Enhanced Police Video Shows Injuries On George Zimmerman's Head - Polidicks

i still dont think getting beaten up by someone means its okay to kill them but whatever

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;35414626]no, that's not obvious. The only thing Martin is guilty of is wearing a hoodie and being black in an affluent neighborhood defended by a delusional vigilante.[/QUOTE] He also allegedly charged Zimmerman and tried to hit him (probably succeeded for what I know). Stop acting like Martin is just a poor little victim who had nothing to do with the whole thing.

Zimmerman still lied about having his nose broken.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;35414896]He also allegedly charged Zimmerman and tried to hit him (probably succeeded for what I know). Stop acting like Martin is just a poor little victim who had nothing to do with the whole thing.[/QUOTE] he had every right to charge zimmerman and try to hit him. that would have been self defense. [editline]3rd April 2012[/editline] if some man starts coming after you and threatening you with a gun you should be able to do whatever you damn well think is necessary to defend yourself from him, including fighting him and trying to disarm him

[QUOTE=Gishank;35410746]If it was a black cop, and a white kid. Would you still argue the same points against Zimmerman?[/QUOTE] I would. Would you?

[QUOTE=Gishank;35410746]If it was a black cop, and a white kid. Would you still argue the same points against Zimmerman?[/QUOTE] why wouldn't we argue the same points? i hope you're not suggesting that people who are against Zimmerman do it because he's white, that doesn't make a lot of sense.

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;35414953]he had every right to charge zimmerman and try to hit him. that would have been self defense. [editline]3rd April 2012[/editline] if some man starts coming after you and threatening you with a gun you should be able to do whatever you damn well think is necessary to defend yourself from him, including fighting him and trying to disarm him[/QUOTE] That's hardly the case here though with the current "official" story. There's no evidence to suggest that Zimmerman even threatened the kid with a gun in the first place and that the only time a gun was even involved was when it was revealed during a scuffle. It's believed that Zimmerman followed the kid for suspicious activity. Apparently he followed him to the point where he verbally confronted him and then suddenly a fight breaks out. Now, who throws the first punch? Because if you're being followed by a guy who is simply asking you what you're doing, the first thing you do is charge and try to hit the man? Give me a break. That's not how self-defense works at all.

[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;35414096] I didn't know calling someone a hypocrite was against any rule. Please Swebonny, inform me what rule that is. [/QUOTE] You can call me a hypocrite as much as you want. But there's no reason to add a "fucking" in front of it. I try to respect your reasons and much of what you say makes much sense. But it just saddens me when people get all rude for some reason. And no I wouldn't have banned since it'd seem a bit personal, but one fact is that I do have bans with the reason "Rude" and I know many other moderators have. Oh and that rule is called common sense.

[QUOTE=Gishank;35410746]If it was a black cop, and a white kid. Would you still argue the same points against Zimmerman?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Jack Trades;35410788]Next they'll be flipping and un-cropping to prove that it was all black kids fault.[/QUOTE] use negative video :v: black cop shoots white kid in the middle of an EXTREMELY bright day with odd colored objects

enhance the video even more and you can see a gunshot wound on trayvon martin

[QUOTE=Trogdon;35413716]what, a self report of righteousness?! he must be innocent! ultimately zimmerman killed a person, and the whole conflict did not need to happen. self-defense or not, he created a situation in which he killed someone else, and that should not go without consequence.[/QUOTE] Definitely. There's without a doubt he's taken someones life and yes, I believe he should get punished. Life is valuable, taking it from someone isn't really a nice thing. I just don't understand why you have to assume I'm trying to take some stupid side in this case. [QUOTE=Dolton;35413748]Even though you were being hypocritical. Calm down.[/QUOTE] How was I being hypocritical? Did I somewhere assume that he was innocent? Did I somewhere assume that it was right to shoot a child? If you think that those are the things I believe or have written in this forum and thread, yeah then sure, I'm a big hypocrite. I guess trying to analyze this "media entertainment" case from a what I believe is a neutral viewpoint is ultimately making me sound like a big Zimmerman fan, which ugh isn't really the points I'm trying to make. I'll stop posting from now on.

[QUOTE=zombini;35413722]The point is, Trayvon did not have a gun, even if he reached for it, you still cannot shoot him. A good friend of my father's is a cop and one of the things he was told, that if a person is unarmed and tries to take your gun, but ultimately fails, you cannot open fire on them.[/QUOTE] Police are held to a higher standard than normal people. A court of law will rule in favor of the shooter if they believe he had a reasonable belief that his life was in danger. Edit: Police are held to a higher standard so the above does not necessarily apply. Laws are not always black and white when it comes to normal citizens and guns. A lot of it has to do with state of mind.

[QUOTE=lucasjr5;35416822]Police are held to a higher standard than normal people. A court of law will rule in favor of the shooter if they believe he had a reasonable belief that his life was in danger.[/QUOTE] He isn't even a policeman.

[QUOTE=Jim_Riley;35415653]That's hardly the case here though with the current "official" story. There's no evidence to suggest that Zimmerman even threatened the kid with a gun in the first place and that the only time a gun was even involved was when it was revealed during a scuffle.[/QUOTE] yeah no the gun was also involved when it was used to shoot someone who was clearly begging for help [QUOTE=Jim_Riley;35415653]It's believed that Zimmerman followed the kid for suspicious activity. [/QUOTE] something he was instructed not to do [QUOTE=Jim_Riley;35415653] Now, who throws the first punch? Because if you're being followed by a guy who is simply asking you what you're doing, the first thing you do is charge and try to hit the man? [/QUOTE] assumption [QUOTE=Jim_Riley;35415653] Give me a break. That's not how self-defense works at all.[/QUOTE] well self-defense certainly isn't leaving the safety of your car, pursuing someone who is posing no visible threat to anyone else while the police are on the way, and then shooting them to death. chasing someone down and shooting them is, like, the opposite of self defense.

Your on serious drugs if you think he just shot a kids because he was black and are fucked if you think the kid didn't fight at all and was just shot for yelling at him. Not everything is a hate crime, this isn't. It's a tragic accident that occurred because both people fucked up, and one had a gun.

man, the only fuck up trayvon martin made was walking around with skittles and iced-tea.

[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;35414493]You're arguing semantics. He killed another human being with forethought, the instances surrounding it cover varying degrees of murder.[/QUOTE] How do we know he killed him with forethought? What if the gun went off accidentally during a struggle?

[QUOTE=Zet;35411223]Did they go CSI: Miami on the video? Zoom into reflections and then zoom into those reflections?[/QUOTE] More like CSI Miami meets Inception, they have a few drinks, they go to bed together, and 9 months later..

[QUOTE=CakeMaster7;35413554]Exactly, people need to remember that [I]racism goes both ways.[/I][/QUOTE] That's.... Gonna be a while.

[QUOTE=jaykray;35417034]He isn't even a policeman.[/QUOTE] I know that but the poster was speaking of what a police officer had said and I was pointing out that statement isn't always true when speaking of normal people because normal people aren't expected to know every variation if when it is ok to fire your weapon. Generally speaking if you feel your life is in danger you are allowed to fire. And the part "Trayvon did not have a gun, even if he reached for it, you still cannot shoot him" is complete bullshit. If you don't know if the guy has a gun and he acts like he is pulling one out of his jacket you absolutely can shoot him. Police officers do it all the time (relatively speaking, when the situation arises this happens often). The key is 1. Did he have knowledge that Trayvon did or did not have a gun 2. Can he prove that he thought a weapon was being pulled. I doubt Zimmerman can prove any of this.

The second actual fact learned in this case: "Zimmerman had injuries on his head."

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;35417540]well self-defense certainly isn't leaving the safety of your car, pursuing someone who is posing no visible threat to anyone else while the police are on the way, and then shooting them to death. chasing someone down and shooting them is, like, the opposite of self defense.[/QUOTE] This is what is going to screw Zimmerman. He put himself into a confrontational situation. Whether or not he really intended to fire will end up irrelevant if it is decided that he put himself into a situation where he thought he may use his weapon.

[QUOTE=Noble;35418072]How do we know he killed him with forethought? What if the gun went off accidentally during a struggle?[/QUOTE]It would be manslaughter.

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;35419065]It would be manslaughter.[/QUOTE] How exactly would it be manslaughter?

[QUOTE=lucasjr5;35419061][QUOTE] well self-defense certainly isn't leaving the safety of your car, pursuing someone who is posing no visible threat to anyone else while the police are on the way, and then shooting them to death. chasing someone down and shooting them is, like, the opposite of self defense.[/QUOTE] This is what is going to screw Zimmerman. He put himself into a confrontational situation. Whether or not he really intended to fire will end up irrelevant if it is decided that he put himself into a situation where he thought he may use his weapon.[/QUOTE]He is screwed no matter what. He was told to not follow Martin but did, and not only followed him but approached him. Especially because he was carrying a firearm, his chances of getting off on the excuse of self-defense are slim to none. He instigated the situation to begin with, and regardless of whether or not Martin attacked first, the situation would not have occurred had he not gotten involved. So, no matter how you look at this, he at the very least committed manslaughter, quite likely Second Degree Murder. [editline]3rd April 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=BusterBluth;35419088]How exactly would it be manslaughter?[/QUOTE] [quote]Voluntary Manslaughter sometimes called a "Heat of Passion" murder, is any intentional killing that involved no prior intent to kill, and which was committed under such circumstances that would "cause a reasonable person to become emotionally or mentally disturbed." Both this and second degree murder are committed on the spot, but the two differ in the magnitude of the circumstances surrounding the crime. For example, a bar fight that results in death would ordinarily constitute second degree murder. If that same bar fight stemmed from a discovery of infidelity, however, it may be mitigated to voluntary manslaughter.[7] Involuntary Manslaughter stems from unintentional, but criminally negligent behavior. A drunk driving-related death is typically involuntary manslaughter. Note that the "unintentional" element here refers to the lack of intent to bring about the death. All three crimes above feature an intent to kill, whereas involuntary manslaughter is "unintentional," because the killer did not intend for a death to result from his intentional actions.[/quote] [quote]In some states, such as Florida, there is no separation for manslaughter; it is simply manslaughter.[/quote]

The media has already made up their mind who's guilty.

[QUOTE=Scot;35411029]Obviously not, but when there is an overwhelming amount of evidence supporting the counter-argument continuing to support the argument is just plain foolish.[/QUOTE] Evidence =/= 'stuff i read in the news' No one was claiming he 'murdered the kid in cold blood', you idiot. Quit basing the facts of the case around things you read in the comment section of news articles covering the event. Not all instances of killing are claimed to be murder, negligence is just as punishable as malice intent, and just as worthy of outrage. All the sympathizing with Zimmerman over this incident is pathetic. Zimmerman still has the rest of his life to live. Boo hoo for him, right?

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;35419134]He is screwed no matter what. He was told to not follow Martin but did, and not only followed him but approached him. Especially because he was carrying a firearm, his chances of getting off on the excuse of self-defense are slim to none. He instigated the situation to begin with, and regardless of whether or not Martin attacked first, the situation would not have occurred had he not gotten involved. So, no matter how you look at this, he at the very least committed manslaughter, quite likely Second Degree Murder. [editline]3rd April 2012[/editline][/QUOTE] I know what man slaughter is, but if Martin did in fact attack him for just following him it would not be man slaughter. Zimmerman following Martin is not instigation of a fight. If Zimmerman pulled a gun on Martin and Martin attacked, that would be instigation.

[QUOTE=Disotrtion;35419159]The media has already made up their mind who's guilty.[/QUOTE] That darn liberal media, just can't trust them, which is why I don't read or view the news, which is how I know how biased it is. It makes perfect sense!

[QUOTE=Gundevil;35418016]Your on serious drugs if you think he just shot a kids because he was black and are fucked if you think the kid didn't fight at all and was just shot for yelling at him. Not everything is a hate crime, this isn't. It's a tragic accident that occurred because both people fucked up, and one had a gun.[/QUOTE] It's going to be pretty hard to convince me that somebody shooting someone to death who was screaming for help was a tragic accident.