the current system and invent a new one or anything. What are the chances of having a system already in place to a handle this situation? It's almost as if what is happening now is the way the system is supposed to work.

Stop the presses! Florida followed the law!




Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:

d-usa wrote:Except that a majority of people, including a DA, don't think this is a clear cut case of self defense. But you know that of course.

I can't imagine this is directed at my question, because I clearly stated that I don't think the Zimmerman case is a clear cut case of self defense.

But just out of curiosity, are you going to answer my question? Would you prefer a jury to prosecutor discretion?

You asked me if I preferred a "clear cut case of self defense" go to trial instead of being dismissed by a DA.

I replied that this is no a clear cut case of self defense.

I am not talking about hypothetical scenarios of self defense here, if you want to do that feel free to argue with hypothetical people. As far as I was aware we were talking about a specific case that is not clear and will benefit from going to trial.