New information of Zimmerman's claims in Trayvon shooting. - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Protocol7;35317395]Everything you hear on this case is speculation. Eyewitness accounts can be fraudulent. So on and so forth. The problem with this case is the distinct lack of information. I'm not going to make a decision on whether Zimmerman should be thrown in the slammer until I get enough evidence.[/QUOTE] What about his friend's testimony of what Zimmerman said, and how he apparently was crying for days, undergoing treatment for PTSD, depression and whatnot?

[quote]Zimmerman got out of his SUV to follow Trayvon on foot. When a dispatch employee asked Zimmerman if he was following the 17-year-old, Zimmerman said yes. The dispatcher told Zimmerman he did not need to do that. There is about a one-minute gap during which police say they're not sure what happened. Zimmerman told them he lost sight of Trayvon and was walking back to his SUV when Trayvon approached him from the left rear, and they exchanged words. Trayvon asked Zimmerman if he had a problem. Zimmerman said no and reached for his cell phone, he told police. Trayvon then said, "Well, you do now" or something similar and punched Zimmerman in the nose.[/quote] This seems weird to me. Did Zimmerman have the weapon on his person or was it in his vehicle? How far was the shooting distance? [QUOTE=faze;35317411]What about his friend's testimony of what Zimmerman said, and how he apparently was crying for days, undergoing treatment for PTSD, depression and whatnot?[/QUOTE] That only proves that he was affected by the killing. You could react that way to both unjustified killings and self-defense killings.

Yeah, I haven't killed anyone personally but I can only assume it's pretty harsh on your brain.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;35317652]Yeah, I haven't killed anyone personally[/QUOTE] One would think that would be understood if you said "I can assume it's pretty harsh on your brain," though if he actually meant to kill the kid then he could also be stressed out because the entire US seemingly hates him and he has to cover it up. He could also just be stressed because the entire US seemingly hates him for an action of self defense. It's not like killing someone is easy, but when your peers turn on the TV every day and said TV brands you a heartless murdering racist I'd imagine it'd be hard not to have PTSD and depression.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;35306285]Also, what the fuck happened to innocent until proven guilty? Does that just go out the window whenever the suspect is considered "bad" or "racist" by you guys?[/QUOTE] Well, when the evidence used to prove him innocent is flimsy [I]at best[/I] and the defendant is predisposed to violence, you make the assumption he's guilty as fuck.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;35317652]Yeah, I haven't killed anyone personally but I can only assume it's pretty harsh on your brain.[/QUOTE] reports stated he went into shock and was crying.

I have reviewed all the evidence presented to us and this is what I think happened. Zimmerman saw a black man in a hoodie, fearing that he was a burglar, he called the police and followed the suspect. After the police were dispatched to the location and Zimmerman was told not to follow the suspect and let police handle it, Zimmerman agreed and proceeded to follow the burglar armed with Ice tea and skittles, which could easily be mistaken for a gun and a bag of ammunition. Zimmerman was chasing after Martin, who asked if Zimmerman had a problem. Zimmerman responded with a no, and Martin said "Well now you do." and quickly punched him on the nose which started bleeding. He then wrestled him down to the ground and started beating him in the grass, Zimmerman and Martin then teleported to the sidewalk where Martin started slamming his head to the concrete curb. Zimmerman got lacerations on the back of his head and was bleeding from his nose when Martin let him go. This is where Zimmerman stood up and shot him twice. Killing him. Also, what's up with the laws that say you can't shoot someone non-lethally even if you feel that your life is threatened. Lets say hypothetically, I feel threatened, someone is coming at me with a knife and I am allowed to conceal carry, do I have to shoot to kill, is it not better to shoot to incapacitate so that police and paramedics can be called to the scene and the person can hopefully survive, and have a fair trial? You shouldn't HAVE to kill someone just because you feel that your life is threatened. This just goes to show that U.S gun regulation is horrible. Imagine if this guy was not allowed to carry a gun, I'm sure Travon Martin would still be alive, and if he did indeed smash Zimmermans head onto the concrete, he could get a trial and be sentenced.

[QUOTE=Zacca;35319747]I have reviewed all the evidence presented to us and this is what I think happened. Zimmerman saw a black man in a hoodie, fearing that he was a burglar, he called the police and followed the suspect. After the police were dispatched to the location and Zimmerman was told not to follow the suspect and let police handle it, Zimmerman agreed and proceeded to follow the burglar armed with Ice tea and skittles, which could easily be mistaken for a gun and a bag of ammunition. Zimmerman was chasing after Martin, who asked if Zimmerman had a problem. Zimmerman responded with a no, and Martin said "Well now you do." and quickly punched him on the nose which started bleeding. He then wrestled him down to the ground and started beating him in the grass, Zimmerman and Martin then teleported to the sidewalk where Martin started slamming his head to the concrete curb. Zimmerman got lacerations on the back of his head and was bleeding from his nose when Martin let him go. This is where Zimmerman stood up and shot him twice. Killing him. Also, what's up with the laws that say you can't shoot someone non-lethally even if you feel that your life is threatened. Lets say hypothetically, I feel threatened, someone is coming at me with a knife and I am allowed to conceal carry, do I have to shoot to kill, is it not better to shoot to incapacitate so that police and paramedics can be called to the scene and the person can hopefully survive, and have a fair trial? You shouldn't HAVE to kill someone just because you feel that your life is threatened. This just goes to show that U.S gun regulation is horrible. Imagine if this guy was not allowed to carry a gun, I'm sure Travon Martin would still be alive, and if he did indeed smash Zimmermans head onto the concrete, he could get a trial and be sentenced.[/QUOTE] The reason you aren't allowed to shoot to wound is if you can risk not using lethal force, then using your weapon was overkill, you could've just run.

[QUOTE=faze;35317221]Why do people think the kid is some innocent person? He slammed Zimmerman's head into the ground after confronting him at his car. The kid physically assaulted Zimmerman first and [B]repeatedly slammed his head into the concrete.[/B] Seems like attempted murder to me.[/QUOTE] That's funny, because it was initially said this happened on the grass. huh, interesting turn of events. [editline]27th March 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=faze;35317316]Uh, witness accounts as well? And the fact that Zimmerman's injuries match up with Martin apparently beating his head into the ground and hitting him in the nose.[/QUOTE] Originally they were using grass stains on his back as a defence. Which one is it faze? If he was getting his head slammed that hard, A: he probably wouldn't have been able to shot him and B: would have gotten a concussion. With the scar on his back, he most likely fell or sliced his scalp on something. Then again, the story keeps changing. [editline]27th March 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Vasili;35318667]reports stated he went into shock and was crying.[/QUOTE] I like how you are the only person who says this. Can you prove that, or are you just lying, AGAIN. Because it appears to me you don't know what shock is. [editline]27th March 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=faze;35317411]What about his friend's testimony of what Zimmerman said, and how he apparently was crying for days, undergoing treatment for PTSD, depression and whatnot?[/QUOTE] Yeah, I'm going to trust his friend. If he really felt that bad, he wouldn't have gone into hiding.

[QUOTE=Swebonny;35309373]I'm not going to take any positions, but saying the the police are siding with Zimmerman is quite ridiculous.[/QUOTE] Other than the fact that: -The police said Zimmerman's following the kid was not a crime when pursuing the kid more than once (which he would have had to do in any version of events but his) [URL="http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0784/Sections/0784.048.html"]is a violation of Florida's stalking statute[/URL]. The police assumed Zimmerman was telling the truth and that the Trayvon jumped him after Zimmerman lost him, despite the only witnesses of this portion of events being Trayvon's girlfriend via phone and Zimmerman himself. This is atypical, in any other circumstance Zimmerman would have been charged with [I]something[/I] and arrested, because presumption of innocence does not mean presumption of honesty and presumption other parties are lying. -They used a narc detective rather than a homicide one to perform the initial interview, meaning they believed from the beginning Zimmerman was in the right and that Trayvon was on drugs. This is also atypical. -[URL="http://abcnews.go.com/US/trayvon-martin-detective-wanted-charge-george-zimmerman-manslaughter/story?id=16011674"]The homicide detective involved did not actually believe Zimmerman's account of events.[/URL] This is being ignored, on the presumption there is not enough evidence to convict Zimmerman, despite the fact that acting thus preempts an actual investigation of homicide. So, sure, if you ignore that stuff, it doesn't seem like they're taking his side at all!

[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;35321198]Other than the fact that: -The police said Zimmerman's following the kid was not a crime when pursuing the kid more than once (which he would have had to do in any version of events but his) [URL="http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0784/Sections/0784.048.html"]is a violation of Florida's stalking statute[/URL]. The police assumed Zimmerman was telling the truth and that the Trayvon jumped him after Zimmerman lost him, despite the only witnesses of this portion of events being Trayvon's girlfriend via phone and Zimmerman himself. This is atypical, in any other circumstance Zimmerman would have been charged with [I]something[/I] and arrested, because presumption of innocence does not mean presumption of honesty and presumption other parties are lying. -They used a narc detective rather than a homicide one to perform the initial interview, meaning they believed from the beginning Zimmerman was in the right and that Trayvon was on drugs. This is also atypical. -[URL="http://abcnews.go.com/US/trayvon-martin-detective-wanted-charge-george-zimmerman-manslaughter/story?id=16011674"]The homicide detective involved did not actually believe Zimmerman's account of events.[/URL] This is being ignored, on the presumption there is not enough evidence to convict Zimmerman, despite the fact that acting thus preempts an actual investigation of homicide. So, sure, if you ignore that stuff, it doesn't seem like they're taking his side at all![/QUOTE] Who does the laws apply to and how is it applied? [QUOTE]“Harass” means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that causes [B]substantial emotional distress[/B] in such person and [B]serves no legitimate purpose[/B]. “Course of conduct” means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose.[/QUOTE] Was Trayvon under substantial emotional distress due to Zimmerman's "stalking"? Did it serve no legitimate purpose? Wasn't he some kind of neighbor watch guy? They used a narc detective because Zimmerman called the cops and said "This guy looks like he is up to no good. He is on drugs or something." Yes, then it would be logical to send narcotics officers, is it not? What does the police even gain on helping Zimmerman? What's their purpose? [editline]27th March 2012[/editline] Why would they side with a murderer? [editline]27th March 2012[/editline] The things is, I'm not going to assume I know what has happened. Because I have no clue. But you have certainly made your mind up it seems.

Even if the kid punched him, that doesn't give him the right to kill him.

[QUOTE=aydin690;35321638]Even if the kid punched him, that doesn't give him the right to kill him.[/QUOTE] Of course not.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;35306285]Also, what the fuck happened to innocent until proven guilty? Does that just go out the window whenever the suspect is considered "bad" or "racist" by you guys?[/QUOTE] Trial by media. They want to spin the public opinion so that way regardless of the verdict he'll be guilty for the rest of his life. Sort of like OJ, only I swear that fucker's guilty.

[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;35320820]That's funny, because it was initially said this happened on the grass. If he really felt that bad, he wouldn't have gone into hiding.[/QUOTE] He went into hiding because some 3/4 of America hates him. I think you'd go into hiding too. Also, grass can border a sidewalk or driveway, and have things like rocks in it to have your head bashed into.

[QUOTE=aydin690;35321638]Even if the kid punched him, that doesn't give him the right to kill him.[/QUOTE] But if the kid had the guy pinned to the ground and was continuing to hit him, that is legal grounds for self defense.

[QUOTE=Swebonny;35321453]Who does the laws apply to and how is it applied? Was Trayvon under substantial emotional distress due to Zimmerman's "stalking"? Did it serve no legitimate purpose? Wasn't he some kind of neighbor watch guy?[/QUOTE] Considering there were accounts of screaming and a dead kid on the ground, I think it's pretty safe to assume it was purposeless and distressed someone! Of course, his being a member of an [I]unregistered[/I] neighborhood watch...actually, no, that changes nothing, because that means he's just some chucklefuck who walks around with a gun and pretends to be a cop. [QUOTE=Swebonny;35321453]They used a narc detective because Zimmerman called the cops and said "This guy looks like he is up to no good. He is on drugs or something." Yes, then it would be logical to send narcotics officers, is it not? [/QUOTE] Yes. Until you see a [I]dead guy.[/I] At which point you send the narc back and bring in the [I]homicide detective,[/I] because their job is to work with cases involving [I]dead guys.[/I] [QUOTE=Swebonny;35321453]What does the police even gain on helping Zimmerman? What's their purpose?[/QUOTE] You're aware people make mistakes, right? Cops are human. This was basic inattentiveness, and it completely fucked over a case. That's why there has been a vote of no confidence in the police chief, [URL="http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_20265815/sanford-looks-outsider-run-police-dept-wake-trayvon"]he stepped down temporarily, and the city has essentially washed its hands of the entire case.[/URL] The cops screwed up, they're sorry, they're trying to do damage control. They [I]did[/I] bias the case. [QUOTE=Swebonny;35321453]The things is, I'm not going to assume I know what has happened. Because I have no clue. But you have certainly made your mind up it seems.[/QUOTE] If you're not seeing this as a botch job, you either aren't reading anything of substance on the subject or have a horrid idea of how the police in this country work.

[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;35324713] Yes. Until you see a [I]dead guy.[/I] At which point you send the narc back and bring in the [I]homicide detective,[/I] because their job is to work with cases involving [I]dead guys.[/I] [/QUOTE] Which was what they did. Obviously it didn't lead to anything as the article states. [QUOTE] If you're not seeing this as a botch job, you either aren't reading anything of substance on the subject or [B]have a horrid idea of how the police in this country work.[/B][/QUOTE] Perhaps. But I still think it's wrong to say that they are [I]siding[/I] with Zimmerman. And how do you determine what kind if thing is of "substance"? Anything that's against Zimmerman? Don't deny the fact that media and idiots has created a fucking mess out of this case. Dragging in racial arguments for some reason, trying to portray Trayvon into some kind of innocent kid and so on. Completely irrelevant to the case, only brought up to cause emotional reaction among people. Anyhow, shit job != biased police/siding with the perpetrator. Unless you mean that they are intentionally making mistakes to help Zimmerman. Funny because I thought you said they sided with him, while you now keep talking about the police making mistakes. [QUOTE=Xenocidebot;35324713]Considering there were accounts of screaming and a dead kid on the ground, I think it's pretty safe to assume it was purposeless and distressed someone! Of course, his being a member of an [I]unregistered[/I] neighborhood watch...actually, no, that changes nothing, because that means he's just some chucklefuck who walks around with a gun and pretends to be a cop. [/quote] Who was screaming(Trayvon? Zimmerman?)? What does that have to do with stalking? Are you assuming he stalked the kid just to shoot him? Purposeless, I don't know as he after all is volunteering to watch the neighborhood. Being and idiot for walking around with a gun and pretending to be a cop? Yeah definitely. Still, read your own link, be honest, following a kid because you think he's up to no good doesn't seem to fit in here: [url]http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0784/Sections/0784.048.html[/url]

I guess some people really jumped the gun on this one.

[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;35320820] I like how you are the only person who says this. Can you prove that, or are you just lying, AGAIN. Because it appears to me you don't know what shock is. [/QUOTE] I'm not lying about anything, just stating what has been reported and sourced. [editline]28th March 2012[/editline] I think you need to cool down and come back with a clear head because you're too invested on your idea of what happened.

I don't understand why people can't just read this properly without sayingn "SURE SEEMS FISHY". It's not fishy in the slightest, from what I can tell, Zimmerman followed Martin (most likely for racial shit, or he actually suspected something). Martin didn't like that, (Zimmerman as a trusty source or not, there was a witness and there's plenty of damage to Zimmerman to prove that Martin got provoked by Zimmerman's following, or Zimmerman just ran his mouth and pissed him off, or even hit Martin first), to which Zimmerman shot him. Then again, I'm not the best with cases like this, so if anyone who's more informed than I, feel free to correct me.

[QUOTE=KabsIsBack;35325428]I don't understand why people can't just read this properly without sayingn "SURE SEEMS FISHY". It's not fishy in the slightest, from what I can tell, Zimmerman followed Martin (most likely for racial shit, or he actually suspected something). Martin didn't like that, (Zimmerman as a trusty source or not, there was a witness and there's plenty of damage to Zimmerman to prove that Martin got provoked by Zimmerman's following, or Zimmerman just ran his mouth and pissed him off, or even hit Martin first), to which Zimmerman shot him. Then again, I'm not the best with cases like this, so if anyone who's more informed than I, feel free to correct me.[/QUOTE] I agree, no one should be jumping the gun and/or getting too attached to what they believe happened. Originally I was fully on Trayvon Martin's side because of the way the case was being portrayed as a racist vigilante killing. After looking at Zimmerman's version of events and the 911 calls (and other evidence surrounding the case), my opinion of what happened has become a lot more neutral and I'm waiting to see more evidence. This is why I don't like to get attached to what I believe especially in a case like this where the evidence can shift in favor of either side. I see people accusing the police of covering up a crime, saying Zimmerman's defense is a lie (when there is no evidence to make that claim), and saying the witness who sort of makes Zimmerman's story seem more legitimate either doesn't exist or is a liar. I think that is ridiculous and shows a huge bias, and just because the majority of people happen to hold a particular bias, that doesn't mean the bias is OK. Everyone should be withholding judgement for right now rather than rushing to condemn someone for an incident that we all know very little about.

[QUOTE=Ridge;35322800]But if the kid had the guy pinned to the ground and was continuing to hit him, that is legal grounds for self defense.[/QUOTE] I don't know what kind of idiotic rules you guys have in the US but in the rest of the world, the 'defense' has to match the 'attack' or just enough to incapacitate the attacker and give you enough time to gtfo. [editline]28th March 2012[/editline] You can't just whip out a gun and shoot anybody that punches you.

[QUOTE=aydin690;35327789]I don't know what kind of idiotic rules you guys have in the US but in the rest of the world, the 'defense' has to match the 'attack' or just enough to incapacitate the attacker and give you enough time to gtfo. [editline]28th March 2012[/editline] You can't just whip out a gun and shoot anybody that punches you.[/QUOTE] Same goes here in the US. Lethal force is for attacks where you fear for your life, even then you have to prove it. [editline]28th March 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=KabsIsBack;35325428]I don't understand why people can't just read this properly without sayingn "SURE SEEMS FISHY". It's not fishy in the slightest, from what I can tell, Zimmerman followed Martin (most likely for racial shit, or he actually suspected something). Martin didn't like that, (Zimmerman as a trusty source or not, there was a witness and there's plenty of damage to Zimmerman to prove that Martin got provoked by Zimmerman's following, or Zimmerman just ran his mouth and pissed him off, or even hit Martin first), to which Zimmerman shot him. Then again, I'm not the best with cases like this, so if anyone who's more informed than I, feel free to correct me.[/QUOTE] Following somebody doesn't give you the right to kill them when they confront you. And we do not have enough proof he's a racist so cool it with calling him a racist until proof is given.

So we should kill the other guy instead?

[QUOTE=Odi;35328529]So we should kill the other guy instead?[/QUOTE] Shouldn't kill anybody unless they're trying to kill you in the first place.

[QUOTE=aydin690;35327789]I don't know what kind of idiotic rules you guys have in the US but in the rest of the world, the 'defense' has to match the 'attack' or just enough to incapacitate the attacker and give you enough time to gtfo. [editline]28th March 2012[/editline] You can't just whip out a gun and shoot anybody that punches you.[/QUOTE] If someone is choking the shit out of me and slamming my head into the concrete I'm going to defend myself by whatever means I have available. You have no idea if the attacker is crazy and wants to beat you to death or not, and you're under no obligation to just assume the attacker wants to just hit you a few times and walk away. I'm not wasting my time trying to logically think about how I can "match the attack" while I'm in physical danger.

[QUOTE=Noble;35328854]If someone is choking the shit out of me and slamming my head into the concrete I'm going to defend myself by whatever means I have available. You have no idea if the attacker is crazy and wants to beat you to death or not, and you're under no obligation to just assume the attacker wants to just hit you a few times and walk away. I'm not wasting my time trying to logically think about how I can "match the attack" while I'm in physical danger.[/QUOTE] Fucking this. If someone attacks me, be it fists, a knife or anything else. If I have a gun I will shoot that fuck without thinking a second time. If you attack someone you should be ready to possibly die any second. Same for the victim, if you don't give it all you got, be ready to possibly die or get injured terribly.

I think as this case develops it will be harder and harder to pick a side, because the lawyers and witnesses on both sides are going to be douchebags and liars. It won't be a case of "one side is telling the truth". What most likely happened is Zimmerman instigated something with provocative language (which he shouldn't have done), Trayvon overreacted and attacked violently (which he shouldn't have done), and Zimmerman got the upper hand in the fight and shot him out of a combination of anger and fear (which he shouldn't have done). Both sides are trying to paint this as black and white, and if the truth comes out both sides are going to look really bad.

[QUOTE=Vasili;35325142]I'm not lying about anything, just stating what has been reported and sourced. [editline]28th March 2012[/editline] I think you need to cool down and come back with a clear head because you're too invested on your idea of what happened.[/QUOTE] Then source it. Just saying "it's true, I read it somewhere" even though this has never been said anywhere else besides your post, I'm not exactly convinced. [editline]28th March 2012[/editline] And what the fuck are you talking about "cool down and come back with a clear head". Yeah, because I REALLY gave the aura of being fuming with anger. If you think that, you really need to work on how you evaluated how people work. As for being too invested in what happened? Seeing as the police are a step away from covering up this whole thing, Zimmerman giving the idea of being proud of what he did, the fact the evidence to his claim keeps changing in such rapid ways and considering YOU have a habit of making shit up and not sourcing it, yeah, I'm kinda leaning towards Martin in this case. [editline]28th March 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=AceOfDivine;35328912]Fucking this. If someone attacks me, be it fists, a knife or anything else. If I have a gun I will shoot that fuck without thinking a second time. If you attack someone you should be ready to possibly die any second. Same for the victim, if you don't give it all you got, be ready to possibly die or get injured terribly.[/QUOTE] So if you get punched, you'll kill the person? That's kinda, um, psychopathic. [editline]28th March 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Noble;35328854]If someone is choking the shit out of me and slamming my head into the concrete I'm going to defend myself by whatever means I have available.[/QUOTE] Where does it say he was being chocked?