Dr. Bao was really puzzling, the way he kept explaining what an opinion was and he was pretty antagonistic and seemingly pointlessly argumentative. I couldn't wrap my mind around him, LOL, and don't see how he helped either case.
Black Teen Shot, Killed By Neighborhood Watch
- Thread starter joeboosauce
- Start date
I thought Dr. Bao was hilarious. The reason why he did that is because he wanted avoid the rhetorical games from the defense kinda like how they they caught Serino with the "If we take being a pathological liar off the table, would he be telling the truth" or whatever the hell the defense asked. Instead, we got clarification of the question and context for answers, which explains Dr. Bao's answer about THC levels seems a little strange as well as being the perfect example of what went on during the 3.5 hour testimony.
FL law in self defense.
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.
In the case of Zimmerman it falls under the law. Since Martin was on top punching Zimmerman in the face and not letting him get up. Here are some links to one punch kills if you have a doubt that someone getting hit by a fist is not a big deal.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2207934/Colton-Gleason-died-SINGLE-PUNCH-protecting-friends-attackers.html
http://m.cbsnews.com/storysynopsis.rbml?pageType=health&url=http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-204_162-57583107/soccer-referees-death-shows-how-dangerous-head-blows-can-be/&catid=57583107
http://m.lvsun.com/news/2012/nov/30/jury-deliberates-fate-man-accused-1-punch-death/
It seems that "reasonably believes" is quite open to interpretation here. I guess that really is how it works there. That's fascinating to say the least.
Which begs the question: why would a 17 year old with no record of violence straddle Zimmerman, who has a colorful history of it?
Not to mention, why does Martin not get to be covered under self defense when he was in fear of his safety as corroborated by Jeantel and can be inferred by Zimmerman's statements? I guess it's because dead kids tell no tales, eh?
Hmmm...thousands of boxing matches happen all year round and most, if not almost all, don't get killed after being punched 100+ times. That kinda trumps your exceptions there.
Last edited by a moderator:
Just cause Martin hadn't been caught fighting doesn't mean he never fought before. By the looks of what the witness who saw the two that night puts Martin as the aggressor not Zimmerman so Martin can't claim self defense.
Hmmmm.....thousands of boxing matches happen. You don't say! Let's look at the boxers, they train year round, they wear padded gloves and sometimes padded headgear, if they fall it's on a cushioned mat, and they know how to take the punches. Kinda the opposite of what Zimmerman went though that night. He gets hit by a bare fist, wearing no headgear, he didn't expect the punch since he went down on to concert, hitting his head. So again how is this the same as boxing matches? Kinda trumps your exceptions there!
It's a legal fiction. The reasonable man/person standard is the basis of criminal and civil law. Once GZ's atty has introduced "sufficient" evidence to establish self defense (low burden) then the burden shifts to the prosecution (high burden = beyond reasonable doubt) to disprove it. Good luck proving beyond a reasonable doubt.
Last edited by a moderator:
Purple Flames
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 21 (100%)
Closing arguments start tomorrow.
I won't be able to give any play-by-plays tomorrow morning since I have a job interview at 10am, but I'll try to give cliff note recaps as best I can.
I won't be able to give any play-by-plays tomorrow morning since I have a job interview at 10am, but I'll try to give cliff note recaps as best I can.
Last edited by a moderator:
Not really. In NV they have the same laws as FL "stand your ground". A person punched another and claimed self defense. You would think the person who throw the punch would fall under that law but didn't. That person was unable to prove he reasonably believes he was to suffer great bodily harm from the other person. I posted the link in my last post but here it is again.
http://m.lvsun.com/news/2012/nov/30/jury-deliberates-fate-man-accused-1-punch-death/
In Zimmerman case it is differ since we have witnesses and physical evidence supporting Zimmerman's claim to self defense.
You've essentially touched on what this entire case boils down to, did he reasonably believe his life was in danger. The decision is the jury's job...
We also have no proof that Zimmerman doesn't like sniffing little girl's used panties because he's never been caught! Let's charge him with pedophilia too!
Btw, no one saw Martin throw the first punch either so how the hell would a witness be able to corroborate that?
Hey, YOU'RE the one that threw out 3 citations as if getting killed with a single punch is somehow proof that it's common enough that someone should be in reasonable fear of it; not me. If you want to throw out the notion that Martin and Zimmerman weren't in a boxing ring, then maybe you shouldn't have used ridiculous and rare examples where the assailants were not only bigger than the victims, but they all happened in three completely different environments than someone's lawn. So thanks for completely refuting your own insipid points.
Good luck, dude.
Purple Flames
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 21 (100%)
The prosecution made a motion to have aggravated assault added to the list of charges since Zimmerman knowingly pursued Martin with a firearm. I have to give it to them, they're definitely covering their bases.
That would have been cute if the dispatcher told him not to follow Trayvon. I find that the best jokes are accurate in nature.
Last edited by a moderator:
??? What position did he say they were in? I thought it was TM in full mount, in which case he could reach his holster on his hip.
911 dispatcher:
Are you following him? [2:24]
Zimmerman:
Yeah. [2:25]
911 dispatcher:
OK.
We don’t need you to do that. [2:26]
Zimmerman:
OK. [2:28]
Last edited by a moderator:
How many of you guys been in fights before or had a gun pull out on them? People tend to freeze up or don't grasp the situation before it's already too late, I just ask because of a lot of the testimony revolves around being trained or prepared for certain things, we all know GZ is a pussy, he carries a gun around. O_O It's too bad TM isn't alive, the testimony is a lot of he said/she said and the truth may fully ever come out.
Purple Flames
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 21 (100%)
Wow, just wow. I guess Martin's facebook pics, youtube account, and twitter posting didn't show how he was fascinated by violence and the "thug life". Talking about having sex, pics of him throwing up the bird while smiling with fake gold teeth or the pics of him smoking pot and holding a gun (horrible handling by him with finger on the trigger). No that don't do it for you? How bout his school records? He was suspended on Oct 21, for graffiti. He had been suspended before this for missing school. The last one which he was serving at the time he was killed was for having a bag with traces of pot with a pipe. Even Rachel thought he was just in another fight and didn't think much of it when she called him back and got no answer. So it's not a far reach to say he fought before that night.We also have no proof that Zimmerman doesn't like sniffing little girl's used panties because he's never been caught! Let's charge him with pedophilia too!
Btw, no one saw Martin throw the first punch either so how the hell would a witness be able to corroborate that?
Hey, YOU'RE the one that threw out 3 citations as if getting killed with a single punch is somehow proof that it's common enough that someone should be in reasonable fear of it; not me. If you want to throw out the notion that Martin and Zimmerman weren't in a boxing ring, then maybe you shouldn't have used ridiculous and rare examples where the assailants were not only bigger than the victims, but they all happened in three completely different environments than someone's lawn. So thanks for completely refuting your own insipid points.
Good luck, dude.
As far as no one saw Martin throw the first punch either so how the hell would a witness be able to corroborate that?
You can't with a witness but the evidence can. Who has the bloody head and face? and who is the only one without a scratch but on his hand? But let's entertain the idea that Zimmerman did throw the 1st punch and Martin did defend himself. Why did Martin escalate and got on top of Zimmerman and kept punching? Why didn't Martin run for help once Zimmerman was on the ground? I believe once Martin did defend himself he lost that claim once he got on top and became the aggressor. But I still believe that Martin did throw the 1st punch, caught Zimmerman off guard, and wanted to show who was "thugin" that night.
Yes, I "throw out" stories of where people did die caused by just one punch. I read all 3, 2 took place on pavement and neither stated how big the attacker was or how small the victim was. The only story that was different was the ref where it did take place in a grassy area and the story did make a comment that the attacker was heavy not bigger then the victim. In Zimmerman's case it did take place on the walk path made of concrete. You know it's nice that you think you can take a beating and not think you might be badly injured or even killed. For me I won't take that chance. I want to live and will do anything to make sure I go home safely. Also I don't believe in "luck".
To your first paragraph: You've seen a picture of TM with the gun? I heard there was just a picture of someone's hand with the gun. BTW smoking pot, having sex, fighting, flipping the bird and getting suspended from school actually aren't uncommon activities for 17 year-olds, Anyone who says otherwise was afforded an incredibly sheltered upbringing, and I certainly don't know anyone like that.Wow, just wow. I guess Martin's facebook pics, youtube account, and twitter posting didn't show how he was fascinated by violence and the "thug life". Talking about having sex, pics of him throwing up the bird while smiling with fake gold teeth or the pics of him smoking pot and holding a gun (horrible handling by him with finger on the trigger). No that don't do it for you? How bout his school records? He was suspended on Oct 21, for graffiti. He had been suspended before this for missing school. The last one which he was serving at the time he was killed was for having a bag with traces of pot with a pipe. Even Rachel thought he was just in another fight and didn't think much of it when she called him back and got no answer. So it's not a far reach to say he fought before that night.
As far as no one saw Martin throw the first punch either so how the hell would a witness be able to corroborate that?
You can't with a witness but the evidence can. Who has the bloody head and face? and who is the only one without a scratch but on his hand? But let's entertain the idea that Zimmerman did throw the 1st punch and Martin did defend himself. Why did Martin escalate and got on top of Zimmerman and kept punching? Why didn't Martin run for help once Zimmerman was on the ground? I believe once Martin did defend himself he lost that claim once he got on top and became the aggressor. But I still believe that Martin did throw the 1st punch, caught Zimmerman off guard, and wanted to show who was "thugin" that night.
Yes, I "throw out" stories of where people did die caused by just one punch. I read all 3, 2 took place on pavement and neither stated how big the attacker was or how small the victim was. The only story that was different was the ref where it did take place in a grassy area and the story did make a comment that the attacker was heavy not bigger then the victim. In Zimmerman's case it did take place on the walk path made of concrete. You know it's nice that you think you can take a beating and not think you might be badly injured or even killed. For me I won't take that chance. I want to live and will do anything to make sure I go home safely. Also I don't believe in "luck".
To your second paragraph: GZ had "minor abrasions" and a swollen - not a broken, not a severed, not a life-threateningly injured - nose, which was no longer swollen by the following evening. Besides, if he'd never been chased down like a fugitive or criminal or something by the self-appointed neighborhood watch captain, there would have been no confrontation to begin with.
To your third paragraph: But TM's punch didn't kill GZ...and situations where a single punch have killed someone are infinitely outnumbered by situations - like the one that transpired - where a single punch causes a bloody nose, or even less.
I'm sure TM wanted to go home safely too, and he just may have made it had he not been chased down and then gunned down like a game animal.
Purple Flames
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 21 (100%)
Back from my interview. I'll sum up the morning as best I can thus far:
- Manslaughter WILL be added to the list of charges. The state is pushing to also have 3rd degree felony murder and I believe aggravated child abuse (Martin was a minor, remember?) added in place of aggravated assault. They'll start that argument once they get back from lunch at 1pm EST.
- The judge denied the defense's request that she instruct the jury that following someone in itself isn't a crime, but he's free to bring it up during his closing arguments.
- There are a few more things both sides want the judge to instruct to the jury for deliberation, but I missed them.
- Judge won't allow 3rd degree felony murder or child abuse charges since she feels there isn't enough evidence for that. Point goes to the defense.
I'll update as more info comes in.
EDIT: Here's a Florida case that's got some similarities to this one 9"ll highlight the important parts): http://www.ohio.com/blogs/akron-law-cafe/akron-law-caf%C3%A9-1.295890/florida-cases-interpreting-section-776-041-person-who-initially-provoked-incident-may-not-claim-self-defense-1.297242
- Closing arguments are starting now. The state gets to go first, then the defense, then the state gets a rebuttal closing argument.
- Manslaughter WILL be added to the list of charges. The state is pushing to also have 3rd degree felony murder and I believe aggravated child abuse (Martin was a minor, remember?) added in place of aggravated assault. They'll start that argument once they get back from lunch at 1pm EST.
- The judge denied the defense's request that she instruct the jury that following someone in itself isn't a crime, but he's free to bring it up during his closing arguments.
- There are a few more things both sides want the judge to instruct to the jury for deliberation, but I missed them.
- Judge won't allow 3rd degree felony murder or child abuse charges since she feels there isn't enough evidence for that. Point goes to the defense.
I'll update as more info comes in.
EDIT: Here's a Florida case that's got some similarities to this one 9"ll highlight the important parts): http://www.ohio.com/blogs/akron-law-cafe/akron-law-caf%C3%A9-1.295890/florida-cases-interpreting-section-776-041-person-who-initially-provoked-incident-may-not-claim-self-defense-1.297242
Now, it's up to the jury, but it's been found in Florida before that if someone is pursuing you (and both the state and defense agree on this, so none of that "following someone isn't a crime" shit from the usual suspects) is grounds to fight back, and that would essentially throw Zimmerman's self-defense claim out the window. You can see why the state wants to have the lesser chargers instructed to the jury.
- Closing arguments are starting now. The state gets to go first, then the defense, then the state gets a rebuttal closing argument.
Last edited by a moderator:
Purple Flames
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 21 (100%)
I was worried about De la Rionda doing the first closing argument for the state, but he's actually hitting every single important part of the prosecution's argument for conviction.
Is he? I was watching about a half an hour ago and I didn't find him especially convincing. Maybe it took a while to start up.
I guess the idea of being worried if the prosecution is hurting, or worried that the defense is hurting, is coming from a personal decision on guilt?
As a person who is undecided on Zimmerman's outright guilt (or in other words, I have a reasonable doubt that he didn't act in self defense, but allow for the possibility that it wasn't self defense), it's more a fascinating show than anything else. One thing that I can't believe is legal, is the idea that you can start to offer up reduced charges at the very end of the trial. Doesn't the defense defend against a particular charge, prepare against a particular charge, then at the end, the rug gets pulled out because the State thinks they don't have a great case? How on earth can that be legal?
Zimmerman trial aside, how many of us would be out of our minds outraged if this were occurring in a more debatable allegation in a different trial? I know I would be.
As a person who is undecided on Zimmerman's outright guilt (or in other words, I have a reasonable doubt that he didn't act in self defense, but allow for the possibility that it wasn't self defense), it's more a fascinating show than anything else. One thing that I can't believe is legal, is the idea that you can start to offer up reduced charges at the very end of the trial. Doesn't the defense defend against a particular charge, prepare against a particular charge, then at the end, the rug gets pulled out because the State thinks they don't have a great case? How on earth can that be legal?
Zimmerman trial aside, how many of us would be out of our minds outraged if this were occurring in a more debatable allegation in a different trial? I know I would be.
Purple Flames
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 21 (100%)
He's doing an excellent job point out every single inconsistency in Zimmerman's story, not to mention using the physical evidence to discredit Zimmerman.
There was some talk on sidebar or by the commentators/reporters that in Florida, the charge of 2nd degree murder comes like, pre-installed with all of the lesser charges or something like that. From what I gather, it's essentially a blanket of charges, where if the jury doesn't feel it was quite as malicious as murder, they can roll down to the lesser manslaughter and roll down to the lesser child abuse (or something) and still roll down to the lesser aggravated assault and so on and so forth. Like someone else mentioned, it increases the prosecution's chances of walking away with something, by giving the jury more options than just 2nd murder (or complete innocence/nothing at all). Is this how it works?
Yah, assuming that's how it works, I'm stunned it's legal.
You go to trial for vehicular manslaughter, but it's discovered the guy jumped out in front of your car according to witnesses and you could prevent the death, so the State realizes they don't have you there. But after that's established, you get charged with a hate crime because the guy was Eskimo, you get tickets for a burnt out brake light and a rolling stop you made three blocks up the road, and the jury says your breath stinks.
I'm just amazed that our legal system allows for things to be charged, then later in the trial, the State can add lesser charges so they hope they can get you on something. Like I said, Zimmerman trial aside, imagine it's someone with the public perception of innocence. Hearing this bullshit go down would have us up in arms, and IMO, rightfully so.
Yeah, it does seem a little strange. Casting such a wide net - it's like they're shooting in the general direction of the defendant and since they don't have good accuracy, they just fire a barrage of bullets and one of the shots is bound to connect.
Purple Flames
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 21 (100%)
Zimmerman looks absolutely terrified right now during this close. They're showing all the tapes, airing all the video where he contradicts himself. He really is his own worst enemy.
- Bernie just reminded the jury they can charge with either Murder 2 on Manslaughter.
- Bernie just reminded the jury they can charge with either Murder 2 on Manslaughter.
Last edited by a moderator:
So as we have been saying all along, it's entirely dependent on is Zimmerman truly felt like he could die or be gravely injured:
"Self-defense means that Zimmerman believed that Martin would kill or gravely injure him, even if he was mistaken, (emphasis mine) and that belief was "reasonable" given the circumstances and what Zimmerman knew at the time."
I don't know. I don't like him, I think he's a douchebag of a person, and he set off a series of events that led to him shooting someone, but IF Martin did not stop attacking before he was shot, then by definition it seems that Zimmerman should have a really good chance of getting off. I thought the self defense definition was more strict. EVEN IF HE WAS MISTAKEN, if he thought he was in gravedanger, he can claim self defense. As much as I dislike Zimmerman, I don't think he shot Martin for the hell of it, I think he really was scared...so it seems like...
But once again...that's what the jury is there to decide.
"Self-defense means that Zimmerman believed that Martin would kill or gravely injure him, even if he was mistaken, (emphasis mine) and that belief was "reasonable" given the circumstances and what Zimmerman knew at the time."
I don't know. I don't like him, I think he's a douchebag of a person, and he set off a series of events that led to him shooting someone, but IF Martin did not stop attacking before he was shot, then by definition it seems that Zimmerman should have a really good chance of getting off. I thought the self defense definition was more strict. EVEN IF HE WAS MISTAKEN, if he thought he was in gravedanger, he can claim self defense. As much as I dislike Zimmerman, I don't think he shot Martin for the hell of it, I think he really was scared...so it seems like...
But once again...that's what the jury is there to decide.
willardhaven
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 12 (100%)
Florida does not recognize imperfect self defense.
Your reasoning would lead Martin to be in the right even if he started the fight.
So based on your logic I want to know: is it self defense to defend yourself against someone using self defense?
Last edited by a moderator:
You comparisons fail instantly though. I was just quoting some yahoo article that was legally defining the various charges that have been put up, and the one that was attempted. My mistake was assuming that that definition was specific to Florida, since everything else in the article had been. Maybe it's not? Maybe your statement is inaccurate?
If Martin was attacked, and thought his life was in grave danger, then he could have shot Zimmerman, and assuming all other things equal, Martin would be on trial. I don't understand how Martin's life was in grave danger though, with him in a superior position and no injuries until the shot. I'd think that would be a hard case to win, but I'm no lawyer.
It wasn't my logic, it was the definition I was quoting, so if that's flawed in Florida, so be it, but I've repeatedly said it's up to the jury to decide if this passes their litmus test. The self defense against self defense is silly, and I don't really see where you're going with it. If there's an altercation, and one of the parties thinks they might be killed or gravely injured, then yes, they would appear to be within their rights to use lethal force.
If you socked a guy and put him on the ground out of the blue, then he got on top of you and started severely beating you to the point where you feared for your life...I would think, based on the definition, that you could lethally defend yourself. What caused the shooting isn't what is being debated. Zimmerman followed the kid, and in doing so caused the chain of events to begin. At the start of the physical altercation is really what the jury is deciding.
willardhaven
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 12 (100%)
I realize that my post sounded a lot more argumentative than I intended. Sorry about that.
Florida law, which seems stupid to begin with, states that you either used self defense or didn't. I don't think Zimmerman used self defense nor do I think he harassed Martin with the intent to kill. I also don't think you can pursue someone without the reasonable understanding that you might be punched.
My point about self defense is that even if (this is assuming Zimmerman's story is true) Zimmerman got close and threatened Martin before being "attacked," Martin was just in defending himself from an assault by Zimmerman. So how can people argue that Zimmerman was defending himself from Martin?
I think you are incorrect about the physical altercation being the sticking point in the debate. Zimmerman could have assaulted Martin without making contact.
Florida law, which seems stupid to begin with, states that you either used self defense or didn't. I don't think Zimmerman used self defense nor do I think he harassed Martin with the intent to kill. I also don't think you can pursue someone without the reasonable understanding that you might be punched.
My point about self defense is that even if (this is assuming Zimmerman's story is true) Zimmerman got close and threatened Martin before being "attacked," Martin was just in defending himself from an assault by Zimmerman. So how can people argue that Zimmerman was defending himself from Martin?
I think you are incorrect about the physical altercation being the sticking point in the debate. Zimmerman could have assaulted Martin without making contact.
Last edited by a moderator:
You are commingling two issues; 1)The issue of whether a reasonable and prudent person in GZ’s circumstances would have believed that he was being subjected to force capable of causing death or grave bodily harm and 2) whether GZ was the aggressor.
Either way the physical altercation is at the crux of the self-defense claim.
Last edited by a moderator:
willardhaven
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 12 (100%)
I thought that once you were established as the aggressor, you waive your right to claim self defense. If this conflict requires an aggressor, it would have to be Zimmerman wouldn't it?
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, you'd have to prove that it was a hate crime, which is pretty difficult to begin with, but the brake light is a fix-it ticket, and running through a stop sign is a moving violation. I'd say that it's not a huge deal especially since you generally get a litany of charges if you're arrested regardless, but I get your point. Personally, I don't have a problem with riders like the ones Zimmerman is facing.
You can charge someone with more than one crime at a time. Let's say I was skateboarding and doing some grinds on a ledge with a sign saying "no skateboarding allowed," I could be arrested for vandalism, trespassing, disobeying a city ordinance, destruction of public/private property, and a whole slew of other things. The actual charges in this case are different in nature than most charges with riders, but the fact that there are riders doesn't make it any stranger than usual.
The amount of racism from black people over this is getting out of hand. I've seen black people on twitter threaten to attack every white person they see if he's found not guilty.
I've also seen people say if he's guilty, they'll get him in jail, if he's not guilty, we'll get him outside, so same outcome, either way he's toast. People don't care about what happenend, they just want to run with their agenda.
If GZ was black this wouldn't be news. It's become so racialized. Blank Panthers marching and being supported is just outrageous, imagine if people marched with the KKK? What's going on here?
This guy acted on a suspicion, as a neighborhood watch that can not always be 100% accurate suspicious. He then ultimately got into an altercation. An altercation which left him getting beat up, and he defended himself with his gun. Overall it could have been handled a lot differently. But the bottom line is you cannot find someone guilty of murder if it was in self defence according to the law.
There is no way he can be found guilty, even with the racial nonsense, left leaning media lies, and a crazy ass judge.
I've also seen people say if he's guilty, they'll get him in jail, if he's not guilty, we'll get him outside, so same outcome, either way he's toast. People don't care about what happenend, they just want to run with their agenda.
If GZ was black this wouldn't be news. It's become so racialized. Blank Panthers marching and being supported is just outrageous, imagine if people marched with the KKK? What's going on here?
This guy acted on a suspicion, as a neighborhood watch that can not always be 100% accurate suspicious. He then ultimately got into an altercation. An altercation which left him getting beat up, and he defended himself with his gun. Overall it could have been handled a lot differently. But the bottom line is you cannot find someone guilty of murder if it was in self defence according to the law.
There is no way he can be found guilty, even with the racial nonsense, left leaning media lies, and a crazy ass judge.
I really liken this to a child pestering another child with the good ole "I'm not touching you!" game. Yeah, he isn't touching the other kid, but it doesn't mean that he's perfectly innocent and bears no responsibility for the consequences. Being passive aggressive is still a form of aggression and not all that passive.
Purple Flames might recognize this analogy, but I've been thinking about it for a while before it was brought up in the other forum that we lurk.
panzerfaust
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
I'm not sure if GZ could be charged or if he's going to be, but regardless, I think the dude is a lunatic, and if he didn't start that fight then he certainly baited the shit out of that kid into starting one. Stalking someone from your car, leaving your car with a handgun, and approaching the individual under the veil of night and not expecting to get your face punched in? Dude is a complete idiot, and it's not surprising he ended up killing someone after realizing people don't like to be harassed. People crying self-defense are probably right, technically, but man do I really hate Zimmerman.
I'm just following headlines at this point, not sure where the case is leaning. Both sides seems pretty confident?
I'm just following headlines at this point, not sure where the case is leaning. Both sides seems pretty confident?
Last edited by a moderator:
And what about all the racist white people saying that Martin deserved to get killed for "looking like a thug?"
Yeah, the NRA and right wing media don't have an agenda, right?
The reason why this made news is because the local Police Department purposely stonewalled the investigation from the top. Serino knew that there was sufficient evidence for a manslaughter charge and was told to drop it for whatever reason.
No one expects Zimmerman or anyone to be 100% right all the time or perfect, but that doesn't mean that it's ok to shoot an unarmed kid walking home with some Skittles and Arizona Watermelon Iced Tea because "he looked like he was on drugs" aka walking down the street while talking on the phone while wearing a hoodie in the rain, especially when Zimmerman was 100% wrong in ALL his suspicions. He had every chance in the world to not
this up and ended up killing a kid.Yeah, right leaning media didn't pull any funny stuff at all except for perpetuating bullshit from stormfront, which lead to a bunch of people harassing the WRONG Trayvon Martin.
Actually, there's no proof of that nor is there strong evidence that Martin punched Zimmerman, which is different from there being a physical altercation of some kind..
We don't know Zimmerman. People are not putting things into context. Zimmerman might be a crazy lunatic. But what we have here is a neighborhood that suffered a lot of burglary's.
Neighborhood watch were on alert, Zimmerman was apart of neighborhood watch. Following or monitoring a suspicious person in the area was technically part of his neighborhood watch role, i don't see the issue.
Harrassing people would be a problem, but you don't expect somebody to start attacking you.
Yes the dispatcher told him not to follow. However he was already out of the car following at this point.
Now the teen was known to smoke pot. Pot makes people paranoid. He told his friend on the phone a creepy ass cracker is following me
So we have a paranoid teen on edge that somebody is following him, and we do not know for sure, but it seems like when approaching by GZ, lashed out and ended up being on top of GZ pummeling him. From this point does GZ do nothing? He simply had to defend himself.
Maybe if he didn't have a gun he wouldn't have been so assured to go up to this guy. Maybe if he wasn't so angry about recent burglary's he wouldn't have been so impulsive not to wait for police. But those facts are irrelevant as to the crime itself.
People say unarmed child, but a 17 yr old is capable of beating a person up pretty bad. Most likely GZ was angry, and the guy was also scared or on alert so the conversation quickly turned violent, but the fact is if your head is being smashed against concrete and you have no means to stop it, what do you do?
Overall that's what the jury has to decide on. The other stuff is largely irrelevant. All the racial crap really has stirred this whole case. GZ is hispanic not white. GZ didn't shoot the guy because he was black(i don't think anyway) and it was more, dress sense, recent happenenings, and his role that led him to follow the guy rather than racial profilling.
Edited media coverage, bandwagon, and racist views of black people have led this into a different direction. Society cannot encourage people to hide behind curtains calling the police. People have to defend themselves and their community. While GZ should have handled this differently, and his interview saying he wouldn't have done anything differently was pretty surprising, the basic principle of a man being out there, looking to stop crime isn't a bad one.
In most states, you don't get to claim self-defense if you start a fight, whether it's through words, throwing the first punch, or through intimidation.
I'd say that both sides are confident that there won't be a Murder 2 conviction, but Manslaughter is definitely a possibility.
bread's done