Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.