Zimmerman trial: Neighbor testifies Trayvon Martin was straddling Zimmerman moments before fatal gun - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Iago;41238164]"I can't back up my claims" [/QUOTE] But, I've been backing up my claims. You just cried about them being assumptions and stereotypes and rated me dumb without any sort of counterargument whatsoever. I gave you a text by Martin (and a source) which shows that he was very much capable of engaging in a fight, and willing to be in one, and you just said I was [i]~stereotyping~[/i]. Where have you backed up any claims? All you've been doing is throwing out anyone's attempt to argue with you because they're just making assumptions about the fight, getting angry and defensive, and calling them dumb. That's no way to conduct an argument and I really don't know why you're even here.

[QUOTE=mokkan;41237831]Barely a cut on on him[/QUOTE] Please explain how he would get a shit ton of cuts from blunt force trauma. Hell I've seen UFC fights with less damage than that, looks like he got his head smashed good on a curb/pavement, either while struggling on the ground or during the initial fall.

[QUOTE=Iago;41238183]Most likely =/= you will[/QUOTE] Right, here's the problem with this situation. If Zimmerman pulls the gun and starts shit, why the fuck would Martin charge him? There is no one on Earth dumb enough to charge someone who has a gun pointed at them. Even if he did then why would Zimmerman not just shoot him on the spot instead of letting Martin get him on the ground and start smashing his head off the ground? You'd have to be so incredibly confident and arrogant to believe that you could get taken to the ground and then be able to draw, prepare and fire your gun for that to be a viable method of murdering someone, letting them take you to the ground then shooting them. The other scenario is that Martin started it, attacked Zimmerman, while Zimmerman is getting his cunt panned against the ground he's probably thinking "This guy is gonna kill me," so he pulls his gun. Do you see the fucking problem here, and how past actions and history would come into play yet?

[QUOTE=Iago;41237857] The head holds a lot of blood, so it look worse then it actually is. [/QUOTE] Go learn some basic anatomy you fuckwit. Sure, the head holds a lot of blood, [B]inside[/B] the god damn skull. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Flaming/ban history" - Orkel))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=Bazsil;41238200]But, I've been backing up my claims. You just cried about them being assumptions and stereotypes and rated me dumb without any sort of counterargument whatsoever. I gave you a text by Martin (and a source) which shows that he was very much capable of engaging in a fight, and willing to be in one, and you just said I was [i]~stereotyping~[/i]. Where have you backed up any claims? All you've been doing is throwing out anyone's attempt to argue with you because they're just making assumptions about the fight, getting angry and defensive, and calling them dumb. That's no way to conduct an argument and I really don't know why you're even here.[/QUOTE] You haven't back up your claims, assumptions isn't evidence. I'm not mad, just surprised at the hypocrisy in BOTH sides. I also think I have the right to post here as much as you. Just because I don't take Zimmerman's word on everything doesn't mean I can't have a opinion. [editline]29th June 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=bravehat;41238241]Right, here's the problem with this situation. If Zimmerman pulls the gun and starts shit, why the fuck would Martin charge him? There is no one on Earth dumb enough to charge someone who has a gun pointed at them. Even if he did then why would Zimmerman not just shoot him on the spot instead of letting Martin get him on the ground and start smashing his head off the ground? You'd have to be so incredibly confident and arrogant to believe that you could get taken to the ground and then be able to draw, prepare and fire your gun for that to be a viable method of murdering someone, letting them take you to the ground then shooting them. The other scenario is that Martin started it, attacked Zimmerman, while Zimmerman is getting his cunt panned against the ground he's probably thinking "This guy is gonna kill me," so he pulls his gun. Do you see the fucking problem here, and how past actions and history would come into play yet?[/QUOTE] There is more then 2 scenarios in this, it's not all black and white you know. But Zimmerman certainly never touch his gun until he was getting beaten by Martin.

[QUOTE=Iago;41238275]You haven't back up your claims, assumptions isn't evidence. I'm not mad, just surprised at the hypocrisy in BOTH sides. I also think I have the right to post here as much as you. Just because I don't take Zimmerman's word on everything doesn't mean I can't have a opinion.[/QUOTE] I have backed up my claims. I've given a text by Martin, and I've given background information for both sides in order to justify who I think is more likely to start a physical conflict. You do have a right to post here I guess but you argue tenaciously with the logic and reasoning of a barbarian and thats what makes me wonder WHY you'd continue to post. I'm not the best at arguing but I've made an attempt to justify why I believe what I do. You've done nothing but tell everyone they are just making assumptions, they weren't there, and they're dumb.

[QUOTE=Iago;41238275]You haven't back up your claims, assumptions isn't evidence. I'm not mad, just surprised at the hypocrisy in BOTH sides. I also think I have the right to post here as much as you. Just because I don't take Zimmerman's word on everything doesn't mean I can't have a opinion. [editline]29th June 2013[/editline] There is more then 2 scenarios in this, it's not all black and white you know. But Zimmerman certainly never touch his gun until he was getting beaten by Martin.[/QUOTE] Right, so what are the chances that Zimmerman perfectly planned a murder to the point where he instigated a fight that could have gotten him killed just so he could shoot some kid?

[QUOTE=Garik;41238262]Go learn some basic anatomy you fuckwit. Sure, the head holds a lot of blood, [B]inside[/B] the god damn skull.[/QUOTE] You do know there are stuff between the skin and skull right? Go learn basic common sense.

[QUOTE=Iago;41238329]You do know there are stuff between the skin and skull right? Go learn basic common sense.[/QUOTE] On the back of the head there would be a thin network of veins carrying some blood, there's very little depth to the skin over the skull, to actually bleed from blunt trauma to the back of the skull would be incredibly difficult, somewhat akin to taking a punch to the face from a heavyweight boxer and even [I]then[/I] it's difficult to open up a cut without repeated strong blows. Your argument doesn't hold water.

[QUOTE=Iago;41238329]You do know there are stuff between the skin and skull right? Go learn basic common sense.[/QUOTE] Just saying, don't use blood amount to evaluate blunt force trauma, it's the kinetic force that messes your insides that you have to consider, wouldn't be surprised if he got one hell of a concussion from something that did that much damage to the back of the head.

[QUOTE=bravehat;41238324]Right, so what are the chances that Zimmerman perfectly planned a murder to the point where he instigated a fight that could have gotten him killed just so he could shoot some kid?[/QUOTE] I never said that, where in ANY of my post did I say zimmerman intend to kill martin at the start? I said it could have possibly not been self defense. But you are all convince that martin is some scary gangsta who decided to jump a random dude for no reason.

[QUOTE=Iago;41238394]I never said that, where in ANY of my post did I say zimmerman intend to kill martin at the start? I said it could have possibly not been self defense. But you are all convince that martin is some scary gangsta who decided to jump a random dude for no reason.[/QUOTE] There you go again man, assuming things about people where we have evidence. You'd be surprised how often people just jump other people.

[QUOTE=Bazsil;41238320]I have backed up my claims. I've given a text by Martin, and I've given background information for both sides in order to justify who I think is more likely to start a physical conflict. You do have a right to post here I guess but you argue tenaciously with the logic and reasoning of a barbarian and thats what makes me wonder WHY you'd continue to post. I'm not the best at arguing but I've made an attempt to justify why I believe what I do. You've done nothing but tell everyone they are just making assumptions, they weren't there, and they're dumb.[/QUOTE] I'm a barbarian for having the benefit of doubt and saying just because you are less likely to start a fight doesn't mean you can't. All you have done is use assumptions instead of logic, Martin has been in a fight before, so fucking what. You didn't back up shit just assumptions. [editline]29th June 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=bravehat;41238414]There you go again man, assuming things about people where we have evidence. You'd be surprised how often people just jump other people.[/QUOTE] Theres only evidence that a fight happened NOT how it started. What so hard to understand about that.

When there's no evidence or eyewitness statement telling you how the fight started you look to criminal profiling for a possible insight, and that leads you to seeing that Martin had been suspended 3 times from school that year alone, one for possible theft, as well as his violent history. [QUOTE=Iago;41237902]His life wasn't in danger, it's not like I can shoot somebody for giving me a small scratch.[/QUOTE] Also what the fuck is this shit? Martin was pounding his head off the ground, that's life threatening you twat.

It doesn't matter how bad the injuries to Mr. Zimmerman look in the photos after the shooting. It doesn't matter if he broke his nose or just got a couple cuts. What matters is whether or not Mr. Zimmerman felt like his life was threatened while he was being injured. Mr. Zimmerman isn't on trial for shooting Mr. Martin, he's on trial for what he was thinking when he pulled the trigger. That's the simple fact. Personally I think the Prosecution has a very difficult case to make because as I have said earlier they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Zimmerman wanted to not only fight Mr. Martin but also to kill him. And so far, regardless of my own personal opinion, I think the facts as they have been presented to the jury to date can not prove beyond a reasonable doubt the Mr. Zimmerman maliciously killed Mr. Martin. Remember that any ties, or uncertainties in the evidence will always help Mr. Zimmerman as they leave doubt.

He'll walk.

[QUOTE=PassTheBong;41238793]He'll walk.[/QUOTE] As it stands right now, I would say there is a very good chance of that.

[QUOTE=Iago;41237780]Theres no evidence that it went down like that at alll. You sound like you was there or something. All we know for sure is that a fight happened and zimmerman was getting his ass beat in the end. Also good job blaming the black community for making the police do their job. If they hadn't anybody could shoot anybody and blamie it on the dead dude, the fact the police just took zimmerman's word at first is scary. [editline]29th June 2013[/editline] Theres no evidence that Martin started the fight. How can you call Martin a aggressor for simply walking up to him but zimmerman is just well thought neighbor for doing the same. You just as bad as people who randomly calls zimmerman racist.[/QUOTE] There sure are witnesses (like in this article) who describe Martin being the aggressor. But guess what? It's not Zimmerman's job to prove himself innocent. It's the prosecution's job to prove him guilty. I don't know why you have such a hard time comprehending this concept. You make a claim that Zimmerman did something, the burden of proof lies with you to prove it. Innocent until proven guilty, not guilt until proven innocent.

[QUOTE=OgKitty;41235332]See, there's this thing called [i]time[/i], and during time things happen. Over the course of time, more developments emerged to the public about this Zimmerman case and we formed our final opinion. sry if sentence is 2 long 4 u[/QUOTE] Exactly, and everyone knew that would happen in advance. Which is why no-one jumped to any premature conclusions!

[QUOTE=Iago;41238424]I'm a barbarian for having the benefit of doubt and saying just because you are less likely to start a fight doesn't mean you can't. All you have done is use assumptions instead of logic, Martin has been in a fight before, so fucking what. You didn't back up shit just assumptions. [editline]29th June 2013[/editline] Theres only evidence that a fight happened NOT how it started. What so hard to understand about that.[/QUOTE] Didn't we go through this yesterday where we proved that your opinions are based on assumptions and made up evidence. Can you stop or are you going to keep blowing shit out your ass.

Come on guys, I mean, it's very clear that this was a racially motivated attack on Trayvon. To anybody educated in anti-racism field studies, it's clear Zimmerman was planning to kill him all along, and his wounds were self-inflicted. Anybody who has an educational background in law, medicine, forensics, or that who says otherwise is obviously untrustworthy (unless they support my argument). Not only that, but he clearly hates black people, as does every single witness. All the evidence pointing towards Zimmerman doing it is tainted by racism. It cannot be trusted, and thus, the default is that Zimmerman is guilty until proven innocent. Since no evidence exists saying that Zimmerman didn't deliberately murder him, we should lock him up for murder as a way pat ourselves on the back and say "today, the civil rights movement made a victory".

[QUOTE=HighdefGE;41239018]There sure are witnesses (like in this article) who describe Martin being the aggressor. But guess what? It's not Zimmerman's job to prove himself innocent. It's the prosecution's job to prove him guilty. I don't know why you have such a hard time comprehending this concept. You make a claim that Zimmerman did something, the burden of proof lies with you to prove it. Innocent until proven guilty, not guilt until proven innocent.[/QUOTE] Zimmerman does has to prove he is innocent, that is the whole point of an affirmative defense. He admitted to killing Martin, he has to prove it was justified, albiet the standard of proof for that is less than would normally be needed.

[QUOTE=HighdefGE;41239018]There sure are witnesses (like in this article) who describe Martin being the aggressor. But guess what? It's not Zimmerman's job to prove himself innocent. It's the prosecution's job to prove him guilty. I don't know why you have such a hard time comprehending this concept. You make a claim that Zimmerman did something, the burden of proof lies with you to prove it. Innocent until proven guilty, not guilt until proven innocent.[/QUOTE] Yeah uh see that all gets thrown out the window when a body is involved. When you fucking KILL SOMEBODY and claim self-defense you sure as shit need to prove it was justified because you have admitted to homicide. Otherwise I can just kill someone, say it was self-defense, and because no one can prove me wrong I'd walk.

[QUOTE=Valnar;41239237]Zimmerman does has to prove he is innocent, that is the whole point of an affirmative defense. He admitted to killing Martin, he has to prove it was justified, albiet the standard of proof for that is less than would normally be needed.[/QUOTE] I agree in part with you. Mr. Zimmerman does need to prove that he was not the aggressor and had no malicious intent.That said, if the prosecution can't prove that he was motivated by hate or malice then there is doubt as to whether it was malicious or not. And remember in the U.S. Legal System the Defendant always win the ties. So, yes Mr. Zimmerman needs to prove he did it in self defense, but he could also be acquitted if the prosecution can't prove he didn't act in self defense.

[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;41239392]Yeah uh see that all gets thrown out the window when a body is involved. When you fucking KILL SOMEBODY and claim self-defense you sure as shit need to prove it was justified because you have admitted to homicide. Otherwise I can just kill someone, say it was self-defense, and because no one can prove me wrong I'd walk.[/QUOTE] Are you suggesting that Zimmerman went and beat his own head into the sidewalk? Zimmerman strikes me as a concerned citizen. He frequently wrote letters to people in office, attended public meetings, etc. At one point he publicly expressed his disgust with the police following what appeared to him as a racially charged beating. I cannot bring myself to say George Zimmerman is a racist or has a blood lust.

[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;41239392]Yeah uh see that all gets thrown out the window when a body is involved. When you fucking KILL SOMEBODY and claim self-defense you sure as shit need to prove it was justified because you have admitted to homicide. Otherwise I can just kill someone, say it was self-defense, and because no one can prove me wrong I'd walk.[/QUOTE] This would depend greatly on the evidence. If you kicked in a door and shot someone and claimed self defense you would be convicted of murder. If someone tackled you to the ground and tried to suffocate you and you shot him then yes, you would be acquitted on the grounds of self defense. It's a blurry line at best, but it does exist.

[QUOTE=Skullivan21;41239495]This would depend greatly on the evidence. If you kicked in a door and shot someone and claimed self defense you would be convicted of murder. If someone tackled you to the ground and tried to suffocate you and you shot him then yes, you would be acquitted on the grounds of self defense. It's a blurry line at best, but it does exist.[/QUOTE] I dunno about you but I see a huge difference between those two scenarios.

And even the two scenarios I used are highly dependent on the state you live in (if you live in the US, I have no knowledge of other countries legal systems). [editline]29th June 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=teh pirate;41239520]I dunno about you but I see a huge difference between those two scenarios.[/QUOTE] I was trying to set clear examples for each, but they can be very blurred as they are in this particular murder case.

[QUOTE=Skullivan21;41239454]I agree in part with you. Mr. Zimmerman does need to prove that he was not the aggressor and had no malicious intent.That said, if the prosecution can't prove that he was motivated by hate or malice then there is doubt as to whether it was malicious or not. And remember in the U.S. Legal System the Defendant always win the ties. So, yes Mr. Zimmerman needs to prove he did it in self defense, but he could also be acquitted if the prosecution can't prove he didn't act in self defense.[/QUOTE] Even if martin was the aggressor that doesn't necessarily justify Zimmerman's actions. Just as an example, if someone punches you, you don't have the right to shoot them back because of that.

[QUOTE=Skullivan21;41239529]And even the two scenarios I used are highly dependent on the state you live in (if you live in the US, I have no knowledge of other countries legal systems). [editline]29th June 2013[/editline] I was trying to set clear examples for each, but they can be very blurred as they are in this particular murder case.[/QUOTE] Even here I'm willing to say, just from what I've read about the two, that this was a case of self-defense. It doesn't make sense for Zimmerman to go murder this random black kid because he's black, it doesn't add up with Zimmerman's history. [editline]29th June 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Valnar;41239550]Even if martin was the aggressor that doesn't necessarily justify Zimmerman's actions. Just as an example, if someone punches you, you don't have the right to shoot them back because of that.[/QUOTE] Martin didn't just punch him, it's right in the thread title