Black Teen Shot, Killed By Neighborhood Watch

[quote name='Msut77']I am sure Zimmerman put in some time bandaging his own head and moaning loudly where his neighbors could hear him. This is not sarcasm.[/QUOTE]

When I posted the link of the news I speculated it might be possible that zimmerman the next day (when his neighbors saw the bandages) might have faked it, meaning put the bandages on himself and continued the charade. I am sure all the medical records will be released or seen in court (and us via media). Then we will all know the extent of injuries if any and when all visits took place and the type of care received if any in each visit. I just wish that this information would come out faster so all of us (including me), but the media especially, can stop the SPECULATION.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Can someone post a link to who and what James okeefe is and what he did in this case? Not sarcastic
I posted a link to a story about Don Cheadle Ripping NBC for editing the zimmerman 911 call (see below) and was directed to this okeefe guy I am assuming he said and did something wrong or right around the zimmerman/martin case too?

"In a series of posts on his Twitter.com page, he writes, "Dear NBC News, Huh??? It was 'an error made in the production process that we deeply regret.' Really? 'Error?' Anybody out there know anything about editing? Unless the AVID (technology) malfunctioned, somebody was faking the funk. Why?, is the question. What was furthered beyond NBC news ratings?

"Dangerous subject matter to be f**king with. Irresponsible, incendiary and completely counter to the furtherance of justice for either side. Edited, produced, and green lit to air. The greatest responsibility lies with those listed but in the inverse order. Demote somebody."

He has also accused the network of airing the piece just to increase viewer numbers, adding, "An obvious and irresponsible ratings grab, willfully fanning the flames or too ignorant to stay in their job. I pray this kind of bulls**t doesn't effect (sic) the investigation or sway the facts in any way. There needs to be a proper outcome based on fact."

"Truth doesn't need 'help.' If Zimmerman is proven guilty of a crime he should be charged accordingly and prosecuted to the full extent."

http://www.starpulse.com/news/index.php/2012/04/05/don_cheadle_slams_nbc_over_george_zimm
 
[quote name='YendelTrex']Can someone post a link to who and what James okeefe is and what he did in this case? Not sarcastic
I posted a link to a story about Don Cheadle Ripping NBC for editing the zimmerman 911 call (see below) and was directed to this okeefe guy I am assuming he said and did something wrong or right around the zimmerman/martin case too?

"In a series of posts on his Twitter.com page, he writes, "Dear NBC News, Huh??? It was 'an error made in the production process that we deeply regret.' Really? 'Error?' Anybody out there know anything about editing? Unless the AVID (technology) malfunctioned, somebody was faking the funk. Why?, is the question. What was furthered beyond NBC news ratings?

"Dangerous subject matter to be f**king with. Irresponsible, incendiary and completely counter to the furtherance of justice for either side. Edited, produced, and green lit to air. The greatest responsibility lies with those listed but in the inverse order. Demote somebody."

He has also accused the network of airing the piece just to increase viewer numbers, adding, "An obvious and irresponsible ratings grab, willfully fanning the flames or too ignorant to stay in their job. I pray this kind of bulls**t doesn't effect (sic) the investigation or sway the facts in any way. There needs to be a proper outcome based on fact."

"Truth doesn't need 'help.' If Zimmerman is proven guilty of a crime he should be charged accordingly and prosecuted to the full extent."

http://www.starpulse.com/news/index.php/2012/04/05/don_cheadle_slams_nbc_over_george_zimm[/QUOTE]
When O'Keefe came out with his fraudulent ACORN expose, no one from that side said shit, no one was fired, there were no retractions, O'Keefe got pushed into the spotlight, the unedited vdeos weren't released, and he's making bank by pulling the same type of stunts today.

Beyond that extreme example, if NBC's The Today Show should be derided for editing that clip, then every broadcast news show should be firing every one of their employees right now. On the scale of things to be pissed about this case, this is pretty low on the list.
 
[quote name='dohdough']When O'Keefe came out with his fraudulent ACORN expose, no one from that side said shit, no one was fired, there were no retractions, O'Keefe got pushed into the spotlight, the unedited vdeos weren't released, and he's making bank by pulling the same type of stunts today.

Beyond that extreme example, if NBC's The Today Show should be derided for editing that clip, then every broadcast news show should be firing every one of their employees right now. On the scale of things to be pissed about this case, this is pretty low on the list.[/QUOTE]

Hey there special friend :D!!

Here is my second free tip of the day for you. First was here http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=319664&page=4

When someone posts a link in a thread about trayvon martin/ george zimmerman and it relates to that then you might want to respond in kind. Keeping it related or explain why it is related.


I know you are thinking it is related and in a way it is. But the proper way to respond is to say something like this..."yes what they did was wrong and hasn't helped in this case but caused more problems. The media is like that and here is another example of that blah blah blah and a link to the story or an explanation of the story" even though a link would suffice. Be careful though as now the thread can become something else altogether and a back and forth of things that are NOT related.

Your response post below and the follow-up response post above is not that.

[quote name='dohdough']
NBC was chastised and fired people for it, not to mention that it was on the today show. You can't say the same thing for Fox News and James O'Keefe.
[/QUOTE]

You have a nice day special friend.

P.S. "no one from that side" is just one of the many other things wrong with those troublesome posts but we can leave that for a later time we don't want to get you overloaded and confused. Just digest the information above first that is a good start for you. Also remebering the phrase "this is not that" will aide you in the future.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='YendelTrex']Hey there special friend :D!!

Here is my second free tip of the day for you. First was here http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=319664&page=4

When someone posts a link in a thread about trayvon martin/ george zimmerman and it relates to that then you might want to respond in kind. Keeping it related or explain why it is related.


I know you are thinking it is related and in a way it is. But the proper way to respond is to say something like this..."yes what they did was wrong and hasn't helped in this case but caused more problems. The media is like that and here is another example of that blah blah blah and a link to the story or an explanation of the story" even though a link would suffice. Be careful though as now the thread can become something else altogether and a back and forth of things that are NOT related.

Your response post below and the follow-up response post above is not that.



You have a nice day special friend.

P.S. "no one from that side" is just one of the many other things wrong with those troublesome posts but we can leave that for a later time we don't want to get you overloaded and confused. Just digest the information above first that is a good start for you. Also remebering the phrase "this is not that" will aide you in the future.[/QUOTE]
*Sigh* I shouldn't have to point this out either but...look at who I'm dealing with.

If you want to crucify NBC for shoddy reporting, go ahead. O'Keefe is one of the more egregious examples of it, but relevant because no one vetted the wrong Trayvon Martin on facebook OR when Neo Nazi's were given prime time and described as a civil rights group. Were there apologies or firings from the news organizations that pushed those items out there? Of course not. All we heard were crickets. Crickets, crickets everywhere.

So when I see news that originated from Stormfront and white supremacy groups given legitimacy, I'm not the one with the problems when I'm pointing it out.

And btw, let's say I really was special in that way. Would that be an appropriate way to insult someone? I guess in your book, it is.
 
“At some point, the progressives have got to stand their ground against the NRA,” says Philip Cook, a sociologist who studies gun policy and crime at Duke University, in Durham, N.C. “I think otherwise the NRA will continue to push for a broader interpretation of their understanding of what the Second Amendment right is, to the point where everybody pretty much can carry a gun, concealed or openly, all the time in any circumstance, and do with it what they want.”

Evidence suggests that this could be such a moment.

More so than the shooting of Congresswoman Gabby Giffords last year in Tucson by a mentally disturbed man, the Martin case has provided ammunition for gun control groups largely because it so starkly touches on two of the major gun rights pillars: the expansion of self-defense doctrine into public spaces, and the growth of concealed weapons laws, especially so-called “shall issue” laws that require states to give concealed weapons permits to applicants who meet standard requirements.
Click to expand...

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justic...shooting-a-turning-point-in-gun-rights-debate

Hopefully. The gun nuts have been a little out-of-hand lately.

As a nation we support the second amendment, but noone wants to get shot by a nut while walking home from work.
 
[quote name='MrPiggles']ABC News - New photograph shows bloodied Zimmerman head minutes after shooting incident

Direct Link to Bloodied Head [WARNING - GRAPHIC][/QUOTE]


Very interesting article. Good and bad for Zimmerman...

Ben Crump, a lawyer for Martin's parents, said the family was furious that Zimmerman could "give this self serving apology so he could get a bond." One of the lawyers for the family called the apology "disingenuous and insincere."
Click to expand...

I like that he apologized. I don't think anyone knows if it is a ploy to get sympathy (except Zimmerman) but it is typical that the attorney of the family spun it into a "he did it to get bail" argument.

I would be interested to know if it was impromptu form Zimmerman or advised by his defense team.

"I am sorry for the loss of your son. I did not know how old he was. I thought he was a little bit younger than I am. I did not know if he was armed or not," Zimmerman said addressing Martin's family directly.
Click to expand...

I think people forget that the Trayvon Martin Zimmerman saw that night was not the same Trayvon that was plastered all over the news (i.e. Zimmerman did not see a young 12 year old Trayvon) so I can believe that he thought it was someone older then 17.

In a dramatic moment during the hearing, a detective, under questioning from O'Mara, admitted that it has no clear evidence that Zimmerman attacked Trayvon Martin first.
Click to expand...

It looks like the officer that testified and made a statement to the effect of there was no evidence that Zimmerman attacked Martin first made a big slip up. It will be hard to get past those remarks if they want to prove that Zimmerman intentionally "murdered" Trayvon.

In 2005, Zimmerman was arrested in Orange County, Fla., and accused of battering a police officer and obstructing justice. He pleaded to a lower charge and was ordered to attend an anger management program.
Both his wife and father testified that Zimmerman had seen two men in civilian clothes shoving his friend against a wall and that the officers never identified themselves as police. However, a police affidavit claimed that when the officers showed their badges Zimmerman said, "I don't care who you are."
In a second incident, prosecutor Bernie de la rionda said that a woman got an injunction against Zimmerman after he pushed her and slapped her mouth. Shellie Zimmerman testified that her husband was defending himself after the woman attacked him and drew blood. She said that Zimmerman got an injunction against the woman.
Click to expand...

The bad news is it looks like Zimmerman has had his fair share of "anger" moments....

At least we are finally getting real information.

And unless Zimmerman bashed his own head against the ground it appears he did suffer an injury. You can argue and debate all day about the extent of the injury but an injury is an injury.

I will say that compared to the rest of the body the face and head tend to bleed much more profusely and easily so sometimes wounds to that area tend to look exaggarated.

The person who took the photograph of a bloodied Zimmerman, asking not to be identified, told ABC News exclusively that they did not see the scuffle that night, but did hear it. The person recalled seeing Martin's prostrate body on the wet grass and said the gunpowder burns on Martin's gray hoodie were clearly visible.
Click to expand...

I thought it was interesting that the "witness" who took the photo of Zimmerman's head made a comment that the gunpowder burns in Martin's "Grey" sweatshirt were very visible... I thought Martin was wearing a red hoodie?

Now will he have to come up with the entire 150K to make bail or just 10%?
 
[quote name='vherub']on the topic of gun control, the evolution of the nra and the slow re-interpretation of the 2nd amendment, Jill Lepore has a piece in the New Yorker that is eye-opening:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/04/23/120423fa_fact_lepore

It should be required reading for anyone that wants to have an intelligent discussion on America's and American's changing relationships with gun ownership.[/QUOTE]

That's what I think is fascinating. This is the perfect case to indict the NRA. Too bad it had to be a tragedy, but they were never going to listen to simple logic.
 
[quote name='GBAstar']Very interesting article. Good and bad for Zimmerman...

I like that he apologized. I don't think anyone knows if it is a ploy to get sympathy (except Zimmerman) but it is typical that the attorney of the family spun it into a "he did it to get bail" argument.

I would be interested to know if it was impromptu form Zimmerman or advised by his defense team.[/QUOTE]
Zimmerman has not shown that he's a very contemplative individual and I can't think of any reason why he would not have rehearsed this with his lawyers. Hell, all we need is to look at the bullshit that's on his website. Not very remorseful there when he uses the passive voice to describe what happened and the way he characterizes himself as the victim. And how could we forget the call to Hannity.

I think people forget that the Trayvon Martin Zimmerman saw that night was not the same Trayvon that was plastered all over the news (i.e. Zimmerman did not see a young 12 year old Trayvon) so I can believe that he thought it was someone older then 17.
Click to expand...
This right here is bullshit because when asked to describe Martin, Zimmerman said "late teens" on the 911 call.

It looks like the officer that testified and made a statement to the effect of there was no evidence that Zimmerman attacked Martin first made a big slip up. It will be hard to get past those remarks if they want to prove that Zimmerman intentionally "murdered" Trayvon.
Click to expand...
There's also no evidence that Martin struck first either as of yet.

Although, I do find it interesting that you switched up between "Martin" and "Trayvon" as well as putting quotes around murdered. For someone that hates sensationalism, you sure do like to use loaded language. I happen to know why you switched it up even if you don't. It's a very subtle and subconscious thing.

The bad news is it looks like Zimmerman has had his fair share of "anger" moments....
Click to expand...
And this is news?

At least we are finally getting real information.
Click to expand...
The only break here is the picture.

And unless Zimmerman bashed his own head against the ground it appears he did suffer an injury. You can argue and debate all day about the extent of the injury but an injury is an injury.

I will say that compared to the rest of the body the face and head tend to bleed much more profusely and easily so sometimes wounds to that area tend to look exaggarated.
Click to expand...
So in other words, the picture is inconsistent with Zimmerman and his lawyers account about the brutality of Martin's attack. You don't get to handwave it away because it doesn't fit your narrative.

I thought it was interesting that the "witness" who took the photo of Zimmerman's head made a comment that the gunpowder burns in Martin's "Grey" sweatshirt were very visible... I thought Martin was wearing a red hoodie?
Click to expand...
Who said anything about Martin wearing a red hoodie?

Now will he have to come up with the entire 150K to make bail or just 10%?
Click to expand...
Doesn't matter because his parents have the resources to post either amount.
 
Here is my forever question.....

The difference between suburban law and "project" law is so very interesting to me. Where I grew up it was VERY well known that if you were in the presence of one of your friends who committed a crime then you are equally responsibility for that crime. This is warned so often its damn near posted on every street corner. Its pretty open and shut as far as cases go...its accepted no one even fights it. It just is.

Meanwhile...at the very core...strip away EVERYTHING...at the very core...this guy followed a person that resulted in his death. You followed him..he died..if you didnt follow him he wouldnt have died.

This is the same logic that countless, cops, lawyers, judges, teachers, parents etc etc said to me the first 20 years of my life.

Its mind blowing the difference between how laws get interpreted based on where you are from. Where I am from it wouldnt have mattered if he was the Black Hulk they would have still charged you for simply being there. fucking mind blowing. I personally know so many people who have cases from just being around the crime and no where near directly involved. Its like telling me that the world is round for the first time....that law is so ingrained into my mind I am blown away as to how it doesnt apply here.
 
[quote name='Soodmeg']Here is my forever question.....

The difference between suburban law and "project" law is so very interesting to me. Where I grew up it was VERY well known that if you were in the presence of one of your friends who committed a crime then you are equally responsibility for that crime. This is warned so often its damn near posted on every street corner. Its pretty open and shut as far as cases go...its accepted no one even fights it. It just is.

Meanwhile...at the very core...strip away EVERYTHING...at the very core...this guy followed a person that resulted in his death. You followed him..he died..if you didnt follow him he wouldnt have died.

This is the same logic that countless, cops, lawyers, judges, teachers, parents etc etc said to me the first 20 years of my life.

Its mind blowing the difference between how laws get interpreted based on where you are from. Where I am from it wouldnt have mattered if he was the Black Hulk they would have still charged you for simply being there. fucking mind blowing. I personally know so many people who have cases from just being around the crime and no where near directly involved. Its like telling me that the world is round for the first time....that law is so ingrained into my mind I am blown away as to how it doesnt apply here.[/QUOTE]
Do you want the short answer, the long answer, or the comedy option?

Hint: All three are the same.:lol:

racism with a dash of classism depending on the locale
 
[quote name='vherub']on the topic of gun control, the evolution of the nra and the slow re-interpretation of the 2nd amendment, Jill Lepore has a piece in the New Yorker that is eye-opening:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/04/23/120423fa_fact_lepore

It should be required reading for anyone that wants to have an intelligent discussion on America's and American's changing relationships with gun ownership.[/QUOTE]
That was an excellent article. Sheds some light on the past of organizations like the NRA and how they've changed over the years.
 
[quote name='Soodmeg']Here is my forever question.....

The difference between suburban law and "project" law is so very interesting to me. Where I grew up it was VERY well known that if you were in the presence of one of your friends who committed a crime then you are equally responsibility for that crime. This is warned so often its damn near posted on every street corner. Its pretty open and shut as far as cases go...its accepted no one even fights it. It just is.

Meanwhile...at the very core...strip away EVERYTHING...at the very core...this guy followed a person that resulted in his death. You followed him..he died..if you didnt follow him he wouldnt have died.

This is the same logic that countless, cops, lawyers, judges, teachers, parents etc etc said to me the first 20 years of my life.

Its mind blowing the difference between how laws get interpreted based on where you are from. Where I am from it wouldnt have mattered if he was the Black Hulk they would have still charged you for simply being there. fucking mind blowing. I personally know so many people who have cases from just being around the crime and no where near directly involved. Its like telling me that the world is round for the first time....that law is so ingrained into my mind I am blown away as to how it doesnt apply here.[/QUOTE]

I don't think (actually I don't think I KNOW) this is just not "project law" it is common sense across the board. If you hang with criminals then you will be seen or risk being seen as a criminal. If they commit a crime and you are there you can be in trouble as well or it can be interpreted that you are involved wrongly or rightly.That is the risk of running with CRIMINALS. This is a message every parent (or most) try to tell their children but usually falls on deaf ears. If you/someone is older then they should know better and know that this is only logical.

I am unclear if you are trying to draw some sort of line between this truth of life and this case. I would hope not. If so maybe you can explain to me why you are. The last paragraph might be your explanation of this but sometimes things, ideas, reasons etc get lost when typed out vs the spoken word. I am not trying to be mean but just saying it doesn't make any sense as is.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I was really surprised by how unprepared the investigator seemed on the stand. The Defense actually got him to state, on record, that he didn't know who started the fight and that he had no evidence to prove how the fight began. Those statements could really come back to haunt the state at trial. Who instigated the confrontation is the most critical part of the case considering the assertion of self defense. I was really surprised the state didn't have more evidence proving Zimmerman was the instigator. One bit of evidence I hadn't heard did come out though- that a neighbor saw shadows running. A defense attorney would absolutely rip that apart as any kind of conclusive evidence that Zimmerman was chasing Martin. I would have thought they had something more concrete to show Zimmerman chased down Martin. Second degree murder has a pretty high intent standard, I think the state is going to have a heck of a time at trial if they don't have some serious evidence up their sleeve. Manslaughter seems like it would have been a safer charge.
 
I had a pretty long response to this dumbass typed up, but I just can't do it. I'm not getting sucked into another black hole of ridiculousness.
 
[quote name='caltab']I was really surprised by how unprepared the investigator seemed on the stand. The Defense actually got him to state, on record, that he didn't know who started the fight and that he had no evidence to prove how the fight began. Those statements could really come back to haunt the state at trial. Who instigated the confrontation is the most critical part of the case considering the assertion of self defense. I was really surprised the state didn't have more evidence proving Zimmerman was the instigator. One bit of evidence I hadn't heard did come out though- that a neighbor saw shadows running. A defense attorney would absolutely rip that apart as any kind of conclusive evidence that Zimmerman was chasing Martin. I would have thought they had something more concrete to show Zimmerman started the fight. Second degree murder has a pretty high intent standard, I think the state is going to have a heck of a time at trial if they don't have some serious evidence up their sleeve. But, the investigator stated, under oath, that they didn't have evidence concerning who stated the altercation, so I doubt they are holding back evidence regarding that part of the case.[/QUOTE]
In my mind the fact that Zimmerman was following Martin should be enough, but in Florida it won't be.
 
[quote name='Clak']In my mind the fact that Zimmerman was following Martin should be enough, but in Florida it won't be.[/QUOTE]


Merely approaching someone is absolutely not enough and even if it is the state will have to prove it. Zimmerman claims that he was going back to his car when Martin approached him. I believe the investigator, under oath, actually said he has no evidence to disprove that statement. But, lets assume that Zimmerman did approach Martin, that is not enough to prove second degree murder. Lets say Zimmerman went up to Martin and asked what he was doing and then was subsequently attacked. That type of sequence of events would still allow him to claim self defense. There is nothing illegal in merely approaching someone. The state will have to prove that he did something to actually instigate a fight, like quickly run up to him or approach with gun drawn, or maybe even stalking him in some way. Walking up to someone and asking what they are doing doesn't give another person the right to attack you, so you could still assert self defense. I am not saying that is what happened in this case, but what I am saying is the state is going to have to have some kind of evidence to show Zimmerman actually started a fight, not just approached Martin. This is going to be a very difficult case to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

Self defense is an affirmative defense, so Zimmerman will have the burden of proof with that claim. However, proving second degree murder requires that state to show malice of some kind. Without actual proof Zimmerman instigate a fight, I believe that state of mind will be incredibly difficult to prove. If they charged him with manslaughter that wouldnt be such a problem.
 
[quote name='caltab']I was really surprised by how unprepared the investigator seemed on the stand. The Defense actually got him to state, on record, that he didn't know who started the fight and that he had no evidence to prove how the fight began. Those statements could really come back to haunt the state at trial. Who instigated the confrontation is the most critical part of the case considering the assertion of self defense. I was really surprised the state didn't have more evidence proving Zimmerman was the instigator. One bit of evidence I hadn't heard did come out though- that a neighbor saw shadows running. A defense attorney would absolutely rip that apart as any kind of conclusive evidence that Zimmerman was chasing Martin. I would have thought they had something more concrete to show Zimmerman chased down Martin. Second degree murder has a pretty high intent standard, I think the state is going to have a heck of a time at trial if they don't have some serious evidence up their sleeve. Manslaughter seems like it would have been a safer charge.[/QUOTE]
This was just the bail hearing so the state was just throwing out enough line to get a large amount. The real fun is when the trial starts, which won't be for a while I'm guessing.

[quote name='Clak']I had a pretty long response to this dumbass typed up, but I just can't do it. I'm not getting sucked into another black hole of ridiculousness.[/QUOTE]
You're a better man than me.:D

[quote name='Msut77']I can't wait to see him take the stand.

Oh wait, there is literally chance of that happening?

Nevermind then.[/QUOTE]
Zimmerman strikes me as the type of person that thinks he's smarter than he actually is. His lawyers should've never let him say anything more than a "I'm very sorry" and leave it at that. Anything more, like the slip about the age, and you're just hanging yourself on your own rope. The ridiculousness coming out of this case will be epic.
 
[quote name='dohdough']This was just the bail hearing so the state was just throwing out enough line to get a large amount. The real fun is when the trial starts, which won't be for a while I'm guessing.


You're a better man than me.:D


Zimmerman strikes me as the type of person that thinks he's smarter than he actually is. His lawyers should've never let him say anything more than a "I'm very sorry" and leave it at that. Anything more, like the slip about the age, and you're just hanging yourself on your own rope. The ridiculousness coming out of this case will be epic.[/QUOTE]

O, I know this was just a bail healing. But, I believe the investigator actually said they have no evidence in regards to who started the fight. Unless he wasn't being entirely truthful while under oath, that would lead me to conclude this isn't just a case of holding back evidence.

I believe the critical evidence will be the person on the phone with Martin. Her statements and credibility will probably be what determines the case IMO. Also, the phone records showing the length and timing of the call. Her testimony could be what the state relies on to paint Zimmerman as the aggressor.

And I totally agree that Zimmerman shouldnt have taken the stand. He was probably told to just say he was sorry and nothing more. On cross, I was surprised the Defense attorney didn't object to how the Prosecutor was addressing Zimmerman. He was basically calling him a criminal when questioning him.
 
[quote name='caltab']
And I totally agree that Zimmerman shouldnt have taken the stand. He was probably told to just say he was sorry and nothing more. On cross, I was surprised the Defense attorney didn't object to how the Prosecutor was addressing Zimmerman. He was basically calling him a criminal when questioning him.[/QUOTE]

Well the guy isn't very well known for doing what he's told.
 
He could be a difficult client to deal with. His dad was a magistrate and he aspires to be one as well. He may want to take an active role in formulating the defense strategy. It will take a good lawyer to keep control of the direction of the case. I was impressed with the attorney today though, I think he may be up to that task.
 
[quote name='dohdough']*Sigh* I shouldn't have to point this out either but...look at who I'm dealing with.

If you want to crucify NBC for shoddy reporting, go ahead. O'Keefe is one of the more egregious examples of it, but relevant because no one vetted the wrong Trayvon Martin on facebook OR when Neo Nazi's were given prime time and described as a civil rights group. Were there apologies or firings from the news organizations that pushed those items out there? Of course not. All we heard were crickets. Crickets, crickets everywhere.

So when I see news that originated from Stormfront and white supremacy groups given legitimacy, I'm not the one with the problems when I'm pointing it out.

And btw, let's say I really was special in that way. Would that be an appropriate way to insult someone? I guess in your book, it is.[/QUOTE]

I apologize for the delay in getting back to you.

Whenever any media agency reports or represents someone or a story wrongly they should take responsiblity and be held accountable. Sadly this is and has been the state of most agencies for a long long time and has gotten worse since they are not being held accountable and not by the public either. There are examples of this everywhere and this one you pointed out unfortunately is one of the many things wrong with media and accountability. They should be fired and ran out of the business.

I caught your post on the part where zimmerman contradicted his 911 call about being in his teens. Nice catch and thanks for pointing that out.

Take care "_____ friend" ;):lol:
 
[quote name='Purple Flames']Well the guy isn't very well known for doing what he's told.[/QUOTE]


That's interesting. Could you point out where Zimmerman was told to do something?
 
[quote name='GBAstar']That's interesting. Could you point out where Zimmerman was told to do something?[/QUOTE]

certainly the response will be to say that he didn't listen to the 911 operator command to stop following Martin.

I find this to be one of the most publicly mischaracterized aspects of the case.

He was never actually commanded to stop following Martin. The dispatcher stated, "we don't need you to do that". Some might say there isn't really a difference. But, I believe there is, especially if the prosecutor is going to use it as evidence of disobedience or aggression.

Also, most people leave out what Zimmerman said in response to the operators statement. He said, "OK." Zimmerman's family contends that he turned around at that point.

Who knows what the truth is, but I think that aspect of the case is not as clear cut as some say.
 
[quote name='caltab']certainly the response will be to say that he didn't listen to the 911 operator command to stop following Martin.

I find this to be one of the most publicly mischaracterized aspects of the case.

He was never actually commanded to stop following Martin. The dispatcher stated, "we don't need you to do that". Some might say there isn't really a difference. But, I believe there is, especially if the prosecutor is going to use it as evidence of aggression.

Also, most people leave out what Zimmerman said in response to the operators statement. He said, "OK." Zimmerman's family contends that he turned around at that point.

Who knows what the truth is at this point, but I think that aspect of the case is not as clear cut as some say.[/QUOTE]


Well I'd tend to believe that Chomsky and Pinker would disagree with the statement that Zimmerman was "told" or "commanded" (pick your word, they've both been used in this thread) to do something but hey what do those bums know.
 
[quote name='GBAstar']That's interesting. Could you point out where Zimmerman was told to do something?[/QUOTE]

He was told not to contact Sean Hannity.
 
[quote name='GBAstar']Well I'd tend to believe that Chomsky and Pinker would disagree with the statement that Zimmerman was "told" or "commanded" (pick your word, they've both been used in this thread) to do something but hey what do those bums know.[/QUOTE]
I doubt that Chomsky or Pinker would have Zimmerman's OR YOUR back regarding this case.

Your decision to evoke them is revolting.
 
[quote name='dohdough']I doubt that Chomsky or Pinker would have Zimmerman's OR YOUR back regarding this case.[/QUOTE]


Regardless I'm sure they can distinguish between "We don't need you to do that" and "Don't do that"

not that it matters because you are under no legal obligation to follow any commands or advice issued by a 911 operater.... correct me if I'm wrong but the only law you can break when calling 911 is giving false information or abusing/misusing the service.

Your decision to evoke them is revolting.
Click to expand...

riiiiiiiiiiight.
 
[quote name='GBAstar']Would you rather he contacted harpO?[/QUOTE]

I don't get it.

not that it matters because you are under no legal obligation to follow any commands or advice issued by a 911 operater
Click to expand...

Keep moving those goalposts.
 
[quote name='GBAstar']Regardless I'm sure they can distinguish between "We don't need you to do that" and "Don't do that"[/quote]
Regardless nothing. You used their names to make a point and they'd never support your line of reasoning. They'd be able to put it in context and not in the intellectually bankrupt way you do. You don't get a pass for misrepresenting someone's philosophy when it goes against their entire body of work.

not that it matters because you are under no legal obligation to follow any commands or advice issued by a 911 operater.... correct me if I'm wrong but the only law you can break when calling 911 is giving false information or abusing/misusing the service.
Click to expand...
No one's arguing the legality of that comment by the 911 operator as the only thing it's good for is to show intent. Drawing attention to it being/not being a lawful order is just meant to distract from the issue of intent and to absolve Zimmerman of any responsibility for the shooting.

riiiiiiiiiiight.
Click to expand...
I'm glad you agree.
 
[quote name='dohdough']
No one's arguing the legality of that comment by the 911 operator as the only thing it's good for is to show intent. Drawing attention to it being/not being a lawful order is just meant to distract from the issue of intent and to absolve Zimmerman of any responsibility for the shooting.
[/QUOTE]

The problem is Zimmerman responded "Ok." If the prosecution is going to use the phone call to to show intent and paint a picture of someone who was determined to take the law into his own hands against the advice of the operator, they need to have some evidence his actions were different than his verbal response. The defense is going to argue he turned back towards his car, the state is going to need more than a witness who saw shadows to contradict that assertion. If they are going to do that, I believe their best evidence will be the girl on the phone with Martin.

A good defense lawyer will try and use the 911 phone calls to their advantage. Generally, a person who has the intent necessary to commit second degree murder or wants to take the law into their own hands doesn't call the police right before doing so.

One thing I was struck by was how not big Zimmerman was. I believe the initial portrayal was a huge male against a little child. Looking at Zimmerman today, he may have been smaller than Martin(although obviously I don't know their exact sizes). Size differential actually could be important to the self defense argument. If he was substantially bigger than Martin it would be harder to argue he reasonably believed his life was in danger.

I am not saying I'm convinced Zimmerman is completely innocent and not without fault. But, with the facts that are known, I think second degree murder may be a stretch.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='caltab']The problem is Zimmerman responded "Ok." If the prosecution is going to use the phone call to to show intent and paint a picture of someone who was determined to take the law into his own hands against the advice of the operator, they need to have some evidence his actions were different than his verbal response. The defense is going to argue he turned back towards his car, the state is going to need more than a witness who saw shadows to contradict that assertion. If they are going to do that, I believe their best evidence will be the girl on the phone with Martin.[/quote]
Sure, but when considering the timing, the audio, where the beating took place, and finally the shooting, it'll be hard to argue that Zimmerman turned around right after he acknowledged the 911 operator unless Martin decided to go Super Saiyan! and drag Zimmerman behind the street, Shinryukened him across 3 yards, landed on top of Zimmerman for a finishing move, and Zimmerman doing a reversal fatality with his trusty 9.

I'm just saying that it should be simple enough to poke holes in that story and I agree that witness testimony will show that Zimmerman didn't pay attention to that advice.

A good defense lawyer will try and use the 911 phone calls to their advantage. Generally, a person who has the intent necessary to commit second degree murder or wants to take the law into their own hands doesn't call the police right before doing so.
Click to expand...
Intent would make it 1st degree. 2nd degree is without premeditation.

One thing I was struck by was how not big Zimmerman was. I believe the initial portrayal was a huge male against a little child. Looking at Zimmerman today, he may have been smaller than Martin(although obviously I don't know their exact sizes). Size differential actually could be important to the self defense argument. If he was substantially bigger than Martin it would be harder to argue he reasonably believed his life was in danger.
Click to expand...
True, but Martin is also skin and bones. It'd be even worse for Zimmerman if he looked the same as in the original mugshots.

I am not saying Zimmerman is completely innocent and not without fault. But, with the facts that are known, I think second degree murder is a real stretch.
Click to expand...
I think manslaughter is fair, but 2nd degree was probably a move to get him to plea and manslaughter isn't off the table because of it.
 
[quote name='dohdough']
Intent would make it 1st degree. 2nd degree is without premeditation.
I think manslaughter is fair, but 2nd degree was probably a move to get him to plea and manslaughter isn't off the table because of it.[/QUOTE]

1) an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable "heat of passion" or 2) a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life.
http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/second-degree-murder-definition.html

I could be wrong here and may be splitting hairs but I think intent is still 2nd degree.

I kind of thought the same thing but that DA was overcharging zimmerman so the jury would have a lesser charge to choose from. After reading about the 12 year old she is charging as an adult I am not so sure.
 
I kinda have a problem with the case of "Martin was too strong" that I have seen some new outlets throw around. You are basically punishing the kid for being stronger than someone who is attacking him.

Its like picking a fight with a guy only to find out mid-punch that he is some type of MMA fighter.....then trying to sue him for breaking your face.
 
[quote name='Soodmeg']I kinda have a problem with the case of "Martin was too strong" that I have seen some new outlets throw around. You are basically punishing the kid for being stronger than someone who is attacking him.

Its like picking a fight with a guy only to find out mid-punch that he is some type of MMA fighter.....then trying to sue him for breaking your face.[/QUOTE]

edited out as I think you are just in here trolling..
 
There are different types of intent for each type of murder and they vary by state(you cant just look at some random definition on findlaw because the statutes are different). I was referring to the intent required for 2nd degree murder. As most people know, premeditation is required only for first degree, not second. Second degree still has an intent element-it requires malice. I believe in Florida the standard is depraved mind. These terms, although very short, are very loaded. There are probably dozens of cases delineating exactly what that means in Florida. I think for manslaughter all they would have to show is negligence.

Also, I've never heard anyone refer to Martin as being "too strong". However, his physical stature compared to Zimmerman is absolutely relevant in establishing a legitimate claim of self defense. You can make a much more valid claim of reasonable fear of death/great bodily harm again someone who is 300 lbs vs someone who is 100 lbs. Also, as far as a I can tell, there is NO evidence establishing who attacked who(you just assume Zimmerman was the attacker). That detail is by far and away the most critical factor in a self defense claim. It will boil down to 2 things: 1) who instigated the physical confrontation and 2) was a bullet to the chest excessive. If the prosecutor can prove Zimmerman was the instigator the case is over(at least for manslaughter). If they cannot, the defense could probably make a claim the force wasn't excessive if he really does have documented injuries that are fairly substantial. The day after pictures will be very telling. Bruising to the head/face can take a few hours to really show up. They are also going to claim Martin went for the gun---a claim that is much more difficult to prove and will entirely depend on Zimmerman's credibility on the stand.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Soodmeg']I kinda have a problem with the case of "Martin was too strong" that I have seen some new outlets throw around. You are basically punishing the kid for being stronger than someone who is attacking him.

Its like picking a fight with a guy only to find out mid-punch that he is some type of MMA fighter.....then trying to sue him for breaking your face.[/QUOTE]

I see what you did there :roll:



edit: didn't see caltab's response removed the rest of mine
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='caltab']There are different types of intent for each type of murder and they vary by state(you cant just look at some random definition on findlaw because the statutes are different). I was referring to the intent required for 2nd degree murder. As most people know, premeditation is required only for first degree, not second. Second degree still has an intent element-it requires malice. I believe in Florida the standard is depraved mind. These terms, although very short, are very loaded. There are probably dozens of cases delineating exactly what that means in Florida. I think for manslaughter all they would have to show is negligence.

Also, I've never heard anyone refer to Martin as being "too strong". However, his physical stature compared to Zimmerman is absolutely relevant in establishing a legitimate claim of self defense. You can make a much more valid claim of reasonable fear of death/great bodily harm again someone who is 300 lbs vs someone who is 100 lbs. Also, as far as a I can tell, there is NO evidence establishing who attacked who(you just assume Zimmerman was the attacker). That detail is by far and away the most critical factor in a self defense claim. It will boil down to 2 things: 1) who instigated the physical confrontation and 2) was a bullet to the chest excessive. If the prosecutor can prove Zimmerman was the instigator the case is over(at least for manslaughter). If they cannot, the defense could probably make a claim the force wasn't excessive if he really does have documented injuries that are fairly substantial. The day after pictures will be very telling. Bruising to the head/face can take a few hours to really show up. They are also going to claim Martin went for the gun---a claim that is much more difficult to prove and will entirely depend on Zimmerman's credibility on the stand.[/QUOTE]

It has been said (also I think you implied it...have to check on that) but I just fully reject that logic. The stature of either one of them should play very little into the case at hand. In fact I think it would sever to be a distraction in order to waste time.

The only thing I can think of is if a women was being raped...somehow got the upper hand to the point that the rapist feared for his life and he killed her. Oh well if only she was weaker he wouldnt have had to kill her. Doesnt matter that he is engaging in a act that would make her fight as hard as she could.

To say that Trey's size plays a huge role in it seems simplistically complex. There is a reason to defend yourself against a bigger person yes...but in reality you are saying that if only Trey was weaker Zimmerman would have won the fight and had no reason to shoot him. That seems completely ass backwards to me. I would say that Trey wouldnt have fought so hard if he didnt think his life was in danger.

I just dont know where this magically switch is where self defense comes into play after you try to intimidate a stranger. The question of why he even got out of his car still is a mystery but its not hard to draw a conclusion. Thought he was suspicious, called the police, got out of his car and approached a stranger KNOWING he had a firearm that was loaded, he could have taken the bullets out and just waved it around if he really wanted to scare Trey into stopping.....what was he doing again? Walking down the street. It doesnt take a lawyer to get why someone would do such a thing especially given Zimmermans past. The only thing that didnt work out was that Trey wasnt some weakling and had the strength to stand his ground.


If there is flight or fight....I think we all believe that Trey tried the flight option first...what else is left?
 
Again, I am pretty sure no one has said Martin was too strong. But, it is an absolute fact that in a physical altercation size is relevant in determining whether or not deadly force is reasonable. In this case, the initial picture that was portrayed was that of a much larger heavy set man vs. a much smaller young child. If that were the case it would be much harder to show Zimmerman feared for his life. The fact that Martin may have been a similar size, or perhaps even bigger than Zimmerman, does not really help Zimmerman. But if Zimmerman absolutely dwarfed Martin it would really hurt is case. The use of deadly force requires a belief of imminent death or severe physical harm. In a case where someone is unarmed, and his only weapons are his body/physical strength, relative size is a very important consideration in determining the reasonableness of this belief. A fight between 2 physical equals would make it easier to show it was reasonable than a fight between a huge man and small boy. Equal size is certainly not outcome determinative, but I would argue had their statutes been as originally described/believed it would have been incredibly difficult to argue self defense in this case. The early pictures of Martin and Zimmerman were of a very young boy and an overweight man. I was just observing that today in court Zimmerman was unexpectedly small.

Zimmerman still must show he was not the aggressor.
 
I think that Trayvon's size and strength is relevant in trying to determine if Zimmerman's story could be true. If Trayvon had been sigificantly smaller and weaker, Zimmerman's claim of self-defense wouldn't hold up.

I think that most state's self-defense laws are clear that self-defense doesn't apply to someone who had just commited, was commiting, or was about to commit a forcible felony. So, in your rape example, self-defense wouldn't apply.
 
[quote name='chiwii']I think that Trayvon's size and strength is relevant in trying to determine if Zimmerman's story could be true. If Trayvon had been sigificantly smaller and weaker, Zimmerman's claim of self-defense wouldn't hold up.

I think that most state's self-defense laws are clear that self-defense doesn't apply to someone who had just commited, was commiting, or was about to commit a forcible felony. So, in your rape example, self-defense wouldn't apply.[/QUOTE]

Exactly. It's not so much that similar size some how proves his innocence, but rather that it's not the potentially damming evidence it could have been had Zimmermam dwarfed Martin.

You are also absolutely correct that the original aggressor cannot claim self defense, especially in the case of something like an active forcible rape. Although, it is possible that the original aggressor can make a clear retreat and regain the ability to claim self defense if he is subsequently attacked.
 
So how much stock goes into knowing carrying a lethal weapon as far as self defense? The facts are that Zimmerman is a man carrying a gun, Trey is a kid walking down the street.

I am interested in seeing the exact point in which this became self defense...seeing as Zimmerman had every advantage coming into it.

Gun vs unarmed
Man vs Child
Car vs walking
Element of surprise as granted by watching and calling the cops.
 
[quote name='Soodmeg']So how much stock goes into knowing carrying a lethal weapon as far as self defense? The facts are that Zimmerman is a man carrying a gun, Trey is a kid walking down the street.

I am interested in seeing the exact point in which this became self defense...seeing as Zimmerman had every advantage coming into it.

Gun vs unarmed
Man vs Child
Car vs walking
Element of surprise as granted by watching and calling the cops.[/QUOTE]

Self defense comes into it when his attorneys try to convince the jury that he was only watching the kid until the police get there, and that the kid violently confronted him for following him. Being armed has no leverage when your attacker doesn't care unless you would be willing to use it. In any other case you would likely be arrested if you started a fight with someone who was following you. It isn't a crime to follow someone unless they file a complaint about it. (I am not passing any kind of judgement that the victim was violent or anything, just stating what would normally happen in different outcomes)

I am not saying that is what happened but that is probably his best defense right now. It's up to a jury now who will be presented with all the facts, and twists the attorneys can find.

Everything else is just speculation.
 
It's actually not yet up to a jury in Florida from my understanding. There apparently is a hearing where a judge decides if self defense was applicable and justified.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top