George Zimmerman photographed with bloody head after shooting Travyon Martin (Somewhat Graphic)
105 replies, posted
[QUOTE=BusterBluth;35664083]There is absolutely no indication that Zimmerman was not charged because of the race of his victim. Im not asking for "100 percent inscrutable evidence" that racism was involved but you are presenting absolutely zero evidence that it was besides for the fact racism sometimes plays a part in our legal system.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, and that's wicked good evidence. Unless there's some other reason they fucked up the case, like institutional discrimination against people who like Arizona Tea then I can't really find out why the Police Department there
[QUOTE=BusterBluth;35664083]You are ignoring the fact that just yesterday the lead investigator in the case made the statement, under oath, that they have no evidence to dispute Zimmerman's story. A reasonable conclusion to draw would be the district attorney choose not to charge Zimmerman because of lack of evidence, not that he was not charged because his victim was black.
[/QUOTE]
There totally was evidence of wrongdoing though, there was a dead black teenager on the ground. That's not enough to convict someone, but that is enough reason to not immediately take the shooter's word for it and make him go to trial to find out whether or not a crime was committed. The job of the District Attorney isn't to be the judge and decide "he's innocent" on their own; it's to charge someone with a crime when there's a reasonable possibility that what happened was a crime. A dead, unarmed teenager is really good evidence that maybe a crime was committed; enough to justify a trial; [b]but charging Zimmerman and taking him to court to determine his innocence was apparently never considered until other people got involved[/b].
[QUOTE=King Tiger;35664305]Why do you assume racial bias against minorities are the cause of disproportionate punishment? How do you know that minorities don't just commit more crime?
[/QUOTE]
[b]I already posted statistics showing that minorities are disproportionately the victims of wrongful convictions. I posted a wall of links on the previous page, many of which lead to statistics supporting my claim, but you obviously decided to skip the second half of that page.[/b]
I'm not even going to read the rest of your post if you can't accomplish as simple a task as read a thread.
The trails of blood in that photo look like circular photoshop brush strokes, just sayin'.
if real, force is justified
if not, burn him!
So fucking sick of hearing about this. It happens every fucking day.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;35665708]Yeah, and that's wicked good evidence. Unless there's some other reason they fucked up the case, like institutional discrimination against people who like Arizona Tea then I can't really find out why the Police Department there
There totally was evidence of wrongdoing though, there was a dead black teenager on the ground. That's not enough to convict someone, but that is enough reason to not immediately take the shooter's word for it and make him go to trial to find out whether or not a crime was committed. The job of the District Attorney isn't to be the judge and decide "he's innocent" on their own; it's to charge someone with a crime when there's a reasonable possibility that what happened was a crime. A dead, unarmed teenager is really good evidence that maybe a crime was committed; enough to justify a trial; [b]but charging Zimmerman and taking him to court to determine his innocence was apparently never considered until other people got involved[/b].
[/QUOTE]
You are correct that the District Attorneys job is not to determine innocence, but there does have to be some basis to the charge that they submit. If there is no evidence to disprove Zimmerman's story then you do not have any basis to charge him with a crime. You however think that there is enough to charge him, which is fine, but Im sure you would agree that the evidence in this case is slim. Who ever that handed down the order not to charge him had to determine if there was enough evidence to charge him or not and apparently decided there was not.
Saying that racism was involved in this case with no other evidence besides statistics is just as ridiculous if I said that Martin attacked Zimmerman because of statistics saying young african american males are most likely to engage in violent crimes.
So, about this stand your ground law.
If some armed guy is following you because he likes to pretend he's batman, is it considered lawful if you decide to stand your ground and retaliate against him and, being unarmed, beat his head into the sidewalk?
Because if I were unarmed and I felt that I perceived a threat from someone who is following me, that's what I'd do. And I'm asking because I'm not too well-versed in the law, but to my understanding, the law requires that you perceive a threat. If you perceive a threat, you don't have to retreat, you can react with force. So if my understanding is incorrect I'd like someone to explain this to me.
To my limited understanding, Zimmerman would be lawful under stand your ground if he was the first one to be threatened. However, Zimmerman didn't know Martin and as far as I know perceived no direct threat from him. He decided to follow him because Zimmerman thinks he's batman. So, with Zimmerman being the instigator of the whole thing, being the person to initiate contact and then continue pursuit of someone who hadn't threatened him, wasn't Martin lawful in standing his ground first? I mean the order of events must be considered here; How does stand your ground work if there is no real threat because the threat was initially only imagined to be perceived by the survivor? Being the person followed, doesn't that make it Martin's ground to stand?
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;35665708]I'm not even going to read the rest of your post if you can't accomplish as simple a task as read a thread.[/QUOTE]
Yep, just continue to ignore the posts which disprove your stupid argument, just like Drax-Quin's posts on the last page and you continued to post the same shit he had just disproved. It must be nice to just ignore everyone who says that you're incorrect so that you can continue to fill your own head with your own nonsense.
[QUOTE=J Paul;35667111]So, about this stand your ground law.
If some armed guy is following you because he likes to pretend he's batman, is it considered lawful if you decide to stand your ground and retaliate against him and, being unarmed, beat his head into the sidewalk?
Because if I were unarmed and I felt that I perceived a threat from someone who is following me, that's what I'd do. And I'm asking because I'm not too well-versed in the law, but to my understanding, the law requires that you perceive a threat. If you perceive a threat, you don't have to retreat, you can react with force. So if my understanding is incorrect I'd like someone to explain this to me.
To my limited understanding, Zimmerman would be lawful under stand your ground if he was the first one to be threatened. However, Zimmerman didn't know Martin and as far as I know perceived no direct threat from him. He decided to follow him because Zimmerman thinks he's batman. So, with Zimmerman being the instigator of the whole thing, being the person to initiate contact and then continue pursuit of someone who hadn't threatened him, wasn't Martin lawful in standing his ground first? I mean the order of events must be considered here; How does stand your ground work if there is no real threat because the threat was initially only imagined to be perceived by the survivor? Being the person followed, doesn't that make it Martin's ground to stand?[/QUOTE]
According to Zimmerman and multiple witnesses, he stopped following Martin and returned to his car. That is when Martin approached him and attacked him. So no, Martin does not have a right to defend himself if this was the case, AND THIS IS ONLY ZIMMERMAN'S ACCOUNT OF THE EVENTS WHICH MAY BE DIFFERENT FROM WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED. If Zimmerman did follow Martin, then, depending on whether or not he was actually threatening him, Martin would have every right to defend himself. BUT WE DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED THAT NIGHT.
[QUOTE=King Tiger;35667666]Yep, just continue to ignore the posts which disprove your stupid argument, just like Drax-Quin's posts on the last page and you continued to post the same shit he had just disproved. It must be nice to just ignore everyone who says that you're incorrect so that you can continue to fill your own head with your own nonsense.
According to Zimmerman and multiple witnesses, he stopped following Martin and returned to his car. That is when Martin approached him and attacked him. So no, Martin does not have a right to defend himself if this was the case, AND THIS IS ONLY ZIMMERMAN'S ACCOUNT OF THE EVENTS WHICH MAY BE DIFFERENT FROM WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED. If Zimmerman did follow Martin, then, depending on whether or not he was actually threatening him, Martin would have every right to defend himself. BUT WE DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED THAT NIGHT.[/QUOTE]
Yes, I'm aware of the lack of details. I am not claiming to have any knowledge. I stated multiple times that my understanding of the entire situation isn't complete.
But this whole in/out of car thing is what makes me feel like it can be reasoned that Martin had perceived a threat on his life. I have never felt threatened by a pedestrian while in a car, but I feel very threatened by cars when I'm on foot, because if someone so much as makes a slight mistake in their driving, your life could be endangered. So even in a situation that has Zimmerman returning to his vehicle, it could be well reasoned that, from Martin's standpoint, he could be returning to the potential weapon itself. Whether or not he actually got to the car and attempted to run him over is irrelevant, because like I said, if my understanding is correct, the threat only needs to be perceived, it doesn't actually have to be real.
By mentioning all this, my goal isn't to incriminate Zimmerman, but only to call into question the very idea of a law that stipulates that any perceived threat, real or imagined, can be taken action against. Because if that truly is what the law means, and I'm not saying it IS, doesn't it then apply to both people simultaneously? Could it not be reasoned that both parties perceived a threat, just at different times, and as a direct result of the actions of Zimmerman?
If I am correct, and the jury can be convinced of this, they could be able to stick the Murder 2 charge. But if not, I doubt it'll stick.
Howard Stern says it best:
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDN0LaQJ7aI[/media]
Well yeah in that video up until about 1:20, Howard presents essentially the same idea I did. The fact that he confronted Martin in the first place, even if Zimmerman's story is 100% accurate and he did indeed attempt to return to his car after the confrontation had been resolved, the fact that Zimmerman ever instigated anything or caused any kind of confrontation is enough to say that this death is indeed wrongful and that Zimmerman is the direct cause of it. He may not have planned to do it, so it technically may not have been murder 1, and I'm sure that's why they didn't charge him with murder 1.
[QUOTE=J Paul;35667932]Well yeah in that video up until about 1:20, Howard presents essentially the same idea I did. The fact that he confronted Martin in the first place, even if Zimmerman's story is 100% accurate and he did indeed attempt to return to his car after the confrontation had been resolved, the fact that Zimmerman ever instigated anything or caused any kind of confrontation is enough to say that this death is indeed wrongful and that Zimmerman is the direct cause of it. He may not have intended or planned to do it, so it technically may not have been murder 1, and I'm sure that's why they didn't charge him with murder 1.[/QUOTE]
He shouldn't have been charged with murder 2... It's all bullshit.
Well I mean Murder 2 does apply here. For it to be Murder 1 or Voluntary Manslaughter, he'd have to have some kind of history with Martin or at least know him. For the latter he'd definitely have to have a history with him, as voluntary manslaughter results from extraneous circumstances ("I was crazy at the time because I learned X happened previously" - Voluntary Manslaughter).
Now Zimmerman may actually have had intent. Then it'd be Murder 1. It's just I honestly don't feel he had intent to kill, I personally feel like he had intent to be batman and he fucked up and happened to try to batman someone who almost beat his ass.
And I don't think they'd ever be able to prove Murder 1 here because it's all so foggy, there's just no way to really even know exactly what happened, much less extrapolate intent from this unknown circumstance. But even Murder 2 will be a tough one to stick. Also I believe that Florida doesn't distinguish between voluntary or involuntary manslaughter, it's just manslaughter, so that probably also contributed to the decision to go murder 2.
There's no evidence available right now that Zimmerman confronted Trayvon. There is evidence that he followed Trayvon, that's it, and that wasn't a crime. Zimmerman claims that after losing track of Trayvon in the night, he was walking back to his vehicle when Trayvon appeared from behind and assaulted him. If Zimmerman's story is true, then in no way would Trayvon have been "standing his ground" by walking up and assaulting someone from behind.
All this nonsense about Zimmerman "thinking he's batman" is just talking pure shit with no evidence at all to back it up. He was captain of the neighborhood watch and was doing his job by keeping tabs on a person he didn't recognize and looked suspicious to him. We don't know for sure what happened but being uncertain of the events that took place isn't a license to make up any random story and actually assume it happened that way.
The fact, and we both agree that this is indeed a fact because you just stated it, that he followed Martin, is what paints him, in my personal opinion, as a wanna-be vigilante. That, coupled with his history of having supposedly done some seriously creepy stuff in the past (this only hearsay), and having had a history of violence where he took circumstances into his own hands in complete disregard of the law. In fact he was charged as having assaulted an officer of the law, and in that circumstance as well, he probably thought he was morally right and capable of being the person to administer justice in that situation. He happened to be incorrect, though, because he also happened to have to take anger management classes.
I mean who else becomes captain of the community watch? Seriously? Who else signs up for that job except someone who genuinely believes he's capable of taking justice into his own hands?
Also just as an aside, I made it clear in each of my posts and stated several times over and over that I am in no way knowledgeable of any more detail than what is publicly available therefore my understanding is limited. I'm keeping it somewhat lighthearted with the superhero references otherwise this discussion would be frustrating. I apologize if this approach didn't sit well with you. I am in no way saying that I am correct or assuming what I said is the truth, I am merely proposing it as a possibility. Otherwise I make it clear that it's only my opinion.
I understand that people have different opinions of the case. All I'm saying is that no one should be in a rush to convict this guy when we barely know any proven facts about what happened that night.
And please don't take my profanities as aggressive or flaming, I just throw them in occasionally.
Yeah of course it's something that can't be decided until all of the facts are made clear. At this point all we can do is speculate.
But the way I see it personally is like this. You wouldn't become a moderator if you didn't genuinely believe you were capable of moderating the forum. And neighborhood watch captain has a somewhat varying definition from place to place and could feasibly be interpreted in a way that makes Zimmerman think he can take justice into his own hands and play the part of policeman, which is something that, based on what is available on his history, he seems to be prone to doing. But even with a grey area in the duties of the title, I haven't yet seen ANY description of ANY place where a neighborhood watch captain's duties involving making contact with and pursuit with suspected assailants. So far it's only ever said for them to to make calls, establish meetings, assist with police followup on investigations involving the neighborhood, etc.
I also am led to believe by every source I've found so far that Zimmerman held the role on a volunteer basis. If I were making threads or contacting people or some shit, volunteering to be a moderator, clearly it would be because I honestly thought I could do the job of moderation. So I mean while I totally admit that it's only an assumption and an opinion on my behalf, I personally feel that since Zimmerman volunteered for the role, he might genuinely believe he is capable of taking the law into his own hand, and if this is the case, I believe this incriminates him outright because you very simply are not allowed to do that in this country.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.