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

[QUOTE=aydin690;41247438]You're delusional dude. There's no witness for the beginning of the confrontation. Nobody knows who started it.[/QUOTE] [B]THE FUCKING THREAD TITLE[/B] [QUOTE]Neighbor testifies Trayvon Martin was straddling Zimmerman moments before fatal gunshot[/QUOTE] Oh my God. I can't even. [editline]29th June 2013[/editline] And if that isn't good enough for you, how about the 911 call where Zimmerman says he's being approached by said figure?

[QUOTE=aydin690;41247310]I don't think you know what 2nd degree murder means:[/QUOTE] You're oversimplifying it. Murder of any type requires a feeling of malice that exists before the confrontation. Second degree murder implies that Zimmerman got out of his car with malice toward Martin- which would require either a prior history between the two, or proof that Zimmerman is a racist. Neither is true, so Zimmerman did not murder Martin. As I stated earlier in the thread, Zimmerman's actions more closely resemble voluntary manslaughter, where a spontaneous situation elicits a temporary state of mind that enabled the defendant to kill the victim. Voluntary manslaughter occurs in situations like crimes of passion, where the defendant did not know the victim or harbor any lasting feelings of malice, just like how Zimmerman didn't know Martin and didn't want to kill him, but (possibly) caused circumstances that put his life in danger which justified the use of a firearm. Even then, for the prosecution to get a guilty verdict, they would have to prove that Zimmerman actively sought out a confrontation with Martin, while his defense claims he had already turned back and was headed back to his truck. Since we have no witnesses to say whether Zimmerman was trying to catch up to Martin at the moment the latter stopped running and the fight broke out, we have no implicit evidence against him. Worse yet, even if we had concrete proof that Zimmerman was trying to corner Martin in someone's back yard, Florida law allows Zimmerman to still claim self defense if his life was later endangered. This means that for a guilty verdict to happen, the prosecution would not only need concrete evidence that Zimmerman wanted a confrontation with Martin, but also medical proof that Zimmerman couldn't have been killed in the fight that resulted. [b]Zimmerman is innocent under Florida law under pretty much every circumstance.[/b] I wrote earlier on that I personally hold him responsible, but my opinion is irrelevant to the case.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;41247449][B]THE FUCKING THREAD TITLE[/B] Oh my God. I can't even.[/QUOTE] You have reading comprehension issues. That's before the shooting and while the fight was going on, not when zimmerman approached martin. When we say we don't know who started it, we mean we don't know who threw the first punch. [editline]29th June 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Sega Saturn;41247466]Worse yet, even if we had concrete proof that Zimmerman was trying to corner Martin in someone's back yard, Florida law allows Zimmerman to still claim self defense if [B]his life was later endangered[/B]. This means that for a guilty verdict to happen, the prosecution would not only need concrete evidence that Zimmerman wanted a confrontation with Martin, but also medical proof that Zimmerman couldn't have been killed in the fight that resulted.[/QUOTE] a nosebleed and two tiny wounds aren't exactly GBI. [QUOTE=Sega Saturn;41247466][B]Zimmerman is innocent under Florida law under pretty much every circumstance.[/B] I wrote earlier on that I personally hold him responsible, but my opinion is irrelevant to the case.[/QUOTE] Yeah, not arguing you guys don't have retarded laws and even more irresponsible gun laws.

[QUOTE=aydin690;41247468]You have reading comprehension issues. That's before the shooting and while the fight was going on, not when zimmerman approached martin. When we say we don't know who started it, we mean we don't know who threw the first punch.[/QUOTE] And none of that fucking matters when Martin put Zimmerman in a life or death situation. Zimmerman didn't just shoot the kid because he thought he was a shady character, he shot him because he was beating Zimmerman to a pulp. Yes, the police photo of Zimmerman makes his injuries look less severe, but you do know that policemen will clean up a suspect before taking their mugshot, right? [editline]29th June 2013[/editline] Hell, post #3 [QUOTE=benwaddi;41228004]Prosecution got that medical lass off the stand quick after she pointed out Zimmerman's injuries were consistent with being beat. So for those keeping score every witness has essentially backed Zimmerman's claims (or failed to disprove them) and no one has even mentioned race except Jeantel who claimed "Creepy ass cracker" isn't an offensive term. The prosecution is sinking faster than the Titanic.[/QUOTE] You're just wrong. And an idiot.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;41247499]And none of that fucking matters when Martin put Zimmerman in a life or death situation. Zimmerman didn't just shoot the kid because he thought he was a shady character, he shot him because he was beating Zimmerman to a pulp. Yes, the police photo of Zimmerman makes his injuries look less severe, but you do know that policemen will clean up a suspect before taking their mugshot, right?[/QUOTE] Put yourself is martin's situation. Some ugly ass sketchy motherfucker is approaching you in a dark place. Would you not get defensive/fight him when he starts pushing you around verbally or physically? Maybe martin thought it was a life or death situation/ he was getting robbed/ etc and had to fight for his life.

[QUOTE=aydin690;41247541]Put yourself is martin's situation. Some ugly ass sketchy motherfucker is approaching you in a dark place. Would you not get defensive/fight him when he starts pushing you around verbally or physically? Maybe martin thought it was a life or death situation/ he was getting robbed/ etc and had to fight for his life.[/QUOTE] OK, I put myself in Martin's situation. I see a guy watching me. I get suspicious. He approaches me. I run. Or, that's what normal people would do, right? Except everything points to the fact that Martin approached Zimmerman and the fight broke out at that point. It's not unreasonable to assume that Martin started the fight.

If this happened in any other country, this would have been an open and shut case. Zimmerman killed somebody for no reason, that's the end of story. Well, this wouldn't have happened in other countries because the average joe wouldn't be allowed to carry a firearm.

[QUOTE=catbarf;41246067]But the thing that keeps getting overlooked here is that under Florida law, [b]it doesn't matter who started the fight[/b].[/QUOTE] I'm almost certain that stand your ground doesn't cover the aggressor inherintly. I believe the only time that you can claim self-defense when you were the aggressor is if you retreat and make your intentions to retreat clearly known. Stand your ground only covers the non-aggressor of the situation. It just means that you don't have a duty to retreat if you have a clear opportunity to do so.

[QUOTE=aydin690;41247566]If this happened in any other country, this would have been an open and shut case. Zimmerman killed somebody for no reason, that's the end of story. Well, this wouldn't have happened in other countries because the average joe wouldn't be allowed to carry a firearm.[/QUOTE] No it absolutely would not. This has nothing to do with the US's supposed "stupid laws." Pretty much every first world country has a legal system that uses evidence to prove the claim of the prosecution one way or another. Unfortunately the evidence doesn't line up with your perfect reality where it's inconceivable that someone with a less-than-ideal record might have started a fight that ended their life. I know it's hard to prove either or outside of the court, but all likelihood points to Martin being the aggressor. Whether or not Zimmerman's reaction was justifiable is a different story.

[QUOTE=aydin690;41247468]a nosebleed and two tiny wounds aren't exactly GBI.[/QUOTE] Zimmerman's head was swollen and his nose was broken. He was getting his ass kicked. My whole point is that once the fight was started and it became clear that Zimmerman was pinned-down and being beaten on, as witness and police testimony confirms, Zimmerman had very few options, and very well could have been in danger of being killed. The point of my post was that the prosecution can only defeat the self-defense claim if they could successfully prove that Zimmerman was looking for a fight and that his life wasn't in danger when he pulled the trigger. They have neither.

[QUOTE=aydin690;41247468] Yeah, not arguing you guys don't have retarded laws and even more irresponsible gun laws.[/QUOTE] I have my issues with Florida SYG laws but you can't just say halfway through a trial that they don't apply to someone who committed a crime while they were in the books

[QUOTE=Raidyr;41247736]I have my issues with Florida SYG laws but you can't just say halfway through a trial that they don't apply to someone who committed a crime while they were in the books[/QUOTE] That's not what i said. I said zimmerman, despite being guilty as fuck, is gonna walk because of US's super lax gun and self defense laws.

[QUOTE=aydin690;41247801]That's not what i said. I said zimmerman, despite being guilty as fuck, is gonna walk because of US's super lax gun and self defense laws.[/QUOTE] He's not guilty. You have yet to prove that he was guilty. Every bit of evidence suggests that he is not guilty.

[QUOTE=aydin690;41247801]That's not what i said. I said zimmerman, despite being guilty as fuck, is gonna walk because of US's super lax gun and self defense laws.[/QUOTE] What are you even on about? Guilty of what? What exact laws are you criticizing, since I apparently misinterpreted what you said?

[QUOTE=aydin690;41247801]That's not what i said. I said zimmerman, despite being guilty as fuck, is gonna walk because of US's super lax gun and self defense laws.[/QUOTE] You seriously suggested that Martin was just beating someone up for looking sketchy, but are angry that someone defended them self. Are you insane?

[QUOTE=Protocol7;41247819]He's not guilty. You have yet to prove that he was guilty. Every bit of evidence suggests that he is not guilty.[/QUOTE] We have very different definitions of guilty. He killed an innocent man for no reason, therefore he is guilty of murder. BUT because US has retarded laws, he is going to walk. For example, here in canada, the average joe is not allowed to carry a gun in any situation (heck, you can't even carry a mace or taser for protection against other humans). You can have guns for home protection but the rifle cannot be loaded and the ammo cannot be stored in the same room. You cannot use the weapon to defend any property, only life (so no armed neighborhood watch crap). Even if somebody broke into your house and was carrying your tv out the door, you can try to get it back but you cannot physically harm him in any way (otherwise you will be charged with assault). You can only kill somebody in self defense if you can PROVE he actually tried to kill you (explicit intent to kill) i.e. hard proof that if you didn't kill him, you would have died 100%. Getting beat up DOES NOT qualify and you will be charged and convicted of murder. Even if somebody straight up assaulted you in the street and was beating the shit out of you, you still can't use anything that qualifies as a 'weapon' to fight back (this includes pepper spray, taser, or even your umbrella). You know, responsible self defense and gun laws.

[QUOTE=aydin690;41247907]We have very different definitions of guilty. He killed an innocent man for no reason, therefore he is guilty of murder. BUT because US has retarded laws, he is going to walk. For example, here in canada, the average joe is not allowed to carry a gun in any situation (heck, you can't even carry a mace or taser for protection against other humans). You can have guns for home protection but the rifle cannot be loaded and the ammo cannot be stored in the same room. You cannot use the weapon to defend any property, only life (so no armed neighborhood watch crap). Even if somebody broke into your house and was carrying your tv out the door, you can try to get it back but you cannot physically harm him in any way (otherwise you will be charged with assault). You can only kill somebody in self defense if you can PROVE he actually tried to kill you (explicit intent to kill) i.e. hard proof that if you didn't kill him, you would have died 100%. Getting beat up DOES NOT qualify and you will be charged and convicted of murder. Even if somebody straight up assaulted you in the street and was beating the shit out of you, you still can't use anything that qualifies as a 'weapon' to fight back (this includes pepper spray, taser, or even your umbrella). You know, responsible self defense and gun laws.[/QUOTE] so lemme get this straight, stopping someone who is in the process of possibly killing you is not a reason what

[QUOTE=aydin690;41247907]We have very different definitions of guilty. He killed an innocent man for no reason, therefore he is guilty of murder. BUT because US has retarded laws, he is going to walk. [/QUOTE] So what you are saying is he is guilty by Canadian law but not of Florida law. You do know Zimmerman is a resident of Florida, right?

[QUOTE=aydin690;41247907] because US has retarded laws[/Quote] Name a few and explain why they're retarded. I'm not disagreeing with you, but you keep going "hurr dumb laws in the US." [QUOTE=aydin690;41247907]For example, here in canada, the average joe is not allowed to carry a gun in any situation (heck, you can't even carry a mace or taser for protection against other humans).[/quote] Well then I'm sure Zimmerman is glad this didn't happen in Canada because he would have had his head smashed in on the sidewalk. [QUOTE=aydin690;41247907]You cannot use the weapon to defend any property, only life (so no armed neighborhood watch crap).[/quote] So what Zimmerman did? [QUOTE=aydin690;41247907]Even if somebody straight up assaulted you in the street and was beating the shit out of you, you still can't use anything that qualifies as a 'weapon' to fight back (this includes pepper spray, taser, or even your umbrella). You know, responsible self defense and gun laws.[/QUOTE] So what happens in an unevenly matched fight? Does the stronger person beat the other person into a pulp and it's somehow a crime for some 120lb dude to taze a 240lb guy that's knocking his teeth out?

[QUOTE=aydin690;41247907]You can only kill somebody in self defense if you can PROVE he actually tried to kill you i.e. hard proof that if you didn't kill him, you would have died 100%[/QUOTE] How do I prove that? Do I just say "Yeah I felt like he was trying to kill me thats my proof"? [QUOTE]Getting beat up DOES NOT qualify and you will be charged and convicted of murder. [B]Even if somebody straight up assaulted you in the street and was beating the shit out of you, you still can't use anything that qualifies as a 'weapon' to fight back (this includes pepper spray, taser, or even your umbrella).[/B] You know, responsible self defense and gun laws.[/QUOTE] How does that make sense? If im weaker or scrawnier than that guy who is beating me up I cant just hit him with my umbrella even though im getting my ass kicked? We could sit here all night debating whos laws are dumber, but thats not the point. Zimmerman used a gun because he felt he was in a life threatening situation, he was getting the shit beaten out of him and used it to protect himself. Is that part so wrong?

[QUOTE=Protocol7;41247940]Name a few and explain why they're retarded. I'm not disagreeing with you, but you keep going "hurr dumb laws in the US."[/QUOTE] Just look at this case. A young man was murdered for no reason because under US law the average trigger happy joe is allowed to carry a gun. Even worse, as soon as somebody feels threatened, they can just whip out their gun and kill the other person. All of these are 'dumb laws hur'. [QUOTE=Protocol7;41247940]Well then I'm sure Zimmerman is glad this didn't happen in Canada because he would have had his head smashed in on the sidewalk. [/QUOTE] Maybe he shouldn't have started a fight when he couldn't handle it. [QUOTE=Protocol7;41247940]So what Zimmerman did?[/QUOTE] No, in canada, he would have been convicted of murder in an open and shut case because there's no hard proof martin was intentionally going to kill him. [QUOTE=Protocol7;41247940]So what happens in an unevenly matched fight? Does the stronger person beat the other person into a pulp and it's somehow a crime for some 120lb dude to taze a 240lb guy that's knocking his teeth out?[/QUOTE] Yes, you take the beating and then call 911 and let police deal with it. I.E. no vigilante justice bullshit and unqualified people (zimmerman) pretending to be superheroes.

[QUOTE]unqualified people (zimmerman) pretending to be superheroes.[/QUOTE] Defending yourself is not a superhero complex. I can't handle this. I'm done. There is no words to express my frustration with how absolutely unreasonable you are. It's very obvious you have not done any research since you neither posted any "unreasonable laws" or demonstrate a knowledge of [I]any [/I]of the evidence presented in court.

[QUOTE=aydin690;41247973]Just look at this case. A young man was murdered for no reason because under US law the average trigger happy joe is allowed to carry a gun. Even worse, as soon as somebody feels threatened, they can just whip out their gun and kill the other person. All of these are 'dumb laws hur'. Maybe he shouldn't have started a fight when he couldn't handle it. No, in canada, he would have been convicted of murder in an open and shut case because there's no hard proof martin was intentionally going to kill him. Yes, you take the beating and then call 911 and let police deal with it. I.E. no vigilante justice bullshit and unqualified people (zimmerman) pretending to be superheroes.[/QUOTE] It's time to stop

[QUOTE=aydin690;41247973]Just look at this case. A young man was murdered for no reason because under US law the average trigger happy joe is allowed to carry a gun. Even worse, as soon as somebody feels threatened, they can just whip out their gun and kill the other person. All of these are 'dumb laws hur'. Maybe he shouldn't have started a fight when he couldn't handle it. No, in canada, he would have been convicted of murder in an open and shut case because there's no hard proof martin was intentionally going to kill him. Yes, you take the beating and then call 911 and let police deal with it. I.E. no vigilante justice bullshit and unqualified people (zimmerman) pretending to be superheroes.[/QUOTE] 1st, 0 proof exists that zimmerman started a fight. 2nd, would you have been perfectly fine if Zimmerman had died that night instead? Since Martin wouldn't have used a gun to do it, I guess you'd regard him as a hero against gun violence

[QUOTE=aydin690;41247973] Yes, you take the beating and then call 911 and let police deal with it. I.E. no vigilante justice bullshit and unqualified people (zimmerman) pretending to be superheroes.[/QUOTE] Next time im getting beaten up and I might die i can safely think "The police will handle this when im gone"

Who's the dumber poster? Sigma or aydin, find out tonight on...SENSATIONALIST HEADLINES

[QUOTE=aydin690;41247973] Yes, you take the beating and then call 911 and let police deal with it. I.E. no vigilante justice bullshit and unqualified people (zimmerman) pretending to be superheroes.[/QUOTE] By day, George Zimmerman By night, Broken Nose Man, with the power to get knocked to the ground and pummeled continuously!

[QUOTE=EnlightenDead;41247942]How do I prove that? Do I just say "Yeah I felt like he was trying to kill me thats my proof"?[/QUOTE] Here: [QUOTE]Self-defence against unprovoked assault: 34. (1) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted without having provoked the assault [B]is justified in repelling force by force if the force he uses is not intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm[/B] and is no more than is necessary to enable him to defend himself. Extent of justification (2) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted and who causes death or grievous bodily harm in repelling the assault is justified if: (a) he causes it under [B]reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm[/B] from the violence with which the assault was originally made or with which the assailant pursues his purposes; and (b) he believes, on reasonable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm.[/QUOTE] However, the burden of proof is on person claiming self defense. A doctor has to say the injuries were indeed life threatening. Reasonable apprehension of death is hard to prove and in most cases judge will convict the person of murder. [QUOTE=EnlightenDead;41247942]How does that make sense? If im weaker or scrawnier than that guy who is beating me up I cant just hit him with my umbrella even though im getting my ass kicked?[/QUOTE] The force has to be justifiable. You can use your umbrella but then you will be charged with assault and you will have to explain to the judge why the umbrella was an appropriate use of force. [QUOTE=EnlightenDead;41247942]We could sit here all night debating whos laws are dumber, but thats not the point. Zimmerman used a gun because he felt he was in a life threatening situation, he was getting the shit beaten out of him and used it to protect himself. Is that part so wrong?[/QUOTE] The wrong part is that zimmerman put himself in that situation. The wrong part is that he killed a 17 year old. The point is that you can't just kill somebody because you feel threatened.

[QUOTE=aydin690;41248076]Here: However, the burden of proof is on person claiming self defense. A doctor has to say the injuries were indeed life threatening. Reasonable apprehension of death is hard to prove and in most cases judge will convict the person of murder. The force has to be justifiable. You can use your umbrella but then you will be charged with assault and you will have to explain to the judge why the umbrella was an appropriate use of force. The wrong part is that zimmerman put himself in that situation. The wrong part is that he killed a 17 year old. The point is that you can't just kill somebody because you feel threatened.[/QUOTE] The injuries weren't life threatening, Martin was threatening his life If Martin gave him injuries which were themselves life threatening by bashing his head into the ground then I think Zimmerman would have been fucked. His INTENT was life threatening, and that was adequate enough for Zimmerman to defend himself Trayvon was taller, more athletic, experienced with fighting and obviously willing to break the law, Zimmerman was shorter, overweight, and asthmatic. Do you think he should have stopped going for his gun and went "Oh! That'd be TOO MUCH FORCE! I'll just let him kill me now!" Because if you do please stay in your own country and never come down here. I didn't realize that the prosecution managed to make a complete 180 and show any kind of evidence that it wasn't Martin who instigated the fight. Age doesn't matter, Martin associated with adults, he did drugs for adults, he possessed weapons as if he was an adult, he fought as an adult, and all the evidence points towards him choosing, on that night, to initiate an adult crime. Therefore, he was treated like an adult, and Zimmerman defended himself accordingly. And yes, if you're being threatened by someone bashing your head into the fucking ground with no one coming to help you and no end in sight to the beating, you're not going to give a shit how much force you're going to use, you're going to use it to save your life. Why is it that everyone I see arguing against Zimmerman just spews stupid circular reasoning everywhere, ignoring all the facts, and rates everyone dumb, without any kind of actual counterargument whatsoever

[QUOTE=Bazsil;41248126]The injuries weren't life threatening, Martin was threatening his life If Martin gave him injuries which were themselves life threatening by bashing his head into the ground then I think Zimmerman would have been fucked. His INTENT was life threatening, and that was adequate enough for Zimmerman to defend himself Trayvon was taller, more athletic, experienced with fighting and obviously willing to break the law, Zimmerman was shorter, overweight, and asthmatic. Do you think he should have stopped going for his gun and went "Oh! That'd be TOO MUCH FORCE! I'll just let him kill me now!" Because if you do please stay in your own country and never come down here. I didn't realize that the prosecution managed to make a complete 180 and show any kind of evidence that it wasn't Martin who instigated the fight. Age doesn't matter, Martin associated with adults, he did drugs for adults, he possessed weapons as if he was an adult, he fought as an adult, and all the evidence points towards him choosing, on that night, to initiate an adult crime. Therefore, he was treated like an adult, and Zimmerman defended himself accordingly. And yes, if you're being threatened by someone bashing your head into the fucking ground with no one coming to help you and no end in sight to the beating, you're not going to give a shit how much force you're going to use, you're going to use it to save your life.[/QUOTE] Hey, i'm not arguing that zimmerman is not gonna walk. All i'm saying is that if this happened in a civilized country, he would have been convicted of murder without a doubt because at the end of the end he killed a kid who was out buying candy. These responses are exactly why people around the world think of americans as savage gun totin right-wing nuts. Even if we assume martin was the aggressor (there's no proof), the punishment has to match the crime and the punishment for assault is not execution. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Shitposting, dumb trolling" - Megafan))[/highlight]