Black Teen Shot, Killed By Neighborhood Watch

[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]
The only way it would come to SYG for Zimmerman is if Martin isn't allowed the protection of self-defense. Martin could've(and was according to his gf) been in fear of his well-being from being followed hence giving him protection under SYG instead. At that point, it wouldn't matter if Martin threw the first punch.

Now if we use Zimmerman's account, which is very suspect, he gets SYG protection if he can show that he stopped pursuing Martin after he lost sight of him and tried every possible means of getting away which was prevented by Martin's allegedly vicious attack that almost knocked him out cold(lolz for truthiness). This is the only way because the entire chain of events was set of by Zimmerman. If Zimmerman called the police and went home, never followed Martin, never got out of the car, etc, it'd just be another case of walking while black and harassed by the cops for Martin.
 
The credibility of Zimmerman's story will largely depend upon how consistent he was. If his story never significantly altered from the first statements he made he will be more credible. He was immediately placed in custody, so he wouldn't have had much time to come up with a story. His story is like the perfect storm of events that would allow him to claim self defense. He claims :(1) He was no longer following Martin, but rather was approached by him (2) Martin threw the first punch (3) Martin was bashing his head against the grown and covering his mouth in such a way that would justify extreme force (4) Martin went for his gun. People are quick to say Zimmerman isn't the brightest dude in the world, but I would think if he could make up all these facts on the spot that will be instrumental to his defense, he is rather sophisticated. If he said all those things the first time he was questioned, without knowing if there were any witnesses and without counseling with his magistrate dad or an attorney, he'd be more credible than if some of those details were added later. Also, his brother has said that he passed some kind of voice stress test. Not admissible in court, but if true it is some what compelling. It obviously remains to be seen if and how his story did evolved as he continued to be questioned.

Also, keep in mind, the investigator is now on record as saying 2 crucial things: (1) that he did not know who started the fight and (2) that there is no evidence to contradict Zimmerman's assertion he was returning to his car. These statements can and will be used against the state at trial on cross examination of the investigator if he makes a contrary statement.
 
I could be wrong but throwing the first punch is not stand your ground unless it can be proven that maybe Zimmerman had his gun out and pointed and was threatening Martin. A first punch kind of does away with any self-defense claim. Doesn't it?

Same for Zimmerman if he shoved Martin or punched him first it would not be self-defense.
 
[quote name='YendelTrex']I could be wrong but throwing the first punch is not stand your ground unless it can be proven that maybe Zimmerman had his gun out and pointed and was threatening Martin. A first punch kind of does away with any self-defense claim. Doesn't it?

Same for Zimmerman if he shoved Martin or punched him first it would not be self-defense.[/QUOTE]
Being followed by car and pursued on foot by a stranger is something I'd consider threatening behavior. The incident didn't start when they're within arms length of each other. There's a chain of events that lead to the shooting. Why this is this such a hard concept to understand is beyond me.
 
[quote name='dohdough']The only way it would come to SYG for Zimmerman is if Martin isn't allowed the protection of self-defense. Martin could've(and was according to his gf) been in fear of his well-being from being followed hence giving him protection under SYG instead. At that point, it wouldn't matter if Martin threw the first punch.

Now if we use Zimmerman's account, which is very suspect, he gets SYG protection if he can show that he stopped pursuing Martin after he lost sight of him and tried every possible means of getting away which was prevented by Martin's allegedly vicious attack that almost knocked him out cold(lolz for truthiness). This is the only way because the entire chain of events was set of by Zimmerman. If Zimmerman called the police and went home, never followed Martin, never got out of the car, etc, it'd just be another case of walking while black and harassed by the cops for Martin.[/QUOTE]

This is wrong. You can follow someone, it is not illegal, and if they turn around and hit you, THEY will be arrested.

Look it up.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Being followed by car and pursued on foot by a stranger is something I'd consider threatening behavior. The incident didn't start when they're within arms length of each other. There's a chain of events that lead to the shooting. Why this is this such a hard concept to understand is beyond me.[/QUOTE]

It's a hard concept because it seems unjust, but it's just the way law enforcement works. In this world of yours then anyone would be perfectly legal in beating the crap out of someone for following them. I am not saying that is what happened but that just isn't true. The aggressor would be arrested not the stalker.
 
[quote name='Knoell']This is wrong. You can follow someone, it is not illegal, and if they turn around and hit you, THEY will be arrested.

Look it up.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='Knoell']It's a hard concept because it seems unjust, but it's just the way law enforcement works. In this world of yours then anyone would be perfectly legal in beating the crap out of someone for following them. I am not saying that is what happened but that just isn't true. The aggressor would be arrested not the stalker.[/QUOTE]
And this is exactly why when put into context of the case, you can draw reasonable conclusions about Zimmerman being responsible for the unjustified killing of Martin. edit: Considering Martin being a minor, it changes the context of "following someone isn't illegal" drastically.

Btw, I find it hilarious that you're using this line of reasoning considering the NH case.
 
[quote name='dohdough']And this is exactly why when put into context of the case, you can draw reasonable conclusions about Zimmerman being responsible for the unjustified killing of Martin.

Btw, I find it hilarious that you're using this line of reasoning considering the NH case.[/QUOTE]

NH case? The one where the white guy gets killed? If the guy didn't shoot him, the police would have arrested him, yes. If Martin would have hit Zimmerman, he would have been arrested as well. I am sure everyone would be calling that racism as well, but it is just the way the police work. Despite how justified you are, being the aggressor will always put you in the hot seat with the police. What is your point?

The whole point behind that case is that to my knowledge the police haven't made an arrest yet. The guy could be completely cleared of all charges afterwards, but it doesn't seem as bothersome to the same people who saw Zimmerman walking around scot free and saying it was an injustice etc, etc. You have missed that point long ago.
 
[quote name='Knoell']NH case? The one where the white guy gets killed? If the guy didn't shoot him, the police would have arrested him, yes. If Martin would have hit Zimmerman, he would have been arrested as well. What is your point?[/quote]
You missed my edit. An adult following a minor in this case is already problematic. Which leads me too...

The whole point behind that case is that to my knowledge the police haven't made an arrest yet. The guy could be completely cleared of all charges afterwards, but it doesn't seem as bothersome to the same people who saw Zimmerman walking around scot free and saying it was an injustice etc, etc. You have missed that point long ago.
Click to expand...
Your batman scenario from the case in NH where a man shot at a burgler would've actually been applicable to Martin because how was Martin to know that Zimmerman didn't have any ill intent towards him? Imminent threat after the fact right? Cause it looks like Martin was right.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Being followed by car and pursued on foot by a stranger is something I'd consider threatening behavior. The incident didn't start when they're within arms length of each other. There's a chain of events that lead to the shooting. Why this is this such a hard concept to understand is beyond me.[/QUOTE]

I understand just fine little buddy you seem confused on the term that you used "first punch" and my post. :cry:

"A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."

I am not a law expert but to me Attacked is not the same as throwing the first punch. To me throwing the first punch is Attacking. Meeting force with force is not throwing the first punch. As I said if Zimmerman cornered him and held him against his will maybe/probably I don't know. If Zimmerman had his gun out then yes most likely. But just throwing a first punch as YOU said I can't see that being considered self-defense.

Again I am not saying that is what happened or didn't happen or addressing the entire event. I was addressing your first punch statement.
 
[quote name='YendelTrex']I understand just fine little buddy you seem confused on the term that you used "first punch" and my post. :cry:[/QUOTE]
Yeah, taking it out of the context of being followed is understanding just fine. :roll:

You're the fourth troll pushing the same bullshit in every thread that we've had in less than two months and people here have actually been pretty civil to you...and this is after you've shitted on every thread you've posted on. GO fuck yourself.

edit: Nice ninja edit there, asshole.

edit2: According to what you quoted, even if Martin threw the first punch, Zimmerman wouldn't have been covered by SYG unless he somehow knew Martin was the secret identity of the HULK or was a champion MMA fighter. The only way Zimmerman would be 100% in the clear is if Martin were walking backwards towards each other, they bump into each other, and Martin busts out like Neo on Agent Smith and dragon punches him across the street.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='dohdough']You missed my edit. An adult following a minor in this case is already problematic. Which leads me too...


Your batman scenario from the case in NH where a man shot at a burgler would've actually been applicable to Martin because how was Martin to know that Zimmerman didn't have any ill intent towards him? Imminent threat after the fact right? Cause it looks like Martin was right.[/QUOTE]

Following a minor is problematic yes.

The point is we do not know how the altercation started, but zimmerman simply following him is not grounds for conviction or even charging him which seems like what you are saying given this:

[quote name='dohdough']
Being followed by car and pursued on foot by a stranger is something I'd consider threatening behavior. The incident didn't start when they're within arms length of each other. There's a chain of events that lead to the shooting. Why this is this such a hard concept to understand is beyond me
[/QUOTE]

What will convict Zimmerman is whether or not the Judge or Jury believes he was the aggressor and was seeking a confrontation.

As for the burglar case I have spoken many times about how you have a right to defend your property. If someone has broken into my house, then they are already guilty of something. Shooting them without question is probably a bad idea, but holding them at gunpoint I wouldn't think twice. If they move towards you or even away, you don't know their plans. They put themselves in harms way when they entered your house. There is no feeling sorry for them.

Just think about it for a second:

You punch a burglar in your house - Who will get arrested?
You punch someone you suspect following you - Who will get arrested?
 
[quote name='dohdough']Yeah, taking it out of the context of being followed is understanding just fine. :roll:

You're the fourth troll pushing the same bullshit in every thread that we've had in less than two months and people here have actually been pretty civil to you...and this is after you've shitted on every thread you've posted on. GO fuck yourself.

edit: Nice ninja edit there, asshole.[/QUOTE]

Take a pill and relax little buddy. Again I was addressing your statement. I will go even further in addressing your statement if it is found that Martin did throw the first punch without being held captive etc or a gun pointed (or being in hand ie threatened with it) at him and Zimmerman is still found guilty I will eat humble pie.

This is all I have addressed. SOOOOOOOOoooooooo

I am not sure what you THINK I am PUSHING I would ask but I know you don't answer questions or deal in reality.

Your assumptions and conclusions of me are strange at best.
Oh well I guess I was right about you.

See ya around "special" friend.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Knoell']Following a minor is problematic yes.

The point is we do not know how the altercation started, but zimmerman simply following him is not grounds for conviction or even charging him which seems like what you are saying given this:[/quote]
No one is saying that he's going to be convicted of stalking Martin.

What will convict Zimmerman is whether or not the Judge or Jury believes he was the aggressor and was seeking a confrontation.
Click to expand...
Which is exactly the reason why the events leading to Zimmerman killing Martin is important, such as following someone. Zimmerman condemns himself in his 911 call saying that Martin looks suspicious, on drugs, hints at a possible weapon in his waistband, and yet still takes it upon himself to pursue him on foot! Not only that, but admits to losing sight of him after a very brief pursuit. After that, then things start to get even more questionable.

As for the burglar case I have spoken many times about how you have a right to defend your property. If someone has broken into my house, then they are already guilty of something. Shooting them without question is probably a bad idea, but holding them at gunpoint I wouldn't think twice. If they move towards you or even away, you don't know their plans. They put themselves in harms way when they entered your house. There is no feeling sorry for them.

Just think about it for a second:

You punch a burglar in your house - Who will get arrested?
You punch someone(that has a gun) you suspect following you - Who will get arrested?
Click to expand...
Fixed that last part for you.

Like you said, how are you supposed to know.

Me saying that in the scenario that Martin throwing the first punch isn't arbitrary and I'm going off someone else's hypothetical. I don't think that Martin was the aggressor in this.
 
All this speculation over who started the fight is irrelevant in the court room. What you think happened and what you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt are very different things. With such a serious charge of second degree murder, the state is going to need some actual evidence, not just speculation, to contradict Zimmerman. The bottom line is that the investigator is now on record as saying he doesn't know who started the fight and he doesn't have evidence to contradict Zimmerman's claim he was walking back to his car. His testimony can and will be used against him on cross examination if he testifies differently as to those 2 crucial factors.

What will be critical is how consistent Zimmerman was when making his statements. Remember, he was immediately placed into custody after the shooting. He didn't have much time to formulate a story or consult with an attorney. He didnt know if there were any witnesses who could contradict a fabricated story. If his story stayed the same he will be far more credible than if it evolved to include critical factors like his family's claim that Martin went for his gun. Also, while inadmissable in court, his brother claims he passed some sort of voice stress test conducted by the police. Certainy not conclusive, but fairly compelling if true. At the very least, it could indicate that he will be a believable on the stand.
 
[quote name='caltab']All this speculation over who started the fight is irrelevant in the court room. What you think happened and what you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt are very different things. With such a serious charge of second degree murder, the state is going to need some actual evidence, not just speculation, to contradict Zimmerman. The bottom line is that the investigator is now on record as saying he doesn't know who started the fight and he doesn't have evidence to contradict Zimmerman's claim he was walking back to his car. His testimony can and will be used against him on cross examination if he testifies differently as to those 2 crucial factors.[/quote]
This really depends on SYG and if he can use that defense. If he can't, then Zimmerman will need to prove that he was justified in using deadly force.

What will be critical is how consistent Zimmerman was when making his statements. Remember, he was immediately placed into custody after the shooting. He didn't have much time to formulate a story or consult with an attorney. He didnt know if there were any witnesses who could contradict a fabricated story. If his story stayed the same he will be far more credible than if it evolved to include critical factors like his family's claim that Martin went for his gun. Also, while inadmissable in court, his brother claims he passed some sort of voice stress test conducted by the police. Certainy not conclusive, but fairly compelling if true. At the very least, it could indicate that he will be a believable on the stand.
Click to expand...
Which begs the question as to whether or not the issue of coercing testimony from Zimmerman and other witnesses will become a factor in this case. There are concerns about a narcotics officer being the one to take down Zimmerman's statement and asking leading questions.
 
LOLZ

Q. When can I use my handgun to protect myself?
A. Florida law justifies use of deadly force when you are:

  • Trying to protect yourself or another person from death or serious bodily harm;
  • Trying to prevent a forcible felony, such as rape, robbery, burglary or kidnapping.
Using or displaying a handgun in any other circumstances could result in your conviction for crimes such as improper exhibition of a firearm, manslaughter, or worse.

Example of the kind of attack that will not justify defending yourself with deadly force: Two neighbors got into a fight, and one of them tried to hit the other by swinging a garden hose. The neighbor who was being attacked with the hose shot the other in the chest. The court upheld his conviction for aggravated battery with a firearm, because an attack with a garden hose is not the kind of violent assault that justifies responding with deadly force.
Click to expand...
http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/self_defense.html

So if Martin attacked Zimmerman with a garden hose, it would've been an unjustified shooting. Holy fuck balls.
 
[quote name='dohdough']
Which begs the question as to whether or not the issue of coercing testimony from Zimmerman and other witnesses will become a factor in this case. There are concerns about a narcotics officer being the one to take down Zimmerman's statement and asking leading questions.[/QUOTE]

All of Zimmerman's statements were recorded. If his statements were coerced or were the result of leading questions as you speculate it will be clearly evident in the recordings and indisputable. I personally would be shocked if that were the case.

As far as the garden hose...every case of self defense has an objective and subjective test. You cannot compare one incident against another as they each will have unique variables. If the garden house was being used to pound your head it very well could be deadly force. Hands can also be deadly if used in the right way. It just depends on the specific circumstances of each incident.
 
[quote name='caltab']All of Zimmerman's statements were recorded. If his statements were coerced or were the result of leading questions as you speculate it will be clearly evident in the recordings and indisputable. I personally would be shocked if that were the case.[/QUOTE]
This may sound conspiratorial, there was an exchange at the scene...kinda like how witnesses were questioned at the scene as well. Zimmerman's official statements, I'm sure, are all recorded, but there's an entire pile of other shit regarding police action(or inaction) going on as well, which really doesn't help the prosecution.

As far as the garden hose...every case of self defense has an objective and subjective test. You cannot compare one incident against another as they each will have unique variables. If the garden house was being used to pound your head it very well could be deadly force. Hands can also be deadly if used in the right way. It just depends on the specific circumstances of each incident.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I was being hyperbolic and cynical.

Anyways, to evidence of the alleged attack being meted out by Martin is one of the most important pieces of the puzzle. Pounding on someone's face for over a minute with one hand while covering the person's mouth with another is preposterous in itself, but to dish out that kind of punishment to the point of knocking someone unconscious would leave evidence on Martin's hands. There's a reason why boxers wear gloves and it's not to protect their opponents faces. We're talking Craig T. Nelson's story in The Devil's Advocate(the movie) territory here with how the attack went down.

I'm pretty sure Martin isn't an MMA fighter or trained in martial or pugilistic arts to the extent that his hands could be considered deadly weapons.
 
[quote name='dohdough']LOLZ

http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/self_defense.html

So if Martin attacked Zimmerman with a garden hose, it would've been an unjustified shooting. Holy fuck balls.[/QUOTE]

.....You completely skipped the part where it says protecting yourself from death or seriously bodily harm.

We don't know who started the fight.
We don't know who was beating the crap out of who. (does Martin have injuries by the way? (besides being shot) I'm guessing that hasn't been released.
We don't know whether or not the end result would have been serious bodily harm or not.

Notice the gigantic amount of "we don't knows" and yet you have already convicted him for following someone he considered suspicious.
 
[quote name='dohdough']This may sound conspiratorial, there was an exchange at the scene...kinda like how witnesses were questioned at the scene as well. Zimmerman's official statements, I'm sure, are all recorded, but there's an entire pile of other shit regarding police action(or inaction) going on as well, which really doesn't help the prosecution.
[/QUOTE]

From the police report, I believe the officer who apprehended Zimmerman did not question him, which would have been appropriate procedure. If, as you suggest, there was some secret exchange between Zimmerman and the police, it would likely have been caught by the camera on the police car. Or, more importantly, by someone else on the scene. I am pretty sure that there were neighbors at the scene immediately following the shooting(as evident by the newly released picture of his head taken by his neighbor). I think you looking for a conspiracy that doesn't exist. Zimmerman would have never been alone with one officer unrecorded.
 
[quote name='Knoell'].....You completely skipped the part where it says protecting yourself from death or seriously bodily harm.[/quote]
Yeah, and you can get gangrene if someone gave you a paper cut. If this was an issue, no one would be saying shit about the severity of Zimmerman's injuries or more specifically, lack thereof.

We don't know who started the fight.
Click to expand...
Cause following someone isn't illegal right?

We don't know who was beating the crap out of who. (does Martin have injuries by the way? (besides being shot) I'm guessing that hasn't been released.

We don't know whether or not the end result would have been serious bodily harm or not.
Click to expand...
How would Martin have known if Zimmerman following him would have lead to serious bodily harm or not? Cause it looks like it did!

Notice the gigantic amount of "we don't knows" and yet you have already convicted him for following someone he considered suspicious.
Click to expand...
What have I convicted him of? Racial profiling a kid that lead to him shooting the kid dead? Yeah, I think he's guilty as fuck. I'm also not on a jury or playing white knight for the guy that clearly precipitated the events. What bearing will my statements have on the case? Absolutely none. But if weren't for people like me, Zimmerman wouldn't have ever seen the inside of a courtroom because this case was dead in the water before people started getting pissed about it.
 
[quote name='caltab']From the police report, I believe the officer who apprehended Zimmerman did not question him, which would have been appropriate procedure. If, as you suggest, there was some secret exchange between Zimmerman and the police, it would likely have been caught by the camera on the police car. Or, more importantly, by someone else on the scene. I am pretty sure that there were neighbors at the scene immediately following the shooting(as evident by the newly released picture of his head taken by his neighbor). I think you looking for a conspiracy that doesn't exist. Zimmerman would have never been alone with one officer unrecorded.[/QUOTE]
Perhaps throwing in "conspiratorial" threw you off. I'm not saying there was a protracted private conversation with Zimmerman to concoct a story, but that there were probably a string of inconsequential things exchanged before and after he was put in cuffs that could've tainted Zimmerman's account. Just as the state DA's decision to torpedo the case wasn't conspiratorial, but merely another event that adds up to giving Zimmerman a pass.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Cause following someone isn't illegal right?[/QUOTE]

We "don't know" who started it (aside from as you point out the start was Zimmerman's pursuit) because we don't have a time machine and it wasn't caught on video. We have Zimmerman's account because the other side of the story is dead.

Zimmerman has (to put it mildly) an incentive to lie.
 
Moving the goal posts of the original scenario you put forth dd is not playing fair. First you say followed is a reason to throw the first punch with no other circumstances mentioned after that in that scenario. Then magically you want to enter that, well now the scenario you originally created now magically involves zimmerman shooting martin after that first punch therefore now you could be right in your first interpretation of your now modified scenario. That is how I am interpreting your posts. Amirite?

You are adding to the scenario nothing happened after that and zimmerman shot him. One first punch and that is it. So therefore a first punch is still self-defense for martin and not self defense for zimmerman?

Your orignal "scenario for debate over self defense" is changing to fit whatever you want it too after the fact to make yourself in your mind right.

If you want to create ANOTHER scenario for debate over self defense and include in it all of your new modifications then do so and then we all will be playing off the same sheet.
 
Moving the goal posts of the original scenario you put forth dd is not playing fair. First you say followed is a reason to throw a first punch with no other circumstances mentioned after that in that scenario. Then magically you want to enter into the scenario you originally created that it magically involved zimmerman shooting martin after that first punch therefore now you could be right in your first interpretation of your now modified scenario. That is how I am interpreting your posts. Amirite?

You are adding to the scenario nothing happened after that and zimmerman shot him. One first punch and that is it. So therefore a first punch is still self-defense for martin and not self defense for zimmerman?

Your orignal "created scenario for debate over self-defense" is changing to fit whatever you want it too after the fact to make yourself right in your mind. Right?

If you want to create ANOTHER scenario for debate over self-defense and include in it all of your new modifications then do so and then we all will be playing off the same sheet.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='YendelTrex']Moving the goal posts of the original scenario you put forth dd is not playing fair. First you say followed is a reason to throw a first punch with no other circumstances mentioned after that in that scenario. Then magically you want to enter into the scenario you originally created that it magically involved zimmerman shooting martin after that first punch therefore now you could be right in your first interpretation of your now modified scenario. That is how I am interpreting your posts. Amirite? [/QUOTE]
If that's how you interpreted it, you need to stop confusing me for yourself.

You are adding to the scenario nothing happened after that and zimmerman shot him. One first punch and that is it. So therefore a first punch is still self-defense for martin and not self defense for zimmerman?
Click to expand...
Where?

Your orignal "created scenario for debate over self-defense" is changing to fit whatever you want it too after the fact to make yourself right in your mind. Right?
Click to expand...
I was responding to Soodmeg's post about the protection of self-defense shifting. You'd notice that if you were paying attention to what was going on in the thread and not your head.

If you want to create ANOTHER scenario for debate over self-defense and include in it all of your new modifications then do so and then we all will be playing off the same sheet.
Click to expand...

Look, motherfucker. I think it's cute that you're trolling me to get attention and shit up all the threads, but there's a reason why those other trolls aren't posting in vs. anymore. Just sayin...

Btw, did you use notepad to type your post or something? LOLZ
 
[quote name='dohdough']The only way it would come to SYG for Zimmerman is if Martin isn't allowed the protection of self-defense. Martin could've(and was according to his gf) been in fear of his well-being from being followed hence giving him protection under SYG instead. At that point, it wouldn't matter if Martin threw the first punch.
[/QUOTE]

[quote name='YendelTrex']I could be wrong but throwing the first punch is not stand your ground unless it can be proven that maybe Zimmerman had his gun out and pointed and was threatening Martin. A first punch kind of does away with any self-defense claim. Doesn't it?

Same for Zimmerman if he shoved Martin or punched him first it would not be self-defense.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='dohdough']Being followed by car and pursued on foot by a stranger is something I'd consider threatening behavior. The incident didn't start when they're within arms length of each other. There's a chain of events that lead to the shooting. Why this is this such a hard concept to understand is beyond me.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='Knoell']This is wrong. You can follow someone, it is not illegal, and if they turn around and hit you, THEY will be arrested.

Look it up.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='Knoell']It's a hard concept because it seems unjust, but it's just the way law enforcement works. In this world of yours then anyone would be perfectly legal in beating the crap out of someone for following them. I am not saying that is what happened but that just isn't true. The aggressor would be arrested not the stalker.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='dohdough']And this is exactly why when put into context of the case, you can draw reasonable conclusions about Zimmerman being responsible for the unjustified killing of Martin. edit: Considering Martin being a minor, it changes the context of "following someone isn't illegal" drastically.

Btw, I find it hilarious that you're using this line of reasoning considering the NH case.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='YendelTrex']I understand just fine little buddy you seem confused on the term that you used "first punch" and my post. :cry:

"A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."

I am not a law expert but to me Attacked is not the same as throwing the first punch. To me throwing the first punch is Attacking. Meeting force with force is not throwing the first punch. As I said if Zimmerman cornered him and held him against his will maybe/probably I don't know. If Zimmerman had his gun out then yes most likely. But just throwing a first punch as YOU said I can't see that being considered self-defense.

Again I am not saying that is what happened or didn't happen or addressing the entire event. I was addressing your first punch statement.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='dohdough']Yeah, taking it out of the context of being followed is understanding just fine. :roll:

You're the fourth troll pushing the same bullshit in every thread that we've had in less than two months and people here have actually been pretty civil to you...and this is after you've shitted on every thread you've posted on. GO fuck yourself.

edit: Nice ninja edit there, asshole.

edit2: According to what you quoted, even if Martin threw the first punch, Zimmerman wouldn't have been covered by SYG unless he somehow knew Martin was the secret identity of the HULK or was a champion MMA fighter. The only way Zimmerman would be 100% in the clear is if Martin were walking backwards towards each other, they bump into each other, and Martin busts out like Neo on Agent Smith and dragon punches him across the street.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='YendelTrex']Take a pill and relax little buddy. Again I was addressing your statement. I will go even further in addressing your statement if it is found that Martin did throw the first punch without being held captive etc or a gun pointed (or being in hand ie threatened with it) at him and Zimmerman is still found guilty I will eat humble pie.

This is all I have addressed. SOOOOOOOOoooooooo

I am not sure what you THINK I am PUSHING I would ask but I know you don't answer questions or deal in reality.

Your assumptions and conclusions of me are strange at best.
Oh well I guess I was right about you.

See ya around "special" friend.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='dohdough']LOLZ

Q. When can I use my handgun to protect myself?
A. Florida law justifies use of deadly force when you are:

  • Trying to protect yourself or another person from death or serious bodily harm;
  • Trying to prevent a forcible felony, such as rape, robbery, burglary or kidnapping.
Using or displaying a handgun in any other circumstances could result in your conviction for crimes such as improper exhibition of a firearm, manslaughter, or worse.

Example of the kind of attack that will not justify defending yourself with deadly force: Two neighbors got into a fight, and one of them tried to hit the other by swinging a garden hose. The neighbor who was being attacked with the hose shot the other in the chest. The court upheld his conviction for aggravated battery with a firearm, because an attack with a garden hose is not the kind of violent assault that justifies responding with deadly force.

http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/self_defense.html

So if Martin attacked Zimmerman with a garden hose, it would've been an unjustified shooting. Holy fuck balls.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='YendelTrex']Moving the goal posts of the original scenario you put forth dd is not playing fair. First you say followed is a reason to throw a first punch with no other circumstances mentioned after that in that scenario. Then magically you want to enter into the scenario you originally created that it magically involved zimmerman shooting martin after that first punch therefore now you could be right in your first interpretation of your now modified scenario. That is how I am interpreting your posts. Amirite?

You are adding to the scenario nothing happened after that and zimmerman shot him. One first punch and that is it. So therefore a first punch is still self-defense for martin and not self defense for zimmerman?

Your orignal "created scenario for debate over self-defense" is changing to fit whatever you want it too after the fact to make yourself right in your mind. Right?

If you want to create ANOTHER scenario for debate over self-defense and include in it all of your new modifications then do so and then we all will be playing off the same sheet.[/QUOTE]



[quote name='dohdough']
If that's how you interpreted it, you need to stop confusing me for yourself.
Where?
I was responding to Soodmeg's post about the protection of self-defense shifting. You'd notice that if you were paying attention to what was going on in the thread and not your head.
Look, motherfucker. I think it's cute that you're trolling me to get attention and shit up all the threads, but there's a reason why those other trolls aren't posting in vs. anymore. Just sayin...

Btw, did you use notepad to type your post or something? LOLZ
[/QUOTE]

Listen motherfucker I could easily say that you have been trolling me from day one so if I was you I'd shut the fuck up. You have shitted over every thread with your bs and games. Don't start coming at me when you are the biggest fucking troll around here and came at me first. I think you are special but that does not give you the right to do what you want and own the threads or make everyone part of your delusions and conspiracies.

As far as the last part of the last post of yours I quoted ....bring it! If you own this site and get people booted because of you trolling them and or them responding and trolling you back and offering differing opinions then that is fine. BUT I don't think you own this site, this vs subforum, or this thread.
If you really want to be dissected and taken to task come on lets do it. I think there are even whole threads started just to counter your BS.Here is just one I was able to find in 20 seconds http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8820967
Are there more? Are there more pople that say the same thing? Probably.

Otherwise grow up ,get some aide, and get over yourself. Not everyone is you and people have opinions that are different. Waaaa!!!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='YendelTrex'] Not everyone is you and people have opinions that are different. Waaaa!!![/QUOTE]

Talk about Pot calling the kettle black holy shit.
 
[quote name='renique46']Talk about Pot calling the kettle black holy shit.[/QUOTE]

Yep. From the driveby troll himself.^ Whatevs.

Difference is I don't involve vague threats about what has happened to other people that crossed him. Which at this point seems like the list is probably pretty long.

You are golden I remember you from here...http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=317558&page=39

refer to posts 766, 767, and 768.

I will say it agin shoo fly!!
 
[quote name='Msut77']Ignore list is your friend.[/QUOTE]

Strange how you guys follow each other around and always seem to show up at certain times to do the drive by trolling. . HMMMMMM I Wonder why that is?

See the same posts above that your left hand was directed to.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Perhaps throwing in "conspiratorial" threw you off. I'm not saying there was a protracted private conversation with Zimmerman to concoct a story, but that there were probably a string of inconsequential things exchanged before and after he was put in cuffs that could've tainted Zimmerman's account. Just as the state DA's decision to torpedo the case wasn't conspiratorial, but merely another event that adds up to giving Zimmerman a pass.[/QUOTE]

I believe he was quickly removed from the scene so that really could not happen, again that would have been standard procedure. I don't have the actual time frame, but I definitely recall reading that they got him out of there very quickly. He would not have had much time to analyze the situation and formulate a story to fit the evidence. We don't know what his statements were at this point and how/if they changed. I am surprised he apparently didn't exercise his right to remain silent or get an attorney. Considering he has a magistrate for a father, i would think he would be well aware of how perilous it can be to say anything. He also contacted the special prosecutor on his own. This seems like a guy who really wants to tell his story. I will be very interested to see how consistent it has been.

Edit: here is the relevant part of the police report-

Zimmerman was placed in the rear of my police vehicle and was given first aid by the SFD. While the SFD was attending to Zimmerman, I over heard him state “I was yelling for someone to help me, but no one would help me.” At no point did I question Zimmerman about the incident that had taken place. Once Zimmerman was cleared by the SFD, he was transported to the Sanford Police Department.

There is no evidence to contradict that this is how Zimmerman was actually handled. There were many people on the scene at this time, including non police. If the police report is inaccurate it could be easily disputed by the people on the scene. But, until such credible claims are made you are just widely speculating.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Tut tut tut...You went through the trouble of wrangling all those posts but didn't bother to put them in context or describe my alleged shifting of goal posts. You even went through the mild effort of taking the first quote out of context and cut it in half.

Here is a more accurate analysis:

- Post #1(which you so lovingly cut in half), I provide examples of when the protection shifts from Zimmerman to Martin and vice versa starting from the beginning when Zimmerman follows Martin as a reply to Soodmeg.

- Post #2, you remove Zimmerman's initial actions of following Martin by car and then by foot.

- Post #3, I mention that there's a chain of causality, which you've ignored repeatedly.

- Post #4 and #5, Knoell jumps in the same bandwagon as you and says that following someone isn't illegal.

- Post #6, I attempt to bring context back to the case and add that Zimmerman, as an adult, was following a minor, Martin because that adds more context to the chain of events and how we should be analyzing it.

- Post #7, you make a thinly veiled snide remark about me not understanding what I posted, then edited in the remainder of the post that consists of, I assume, the SYG statute, your interpretation of it, and finally your admittance that you are taking the scenario out of the context of the case to apply your own analysis of it.

- Post #8, I called you out on taking it out of context, called you out on trolling, called out your edit, called you an asshole(the first time I called you a name), and addressed how your scenario still can't apply because Martin attacking Zimmerman with his fists, muchless throwing the first punch, doesn't come close to Zimmerman matching someone's spaghetti armed fists with a 9 unless Martin was the Hulk.

- Post #9, more snide remarks from you and you accuse me of not dealing in reality, which I find humorous because I consistently try to keep the conversation relevant to the case.

- Post #10, I post something from the Florida state CCW page as a WTF moment

- Post #11, you accuse me of moving the goalposts and go on to completely mischaracterize our entire exchange while whining about throwing out different scenarios to suit my ideological whims.

- Post #12, I summarize the 11 bullet points above.

And now we come to post #849 in this thread. Ah yes...the denouement. This is the post where you rapid fire a bunch of posts thinking that you've made a coherent case highlighting my flip-flopping, which you so arrogantly do without commentary as if it were the gospel truth.

You accuse me of trolling you since day one; I didn't. You accuse me of posting argumentative and contrarian nonsense in every thread; I don't. You accuse me of thinking I'm special on this sub-forum; if you consider knowledge special, then I suppose I do when it comes to matters of a race just as nasum when it comes to finance, or dmaul when it comes to the study of criminology. Both have demonstrated more than a lay-persons understanding and I've learned things from them.

You then proceed to "dissect" my posts, but you only post a link that doesn't really help your case. If anything, nasum attempted to be very civil in the OP, and I think he was civil, but it was really a symptom of other things going on.

A couple posts later and you say that it was a threat of what happens to people that oppose me. LOLZ at that. EL OH EL ZEE. If there's one thing that we lefties on this sub-forum don't do, it's report posts. We take all the childish behavior, all the fallacies, all the ignorance, all the plain stupidity, and we address them, analyze them, break them down, and show you what they're made of. Those trolls that disappeared left of their own volition because they couldn't take the heat. One was banned for being a banned member's alt and it wasn't reported by me as I had no idea. I don't have any special mod privileges, don't approve of bans, and have actually spoken out against them because they're a form of censorship. But hey, this is all stuff you'd know if you were in vs. long enough, but who cares right? Because I'm the special one here.

Now that we've had another derail here, I'm glad you got a little more of that attention you crave.
 
[quote name='caltab']I believe he was quickly removed from the scene so that really could not happen, again that would have been standard procedure. I don't have the actual time frame, but I definitely recall reading that they got him out of there very quickly. He would not have had much time to analyze the situation and formulate a story to fit the evidence. We don't know what his statements were at this point and how/if they changed. I am surprised he apparently didn't exercise his right to remain silent or get an attorney. Considering he has a magistrate for a father, i would think he would be well aware of how perilous it can be to say anything. He also contacted the special prosecutor on his own. This seems like a guy who really wants to tell his story. I will be very interested to see how consistent it has been.[/quote]
Now that you mention it, I'm pretty damn surprised too. It's not like he was under arrest so he could've literally(not really) waltzed outta there and just gotten a lawyer. You have to admit that calling the special prosecutor, Hannity, and the website was pretty dumb though. Those were fairly recent so the stress is probably getting to him. Then you have his father on Fox, his "Black Friend," doing all those interviews, and then his first alleged lawyers doing their thing.

I'm interested in how this will all play out as well. I still think he's going to walk no matter what.

Edit: here is the relevant part of the police report-

Zimmerman was placed in the rear of my police vehicle and was given first aid by the SFD. While the SFD was attending to Zimmerman, I over heard him state “I was yelling for someone to help me, but no one would help me.” At no point did I question Zimmerman about the incident that had taken place. Once Zimmerman was cleared by the SFD, he was transported to the Sanford Police Department.

There is no evidence to contradict that this is how Zimmerman was actually handled. There were many people on the scene at this time, including non police. If the police report is inaccurate it could be easily disputed by the people on the scene. But, until such credible claims are made your just widely speculating.
Click to expand...
Well, this is from witness statements made within the first two weeks of the incident. Considering the mess the case has been since the beginning, I don't think it's that farfetched to be suspect of how the case was mishandled from the top to the bottom and beyond. Speculation it may be, but it's not unwarranted. This is just one huge clusterfuck.
 
[quote name='dohdough']
Well, this is from witness statements made within the first two weeks of the incident. Considering the mess the case has been since the beginning, I don't think it's that farfetched to be suspect of how the case was mishandled from the top to the bottom and beyond. Speculation it may be, but it's not unwarranted. This is just one huge clusterfuck.[/QUOTE]

I believe you are referring the the interview given to the media by the mother of a witness who is a child. She said something like the police pressured her son. I am not well versed in the exact way a cop is supposed to question a child, but it would not be surprising if they asked somewhat leading questions. It is much harder for a child to state all the relevant facts on their own. I know that lawyers are given more leeway to ask leading questions to kids, so I would assume cops probably have a similar ability. If the nature of the questioning is too suggestive, that will all be on record and can certainly be pointed out by the attorney at trial.
 
[quote name='dohdough']
Look, motherfucker. I think it's cute that you're trolling me to get attention and shit up all the threads, but there's a reason why those other trolls aren't posting in vs. anymore. Just sayin...[/quote]
Actually some of us(i.e. me) stopped posting because you and other users like you have your minds set on what you feel is right, what happened(even though NONE OF US WERE THERE) and what type of punishment Zimmerman should face at the end of whatever mockery of a trial he gets.

Admit it. He will NEVER be able to get a fair trial anywhere in the U.S. unless the people picked for the jury have been living under a rock for the last how many ever months this situation has been plastered all over the news.

Just admit that much and then you can go back to playing the race card thing and continue your railroading of Zimmerman as he's already guilty in your minds.
Btw, did you use notepad to type your post or something? LOLZ
Click to expand...
When you hit reply, you'll see all sorts of formatting tools available for that reply you're about to make. One of them allows you to change the font and so on.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Look, motherfucker. I think it's cute that you're trolling me to get attention and shit up all the threads, but there's a reason why those other trolls aren't posting in vs. anymore. Just sayin...[/QUOTE]

If all those other people are "trolls", then, don't you think getting you all riled up and in a tizzy would actually give them exactly what they wanted?

Instead, you managed to drive them away... which seems to imply they weren't trolling much... instead, you were so hostile that you just drove them off. Congrats.
 
[quote name='IAmTheCheapestGamer']Actually some of us(i.e. me) stopped posting because you and other users like you have your minds set on what you feel is right, what happened(even though NONE OF US WERE THERE) and what type of punishment Zimmerman should face at the end of whatever mockery of a trial he gets.[/QUOTE]
Honestly, I'm glad that you guys stopped shitting up threads with questions that have already been answered many times over due to your lack of familiarity with the case. Like Paul Begala said to Meghan McCain, "I wasn't born during the French Revolution but I know about it" and you've admitted that you don't even follow the case, so is it any wonder why people are going to call you out on being ignorant about it? If there wasn't any outcry, there wouldn't have been a trial to begin with. You can keep ignoring the fact that the case was torpedoed all you want, but it won't make it true except in your own mind.

Hell, I can't even think of anyone that proposed any type of punishment beyond imprisonment and you act as if people in this thread are screaming for his head on a pike. I, myself, stated many times that manslaughter is probably the most appropriate charge. This guy is getting charged with 2nd degree murder with permission for the jury to downgrade to manslaughter and possibly less. You act as if he's getting charged 1st degree with remand.

Admit it. He will NEVER be able to get a fair trial anywhere in the U.S. unless the people picked for the jury have been living under a rock for the last how many ever months this situation has been plastered all over the news.
Click to expand...
What makes you think he would've gotten a trial to begin with? And even then, what makes you think it'd be fair or that he would be treated fairly? Or maybe you should define fair because when someone kills a black person, they get less severe punishment than killing a white person. If you're talking about an impartial jury, that doesn't exist except in a thought experiment. We all take our biases with us and don't check them at the door by simple force of will alone. Or maybe you should define "fair."
Just admit that much and then you can go back to playing the race card thing and continue your railroading of Zimmerman as he's already guilty in your minds.
Click to expand...
Admit what? That he won't get a fair trial? I've already said as much, but you don't really mean fair as in just; you mean fair as in non-prejudicial. Btw, dismissing race is playing the race card too.

When you hit reply, you'll see all sorts of formatting tools available for that reply you're about to make. One of them allows you to change the font and so on.
Click to expand...
Which is all well and good, but if he's going to rant like a loon, he should at least try to make it uniform with the rest of the posts to make it easier to read...then again, he wouldn't be a loon if he did so...

edit:
[quote name='UncleBob']If all those other people are "trolls", then, don't you think getting you all riled up and in a tizzy would actually give them exactly what they wanted?[/quote]
Who knows why trolls troll except the trolls themselves.

Instead, you managed to drive them away... which seems to imply they weren't trolling much... instead, you were so hostile that you just drove them off. Congrats.
Click to expand...
Those trolls were lights that burned bright, but alas, were not destined to last.

Poor aliterations and rhymes aside, if someone is going to post an opinion on a politics sub-forum, informed or not, they're going to be open to critiques. I'm no more immune from that than anyone else that posts here. I get ganged up on all the time because I'm the most vocal, but I don't pack up and leave the second things get hot. Hell, if I'm wrong, I'll even apologize as I've done on more than one occassion.

You wanna call me out for being rough? Go ahead, I admit it. But don't act all high and mighty with me when you play just as rough. Have you reported any of our latest troll's posts? I doubt it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='dohdough']Honestly, I'm glad that you guys stopped shitting up threads with questions that have already been answered many times over due to your lack of familiarity with the case. Like Paul Begala said to Meghan McCain, "I wasn't born during the French Revolution but I know about it" and you've admitted that you don't even follow the case, so is it any wonder why people are going to call you out on being ignorant about it? If there wasn't any outcry, there wouldn't have been a trial to begin with. You can keep ignoring the fact that the case was torpedoed all you want, but it won't make it true except in your own mind.

Hell, I can't even think of anyone that proposed any type of punishment beyond imprisonment and you act as if people in this thread are screaming for his head on a pike. I, myself, stated many times that manslaughter is probably the most appropriate charge. This guy is getting charged with 2nd degree murder with permission for the jury to downgrade to manslaughter and possibly less. You act as if he's getting charged 1st degree with remand.


What makes you think he would've gotten a trial to begin with? And even then, what makes you think it'd be fair or that he would be treated fairly? Or maybe you should define fair because when someone kills a black person, they get less severe punishment than killing a white person. If you're talking about an impartial jury, that doesn't exist except in a thought experiment. We all take our biases with us and don't check them at the door by simple force of will alone. Or maybe you should define "fair."

Admit what? That he won't get a fair trial? I've already said as much, but you don't really mean fair as in just; you mean fair as in non-prejudicial. Btw, dismissing race is playing the race card too.


Which is all well and good, but if he's going to rant like a loon, he should at least try to make it uniform with the rest of the posts to make it easier to read...then again, he wouldn't be a loon if he did so...[/QUOTE]

I don't have a problem with any of Dohdough's posts. I've stopped posting because I find myself antagonizing and arguing rather then having a civil discussion.

While I respect your opinions and appreciate your POV talking about issues of race with you is like talking to a formerly abused female turned woman care activist about men or a religous nut about the presence of dinosaurs.


I would have to believe it's more then just research and studies that have formed your opinions re: race and if that's the case and it is personal experience as well noone here is going to be able to change your mind.
 
I slowed down posting in this thread because the only people here with "concerns" are the dregs who are upset that someone can shoot an unarmed black person and then have to suffer a few inconveniences.
 
[quote name='Msut77']I slowed down posting in this thread because the only people here with "concerns" are the dregs who are upset that someone can shoot an unarmed black person and then have to suffer a few inconveniences.[/QUOTE]

I haven't read a few of the posts on here, but what inconveniences are people complaining about?
 
[quote name='GBAstar']
While I respect your opinions and appreciate your POV talking about issues of race with you is like talking to a formerly abused female turned woman care activist about men or a religous nut about the presence of dinosaurs.


I would have to believe it's more then just research and studies that have formed your opinions re: race and if that's the case and it is personal experience as well noone here is going to be able to change your mind.[/QUOTE]

In no way do I respect or appreciate his posts. It is obvious that there are some issues at play. But giving him a pass on that and his behaviour on this entire thread alone is not helping him.

He is not intelligent and has taken some books he read and became obsessed with race or aided his obsession that may have already been in place and a know it all attitude without any intelligence behind it.

Reading a few books doesn't make one an expert or even intelligent. Without being able to apply the things he reads in a positive manner, understand when to apply it, see the whole picture and other aspects in each individual scenario instead of painting it all with that brush, understand what he has read, use reasoning skills, self-awareness, critical thinking. etc etc etc it is useless and a negative. With the lack of all of that and common sense it is just gibberish coming from him. He is not well-rounded.
He offers no respect or very rarely and deserves none or just as little. His transference in this thread alone is hugely apparent. He makes prejudgment, assumptions, accusations, assertions, has faulty reasoning, bias, anger, is narcissistic, arrogance, distorts truth and reality and opinions, is condescending, demeaning, twists and spins, is disrespectful and on and on and on.

I have sympathy for him but feeding his already huge ego and whatever his issues are by giving him a pass or placating him is doing nobody any good.

If it is issues I hope that he can and will get help. I really think that this thread should be deleted as it started out wrong and has only gotten worse. Almost everyone in here is to blame too and I am not above that.
 
[quote name='renique46']Zimmerman must have taken notes

http://news.yahoo.com/md-neighborhood-watch-trial-set-against-fla-fury-140920015.html

Remember when neighborhood watch meant just that to WATCH and let the police handle "suspicious" matters

Inb4 herp derp they were defending themselves and were not profiling someone.[/QUOTE]

Knew about this along time ago. I was waiting to see whatt driveby troll would post it first. Surprise it was the king of driveby trolls....YOU. Weak very weak.
 
Nobody gives a shit if you knew about it already since the link wasn't directly just for you to see. Others might not have known about it so for all i care you can stfu and jump off a building thanks.
 
[quote name='Msut77']It is the new hotness, like planking a while back.

http://www.ajc.com/news/couple-held-at-gunpoint-1423138.html[/QUOTE]


Well if today is about posting stories that aren't relevant I'll throw this into the ring:

http://www.newsnet14.com/?p=99812

50 year-old White man on life support after hammer attack by two black teens (18 and 19) near Sanford, FL

^ I wonder if Obama had a son if he'd look like either of these two?


Please note they are from Sanford, FL as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top