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

[QUOTE=aydin690;41248211]Hey, i'm not arguing that zimmerman is not gonna walk. All i'm saying is that if this [B]happened in a civilized country[/B], 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. [B]These responses are exactly why people around the world think of americans as savage gun totin right-wing nuts[/B]. 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.[/QUOTE] Please tell me more of your bias towards America and its people

[QUOTE=aydin690;41248211]All i'm saying is that if this happened in a civilized country[/QUOTE] oh jesus

[QUOTE=aydin690;41248211] 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.[/QUOTE] lol [img]http://i193.photobucket.com/albums/z105/sporkfire222/TRAYVON_zps161561e8.jpg[/img] [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Image Macro" - Megafan))[/highlight]

Not sure if this has been mentioned. Is there any problem with this person not testifying or divulging any information earlier? He said he clearly saw a man in black clothing doing mixed martial arts and was on top of Zimmerman. He specifically heard a plea for help.

[QUOTE=sYnced;41248314]Not sure if this has been mentioned. Is there any problem with this person not testifying or divulging any information earlier? He said he clearly saw a man in black clothing doing mixed martial arts and was on top of Zimmerman. He specifically heard a plea for help.[/QUOTE] I am most certain he probably shared this information with the authorities because if he didn't I believe the prosecution would have had a very easy time discrediting him.

[QUOTE=mugofdoom;41245505]I fucking love how the reflection of the light on his glasses makes it look like he has one, tiny, solid white pupil that's constantly staring at the screen through his black sunglasses. He has some great points but that part was what stood out the most for me.[/QUOTE] Now you mention it, he looks like a terminator to me :D I just can't unsee it :(

[QUOTE=aydin690;41247226]Also, you're wrong. The person starting a fight cannot claim self defense. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Valnar;41247579]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] Come [I]on[/I] guys, I even quoted for you the relevant piece of legislation. Maybe try reading it this time? It's really not that hard. Here's the whole law, with the relevant part bold this time: [quote]776.012 Use of force in defense of person.--A person is justified in the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against such other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. History.--s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102. [snip 776.031] 776.041 Use of force by aggressor.--The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who: (1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or (2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, [B]unless: (a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant;[/B] or (b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force. [/quote] If you provoke the use of force against yourself by starting a fight, then you can't claim self-defense by responding to that use of force with force, [B]unless[/B] that use of force makes you fear for your life and you can't reasonably escape the situation. If I throw a punch, and you throw a punch back, I can't claim self-defense if I stab you with a knife. If I throw a punch, and you knock me to the ground and pull out a gun such that I cannot escape and I fear for my life, I can claim self-defense if I stab you with a knife, because even though I provoked the use of force against myself I have not given a justifiable reason to use lethal force against myself. Escalation of force is a standard part of self-defense laws in every state. This is pretty clear-cut.

I don't understand the purpose of the current witness. Is he just up there to say "ehhhh, it could of been him, I can't really tell." or am I missing something

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;41228506]Except for the fact that nothing does. Zimmerman left his house, got in his car, and then left his car on foot to pursue Martin. "He was a member of the neighborhood watch" is not an acceptable excuse for going after somebody who had every right to be there. If you were being followed by a large man (possibly visibly wielding a gun) in the middle of the night you might make some rash decisions too.[/QUOTE] I doubt any of my own decisions would include approaching a large man with a gun. I mean honestly; who would do that? Currently evidence suggests that Martin attacked Zimmerman and while the two were on the ground Zimmerman managed to retrieve his sidearm. I don't see what's so difficult to comprehend.

TM would have been unaware of the gun. Concealed carry laws mean just that. Keep the gun concealed so no one knows you have it. TM probably saw GZ as an easy target to beat up. Had TM known about the gun he probably would have really ran away or attempted to immediately gain control over it.

For people wanting a lawyers breakdown of each day of the case I found these Days [URL="http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/06/zimmerman-trial-video-live-day-1-states-first-four-witnesses/"]1[/URL] [URL="http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/06/zimmerman-trial-day-2-analysis-of-states-witnesses/"]2[/URL] [URL="http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/06/zimmerman-trial-day-analysis-and-video-of-states-witnesses/"]3[/URL] [URL="http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/06/zimmerman-trial-day-end-of-day-analysis-video-of-states-witnesses/"]4[/URL] [URL="http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/06/zimmerman-trial-day-5-analysis-video-states-own-witnesses-undercut-theory-of-guilt/"]5[/URL] Also [url]http://patdollard.com/2013/06/trayvon-martins-involvement-in-local-burglaries-covered-up-by-media-school-police/[/url] So Trayvon was caught with stolen goods that matched those stolen from a home near his school but got off with a suspension from school (for graffiti). All done by the police to [URL="http://www.scribd.com/doc/150440037/Charles-Hurley-M-DSPD-Police-Chief"]reduce the amount of black males with criminal records.[/URL]

[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] You, sir, are a jackass.

[QUOTE=BusterBluth;41228329]There is no evidence Zimmerman approached him with a gun drawn, I am not sure why everyone says this as though it is common knowledge.[/QUOTE] I don't understand why Zimmerman ever approached him after the police dispatcher told him to back off. What would you do if some stranger started approaching you in the dark?

[QUOTE=Falubii;41266655]I don't understand why Zimmerman ever approached him after the police dispatcher told him to back off. What would you do if some stranger started approaching you in the dark?[/QUOTE] 1. The dispatcher has no legal authority. The police will tell you to stay out because it means they don't have any legal responsibility over what happens. If the dispatcher told him he could go ask what Martin's up to, then the dispatcher would share some responsibility over whatever happened next. 2. What would I do if a stranger approached me in the dark? Well, probably not punch him, because that seems like an incredibly stupid and unjustified thing to do, let alone beat him to the ground and slam his head into the pavement repeatedly.

Martin might have been a violent little prick, but it seems Zimmerman was sticking his nose where it shouldn't have been. Basically both sides were stupid but Zimmerman survived.

[QUOTE=Falubii;41266825]Martin might have been a violent little prick, but it seems Zimmerman was sticking his nose where it shouldn't have been. Basically both sides were stupid but Zimmerman survived.[/QUOTE] It's stupid for a neighboorhood watchman to be asking someone who doesn't live there why he's out late at night and appears to be casing houses in a neighborhood previously burglarized? I really don't understand where this notion that Zimmerman was sticking his nose where it doesn't belong comes from. There is absolutely nothing whatsoever illegal or even questionable about approaching and verbally interacting with someone on the street. Zimmerman could have been just a regular guy on his way home from a late work shift and it still would be perfectly legal for him to go up to Martin and ask him what he's doing. Sure, maybe I'd be a little on edge if someone randomly started asking me questions on the street late at night. But that in no way would justify me attacking him.

[QUOTE=Falubii;41266825]Martin might have been a violent little prick, but it seems Zimmerman was sticking his nose where it shouldn't have been. Basically both sides were stupid but Zimmerman survived.[/QUOTE] Zimmerman was a was part of a watch group. Traivon was alone in the middle of a rainy night just there. The area where they were had been victim of a string of house beak-ins.

[QUOTE=Falubii;41266655]I don't understand why Zimmerman ever approached him after the police dispatcher told him to back off. What would you do if some stranger started approaching you in the dark?[/QUOTE] As said before, not beat the shit out of them

[QUOTE=catbarf;41266896]Sure, maybe I'd be a little on edge if someone randomly started asking me questions on the street late at night. But that in no way would justify me attacking him.[/QUOTE] For whatever reason, reports say that Martin ran away from Zimmerman before he could ask him anything. To me, it sounds like Martin thought Zimmerman was going to mug him. We don't know for sure if Zimmerman ever turned back to wait for police, like his defense says he did, or if he continued to follow Martin into the yards, like the prosecution says. If the prosecution is right, Martin may have believed he was acting in self-defense. It's unfortunate that we don't have a witness to tell us whether Zimmerman actually stopped following Martin, because it would settle the case in an instant.

[QUOTE=Falubii;41266825]Martin might have been a violent little prick, but it seems Zimmerman was sticking his nose where it shouldn't have been. Basically both sides were stupid but Zimmerman survived.[/QUOTE] I tend to agree with statement, both were pretty stupid. I don't doubt for a second that Trayvon attacked Zimmerman, he knew he was being followed and felt threatened, probably thought his best chance was to get the drop on Zimmerman. What happens when an animal gets backed into a corner, they lash out, its the same basic instinct, plus he's a kid, he's more prone to this approach. Is Zimmerman a murderer? Fuck no, is he an idiot with a gun, fuck yeah. Also lets focus on what happened during the event and the moments leading up to it, bringing up the neighborhoods recent crime history or trayvons history just muddies this shit up to high heaven.

[QUOTE=Unmercy;41267168]I tend to agree with statement, both were pretty stupid. I don't doubt for a second that Trayvon attacked Zimmerman, he knew he was being followed and felt threatened, probably thought his best chance was to get the drop on Zimmerman. [b]What happens when an animal gets backed into a corner, they lash out[/b], its the same basic instinct, plus he's a kid, he's more prone to this approach. Is Zimmerman a murderer? Fuck no, is he an idiot with a gun, fuck yeah. Also lets focus on what happened during the event and the moments leading up to it, bringing up the neighborhoods recent crime history or trayvons history just muddies this shit up to high heaven.[/QUOTE] Except he wasn't backed into a corner, at all. He could have just walked away. [editline]1st July 2013[/editline] That is, if Zimmerman's testimony is true

[QUOTE=tommyc225;41267352]Except he wasn't backed into a corner, at all. He could have just walked away. [editline]1st July 2013[/editline] That is, if Zimmerman's testimony is true[/QUOTE] I've never been in the situation of having a creepy guy following me around at night, so I really can't say how I would have responded. I probably would have ran, but who knows.

Didn't Zimmerman ignore the police operator because the police were useless in his area, hence the neighborhood watch being prevalent?

[QUOTE=Coffee;41267677]Didn't Zimmerman ignore the police operator because the police were useless in his area, hence the neighborhood watch being prevalent?[/QUOTE] There could be a million reasons why, nobody knows the true reason except him.

[QUOTE=catbarf;41266896]It's stupid for a neighboorhood watchman to be asking someone who doesn't live there why he's out late at night and appears to be casing houses in a neighborhood previously burglarized? I really don't understand where this notion that Zimmerman was sticking his nose where it doesn't belong comes from. There is absolutely nothing whatsoever illegal or even questionable about approaching and verbally interacting with someone on the street. Zimmerman could have been just a regular guy on his way home from a late work shift and it still would be perfectly legal for him to go up to Martin and ask him what he's doing. Sure, maybe I'd be a little on edge if someone randomly started asking me questions on the street late at night. But that in no way would justify me attacking him.[/QUOTE] In what way he appear to be casing houses?

[QUOTE=Falubii;41267706]In what way he appear to be casing houses?[/QUOTE] read the transcript, zimmerman explains

[QUOTE=tommyc225;41267352]Except he wasn't backed into a corner, at all. He could have just walked away. [editline]1st July 2013[/editline] That is, if Zimmerman's testimony is true[/QUOTE] There is essentially always another way out (don't dig into this example, just adapt it to any other example you can think of) think of all the animals that climb trees as a last resort, certainly they could keep moving in a direction. It's simply they reached a point where they have come to the conclusion that this problem is not going to go away, the "corner" essentially. Trayvon came to the conclusion that Zimmerman was not going to stop following him, and tension only rises as the situation persists. Again, this is where stupid kicks in for both of them, Zimmerman fails to realize he's putting himself too close to this kid, and Trayvon feels that his only option is to attack, the "corner" in his mind.

[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] Jesus these can't be my countries laws, it's like it's better to fight back and hope no one saw it and walk away.

[QUOTE=Coffee;41267677]Didn't Zimmerman ignore the police operator because the police were useless in his area, hence the neighborhood watch being prevalent?[/QUOTE] Neighborhood watches are a form of deterrent and should not be a form of law enforcement. The mere presence of witnesses in an area is enough to scare away house burglars for the most part, the members of the watch need to be smart though, Zimmerman wasn't.

[QUOTE=Unmercy;41267921]Neighborhood watches are a form of deterrent and should not be a form of law enforcement. The mere presence of witnesses in an area is enough to scare away house burglars for the most part, the members of the watch need to be smart though, Zimmerman wasn't.[/QUOTE] Only law enforcement officers can approach and talk to suspicious people at night?