Man gets 20 years for shooting at George Zimmerman's vehicle - Polidicks

[QUOTE=VeniVidiVici74;51227181]Hahahahaha fuck this mentality. He hunted down an unarmed black man and shot him. How is that self defense?[/QUOTE] If by 'hunted down' you meant 'walked away from', you'd be correct, and you seem to have left out the part where said black man left but then pursued Zimmerman back to his truck and confronted him. Some altercation ensued, Martin ended up beating Zimmerman on the ground to within an inch of his life, and [I]only then[/I] did he fire in self-defense. Now, make no mistake: Zimmerman is a poor excuse for a human being. He's been booked on domestic abuse against his girlfriend, he's openly boasted about killing Martin, he tried to sell the handgun for quite a bit of money as a collectible. But his poor character doesn't change the fact that his actions were a textbook example of legitimate self-defense, and the only reason it went to trial in the first place was reactionary public outrage. He's a real piece of shit, but he was right to be acquitted, and it's simply wrong for someone to shoot at him in road rage. We don't try people in the court of public opinion and we don't tolerate vigilante justice, [I]especially[/I] misplaced and irrational vigilante justice. He was ruled 'not guilty' and deserves all the same protections as any other citizen.

[QUOTE=VeniVidiVici74;51227181]Hahahahaha fuck this mentality. He hunted down an unarmed black man and shot him. How is that self defense?[/QUOTE] fuck this mentality that someone who is completely uninformed about a case gets to dictate to others how it should be perceived.

[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;51227443]fuck this mentality that someone who is completely uninformed about a case gets to dictate to others how it should be perceived.[/QUOTE] this comment literally rips apart every argument people have against zimmerman for the trial "BUT TRAYVON WAS UNARMED" "BUT TRAYVON WAS JUST A GOOD KID, LOOK HE EVEN BOUGHT SKITTLES AND ICED TEA" hitler loved dogs, too.

[QUOTE=catbarf;51227314]If by 'hunted down' you meant 'walked away from', you'd be correct, and you seem to have left out the part where said black man left but then pursued Zimmerman back to his truck and confronted him. Some altercation ensued, Martin ended up beating Zimmerman on the ground to within an inch of his life, and [I]only then[/I] did he fire in self-defense. Now, make no mistake: Zimmerman is a poor excuse for a human being. He's been booked on domestic abuse against his girlfriend, he's openly boasted about killing Martin, he tried to sell the handgun for quite a bit of money as a collectible. But his poor character doesn't change the fact that his actions were a textbook example of legitimate self-defense, and the only reason it went to trial in the first place was reactionary public outrage. He's a real piece of shit, but he was right to be acquitted, and it's simply wrong for someone to shoot at him in road rage. We don't try people in the court of public opinion and we don't tolerate vigilante justice, [I]especially[/I] misplaced and irrational vigilante justice. He was ruled 'not guilty' and deserves all the same protections as any other citizen.[/QUOTE] No evidence other than Zimmerman's personal testimony supports your narrative of the events, however. Here are the only things we know, and can prove: 1) Zimmerman called police to report a "suspicious" character 2) Dispatcher told Zimmerman not to follow 3) Zimmerman ignored Dispatcher, left his vehicle, and began running after Martin 4) Martin told a friend he was on the phone with that somebody was following him 5) Zimmerman lost sight of Martin 6) Somehow, Zimmerman and Martin ended up face to face 7) There was a confrontation and a struggle 8) Zimmerman was struck, and hit his head on the sidewalk. Martin mounted him, or otherwise loomed over him. 9) Zimmerman shot and killed Martin No reliable eyewitness accounts exist to fill in any of the blanks, and Zimmerman's own testimony is highly suspect given his quality of character. Your narrative of this story has no more factual credibility than Vedi's, because there's just no conclusive evidence to support the idea that Martin followed Zimmerman back to his truck and jumped him. All we KNOW is that they somehow ended up face to face, and an altercation ensued. Everything beyond that is speculation. Did Zimmerman find Martin? Did Martin find Zimmerman? Were words exchanged before the scuffle, and if so, who said what? Was Zimmerman's weapon already drawn? Did Martin ambush Zimmerman, or did he attack in response to Zimmerman threatening him with a weapon? We simply don't have the answers to these questions. While Zimmerman did, by the strict definition of the law, act in self-defense when he fired his weapon at a person who was assaulting him, the events leading up to that moment are where the real controversy lies, and unfortunately it is impossible to know with any certainty what precipitated that fatal scuffle.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;51227857]No evidence other than Zimmerman's personal testimony supports your narrative of the events, however. Here are the only things we know, and can prove: 1) Zimmerman called police to report a "suspicious" character 2) Dispatcher told Zimmerman not to follow 3) Zimmerman ignored Dispatcher, left his vehicle, and began running after Martin 4) Martin told a friend he was on the phone with that somebody was following him 5) Zimmerman lost sight of Martin 6) Somehow, Zimmerman and Martin ended up face to face 7) There was a confrontation and a struggle 8) Zimmerman was struck, and hit his head on the sidewalk. Martin mounted him, or otherwise loomed over him. 9) Zimmerman shot and killed Martin No reliable eyewitness accounts exist to fill in any of the blanks, and Zimmerman's own testimony is highly suspect given his quality of character. Your narrative of this story has no more factual credibility than Vedi's, because there's just no conclusive evidence to support the idea that Martin followed Zimmerman back to his truck and jumped him. All we KNOW is that they somehow ended up face to face, and an altercation ensued. Everything beyond that is speculation. Did Zimmerman find Martin? Did Martin find Zimmerman? Were words exchanged before the scuffle, and if so, who said what? Was Zimmerman's weapon already drawn? Did Martin ambush Zimmerman, or did he attack in response to Zimmerman threatening him with a weapon? We simply don't have the answers to these questions. While Zimmerman did, by the strict definition of the law, act in self-defense when he fired his weapon at a person who was assaulting him, the events leading up to that moment are where the real controversy lies, and unfortunately it is impossible to know with any certainty what precipitated that fatal scuffle.[/QUOTE] Guilt has to be proven though, not innocence. even for the difference between murder and self defence. And the court ruled in zimzams favour since all the relevant evidence pointed in favour of him acting in self defence. All this meaning that for the courts, he acted in text book self defence. All that really matters i think is that ; -It cannot be proven zimmerman caused the altercation (i even think this part would be irrelevant but not sure). -It can be reasonably proven zimmerman was on the floor and trayvon was positioned over zimmerman when he shot.

Yeah, I understand that. I'm just clarifying that there is no legitimacy to the narrative that Martin stalked Zimmerman through the neighborhood and jumped him. We don't know, and can't know, what happened in the moments prior to the fatal scuffle. Just as easily as catbarf is arguing that Thug Trayvon jumped Zimmerman, I could argue that Tough Guy Zimmerman cornered Martin at gunpoint and provoked him into attacking. No hard evidence or reliable testimony exists to support either claim. All we know is that, somehow, the two came face to face, and a violent altercation ensued.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;51232805]Yeah, I understand that. I'm just clarifying that there is no legitimacy to the narrative that Martin stalked Zimmerman through the neighborhood and jumped him. We don't know, and can't know, what happened in the moments prior to the fatal scuffle. Just as easily as catbarf is arguing that Thug Trayvon jumped Zimmerman, I could argue that Tough Guy Zimmerman cornered Martin at gunpoint and provoked him into attacking in self defense. No hard evidence or reliable testimony exists to support either claim. All we know is that, somehow, the two came face to face, and a violent altercation ensued.[/QUOTE] Yes, i now believe you are correct after all.

[QUOTE=IceWarrior98;51216803]How? How can this guy get 20 years but George is STILL free?[/QUOTE] If you are going to kill someone, or attempt to kill someone, it's beneficial not to have witnesses. [editline]20th October 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Blizzerd;51232797]And the court ruled in zimzams favour since all the relevant evidence pointed in favour of him acting in self defence. [/QUOTE] I'd say it's more that the court ruled in his favor because there was insufficient evidence proving otherwise. Most of the evidence was pretty circumstantial. It's quite likely that it wasn't self defense, but they couldn't prove it.

[QUOTE=Blizzerd;51232797] All that really matters i think is that ; -It cannot be proven zimmerman caused the altercation [b](i even think this part would be irrelevant but not sure).[/b] -It can be reasonably proven zimmerman was on the floor and trayvon was positioned over zimmerman when he shot.[/QUOTE] It is a very heavily relevant point in any self-defense case. Because if you provoked the other person into using deadly force against you then under every State law I've seen you do indeed loose the self-defense claim. This is obviously to prevent people from provoking their enemies into attacking then then killing said enemies and then claiming self-defense. But it does have to be an act that is clearly designed into provoking the other person into violence. Simply following someone, like lets say stalking, does not constitute a provoking someone to violence under the law.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;51232805]Yeah, I understand that. I'm just clarifying that there is no legitimacy to the narrative that Martin stalked Zimmerman through the neighborhood and jumped him. We don't know, and can't know, what happened in the moments prior to the fatal scuffle. Just as easily as catbarf is arguing that Thug Trayvon jumped Zimmerman, I could argue that Tough Guy Zimmerman cornered Martin at gunpoint and provoked him into attacking in self defense. No hard evidence or reliable testimony exists to support either claim. All we know is that, somehow, the two came face to face, and a violent altercation ensued.[/QUOTE] You know, it's been a long while since I read the details of the case, so it's entirely possible I misrepresented one side's narrative as objective fact. I seem to remember reading some evidence suggesting that Martin instigated their fatal confrontation, but you are right, we can't know for certain what happened, and the jury made their decision on that basis. I apologize. [QUOTE=Kigen;51234458]It is a very heavily relevant point in any self-defense case. Because if you provoked the other person into using deadly force against you then under every State law I've seen you do indeed loose the self-defense claim. This is obviously to prevent people from provoking their enemies into attacking then then killing said enemies and then claiming self-defense.[/QUOTE] It's not even that nuanced. Basically, in most states you can only use deadly force if deadly force is threatened against you first. Regardless of what the other guy is doing, if you are the first to use or threaten deadly force you have escalated the confrontation and are now considered the aggressor. If they're the one who escalates, you can use deadly force in self-defense. So, even if Zimmerman caused the altercation, the evidence presented to the jury showed that the first use of deadly force in the altercation was most likely Martin slamming Zimmerman's head into the concrete. At that point, even if Zimmerman started the fight, Martin was the one to escalate it to deadly force, and Zimmerman became the victim and thus eligible to use deadly force in self-defense. In the absence of any evidence that Zimmerman was the first to use deadly force, they had no choice but to acquit.

[QUOTE=IceWarrior98;51216854]Regardless of how he initially gained his fame, Zimmerman has been nothing but a complete asshole with no regard for other peoples well being or safety. It's hard to believe that judges still side with him after all the shit he's pulled.[/QUOTE] Even if he is an asshole, he was right during his case and did nothing wrong. Hate him all you want, but he was proven to have self-defended himself from Trayvon Martin (?), the fact that the guy is a dick does not make him wrong.

[QUOTE=CruelAddict;51235182]Even if he is an asshole, he was right during his case and did nothing wrong. Hate him all you want, but he was proven to have self-defended himself from Trayvon Martin (?), the fact that the guy is a dick does not make him wrong.[/QUOTE] Even if he justifiably acted in self-defense there isn't any mistaking that he did do some things wrong in this case. The altercation could have been entirely avoided if we're to believe the most reasonable and proven facts of the incident. Anything after that only lies in the mind of Zimmerman himself.