Jump to content


Member Since 07 Oct 2009
Offline Last Active Nov 24 2018 01:49 PM

#10937472 Black Teen Shot, Killed By Neighborhood Watch

Posted by Knoell on 26 July 2013 - 09:13 AM

Technically speaking, yes.  By pleading self-defense you're making a justification defense which means you're effectively saying that you did kill the person but you were justified in doing so.


But please, by all means, go on with whatever point you plan on making instead of beating around the bush.


The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
Kill (someone) unlawfully and with premeditation.


Technically no, especially when you are acquitted of all charges. He did not murder, he killed in self defense. Who needs words and their definitions though. Murderer sounds much worse!


But regardless all that is pointless, the people who think that Zimmerman started something with Martin all believe Zimmerman is a murderer, and the people who think that Martin attacked Zimmerman all believe that Zimmerman acted in self defense.


Did Zimmerman deserve to get jumped? Probably not. Did Martin deserve to be detained? Absolutely not. Could both have happened? Could neither have happened? With all the evidence the Prosecution presented, you still cannot possibly say you know what happened, which is why he was acquitted.


It is as simple as that. People need to start moving on.

#10935601 Black Teen Shot, Killed By Neighborhood Watch

Posted by Knoell on 25 July 2013 - 07:27 PM

Hey remember that story from awhile back about the mother who claimed that two black teenagers shot her infant dead in an attempted robbery? Remember how all the usual suspects here on CAG and most of right-wing media were claiming that this wasn't getting nearly enough media attention as the TM/GZ shooting and that the story was being covered up by the "liberal media"? Remember how everyone was calling for the heads of the two teenagers who carried out this heinous crime? Weeeeeeeeeeeeellllllllllllllllllllllllll:




Nope but I do remember when I brought up a more comparable story where the alleged "murderer" was not even touched when he defended himself and he was still acquitted.


There is a glaring difference where the white kid was actually doing something wrong in the first place. But I didn't see anyone jumping to his aid that he didn't deserve to die for breaking into cars. No marches in the street saying that the "murderer" should have waited in the house until police came. No speech from Obama saying "that could have been him".




New York: Tougher gun laws, tougher self defense laws. Still acquitted.


#10912146 Black Teen Shot, Killed By Neighborhood Watch

Posted by Knoell on 16 July 2013 - 09:45 PM

What are you talking about....


Who here said Zimmerman planned to murder a kid that night?  It just so happened he did, he might not have planned it, but he sure didn't hesitate to do it... MANSLAUGHTER


What people have said, was that he was REALLY prepared that night ( carrying a LOADED firearm ) to try to confront a "black" teen.



So he was REALLY prepared to go out and randomly run into a black teen? Or was he REALLY prepared to defend himself? Why do you keep trying to pair the two.


He carried a gun. Yes.

He carried a gun to try to confront a black teen. No.


You also tote manslaughter as if you didn't just recently suggest he should have gotten "at the very least manslaughter". Do you think it would be wrong to convict him of murder 2?


The rest of your assumptions are baseless arguments against gun owners.

#10912029 Black Teen Shot, Killed By Neighborhood Watch

Posted by Knoell on 16 July 2013 - 09:09 PM

Anyways would a jury acquit Martin or would any of the righties here even defend Martin, if that night Martin wrestle the gun away from Zimmerman and shot him and claim self-defense because Zimmerman tried to pull a gun on him ..


I bet NOT!!!!!!


Why do you continue to argue that Zimmerman hated black people and was gunning for one to shoot, but he didn't shoot him, he decided he wanted to wrestle first? Does that honestly make sense to you? You can't have it both ways.


This Zimmerman guy is one brilliant strategist.

#10910089 Black Teen Shot, Killed By Neighborhood Watch

Posted by Knoell on 16 July 2013 - 06:36 AM

You know, this kinda of post really outlines the problem I have with a lot of the people supporting Zimmerman: it's one thing if you thought that he should get off because there wasn't enough evidence to convict him, but why do you seem to be celebrating the fact that he got off scott-free with killing a child? Why are you so goddamn ecstatic about the fact that a kid who was walking home from the store, was followed by, confronted by, and gunned down by a complete stranger, and the guy who did it isn't gonna answer for what he did? What the Fuck kind of mental gymnastics do you have to pull to get the sick joy you all seem to be getting out of this fucking tragedy? As a 30-year old black man in the south, I'm absolutely terrified of this mindset.


The internet has created a new breed of sociopath, and this thread is living proof of that.


I don't think anyone is ecstatic about a person dying. They are ecstatic that the jury did not submit to the external pressure that an emotional public and frenzied media wanted to bring down on the justice system.


If not that, they are just trolling which is bau for the internet. Take it for what it always is.

#10907686 Black Teen Shot, Killed By Neighborhood Watch

Posted by Knoell on 15 July 2013 - 03:41 PM

I agree that it *could* have gone exactly like Zimmerman's defense described. I just think that when you're found standing over a dead body and you confess to killing someone that the burden should be on you to explain how it happened. 


Trayvon being dead was a positive outcome for the defense. That's... a bad thing. Require an affirmative defense. That's all I'm saying. The burden should be on me to explain why I'm standing over the body of a dead person, not the state. 


Take the friggin stand and speak under oath. 


That first line would be all fine and good but he did explain the situation to authorities. They determined that he should not be charged. The public started calling for his head, and therefore he was charged. I understand completely why he didn't want to testify. Did you hear some of the things the prosecution was throwing at him as indicative of his guilt?

#10905250 Black Teen Shot, Killed By Neighborhood Watch

Posted by Knoell on 14 July 2013 - 11:44 AM

Knoell, you don't even know what a strawman is. 


Nobody knows because he didn't testify. That's the problem, tiger. If stand your ground laws were available at the time, Charles Manson could have used them successfully on the first couple murders. Seriously. If 2 people say they were attacked and stood their ground, how could you say they didn't?


What evidence supersedes your stated intent to "beyond a doubt"? Witnesses. Cameras. Nothing else. Ergo, kill the witnesses. 


To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and to refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.


Actually you fit the definition of it perfectly with your restaurant theory.


He doesn't have to testify, "tiger". We all already know his side of the story, and the jury was played a series of interviews with Zimmerman telling parts of his story.


Tell me, taking stand your ground out of the equation, how would the authorities properly get a conviction on someone who invited a friend to their house and shot them? Obviously the perpetrator is going to say the person was up to no good. How would the police possibly figure out exactly what happened? With only one side of the story, it seems impossible right? :roll:

#10905230 Black Teen Shot, Killed By Neighborhood Watch

Posted by Knoell on 14 July 2013 - 11:16 AM

Amazing how you forget that he didnt just stop at watching someone or else this thread wouldnt even exist but i guess the screename speaks for itself


It is amazing how you forget that you have no idea what occurred in between events.


Could Zimmerman have walked up and started attacking Martin? Sure

Could Martin have walked up and started attacking Zimmerman? Sure

Could Zimmerman have confronted Martin and been aggressive? Sure

Could Martin have walked up and confronted Zimmerman and been aggressive? Sure


Did the prosecution have any evidence that they could clearly present what happened? No.


That means acquittal. You don't start from "Zimmerman murdered Martin" and work your way back to "the evidence must prove he had no choice". The burden of proof is on the Prosecution and they could not prove it. What you may think is "obvious" is not sufficient evidence to convict a man to life in prison.