Originally posted by inimalist
so, in your mind, anything we can't say without question didn't happen [b]must be considered a possible option.[/B]
That's kind of what "presumption of innocence" means, it has to be proven that Zimmerman was in the wrong in order to convict him. He still should have been immediately taken in for questioning since he was involved in a shooting. The fact that Florida laws apparently do away with that is disgusting.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That's kind of what "presumption of innocence" means, it has to be proven that Zimmerman was in the wrong in order to convict him. He still should have been immediately taken in for questioning since he was involved in a shooting. The fact that Florida laws apparently do away with that is disgusting.
sure, to a point though
in this case, the assumption that Treyvon, whether Zimmerman had followed him or not, would have attacked Zimmerman seems about as warranted as assuming Treyvon had actually become a zombie and Zimmerman was protecting the world from the eventual outbreak.
besides, even Zimmerman's own description of Treyvon's behaviour suggests Martin was scared and fled rather than aggressive or trying to assault him.
EDIT: he was taken in and questioned for 5 hours, at least one member of the police force wanted to book him there for manslaughter, but the prosecutor said there was no case and because of how much evidence is required to show intent in these self-defense cases, the cops said they couldn't prove it and let him go. This is different from self-defense criminal defenses, where the defendant has to prove, in court after admitting they committed the crime, that they needed to act in self defense.
unless you are trying to say: "Because Zimmerman was a poor fighter, he is allowed to murder Martin", this is irrelevant.
you made a long post about how Zimmerman wasn't larger than Treyvon, which turned out to be incorrect, as I showed. Unless you have better data (my numbers come from the police), I am correct and my characterization of Zimmerman as "way larger" is appropriate (a 45 pound advantage is considerable)
my post wasnt saying Zimmerman wasnt the heavier of the two which is what you seem to believe. i was simply stating that the whole "much larger" wasnt really much of an advantage considering the hight that Martin had and the supposed one sided fight that took place here. his weight was clearly a non factor in the scuffle while Trayvons hight may have played to his advantage ie busting Zims nose before Zim could do much of anything
so, in your mind, anything we can't say without question didn't happen must be considered a possible option.very well, I will introduce the "George Zimmerman was possessed by Satan" defense. We don't know what happened, so we don't know he wasn't possessed by Satan, so have and open mind!!!!
NOW i TYPE A FULL SENTENCE IN CAPS BECAUSE I AM THE CORRECT!!!!!!
lol you are funny. maybe Tray had a magic dagger and was about to stab Zim but after being shot it just disappeared and instead of mentioning it and looking crazy he just ommited completely. works for me
and i used CAPS cuz you were clearly not getting my point which you still dont seem to be and i figured bold type might help you to see what i said beeter instead of ignoring it like you have been. apparently you are helpless
thats not actually what hypocrite meansI would have to be defending violence in some way... though I'm glad you are so willing to demonstrate you aren't really even reading my points
you are trying to say that Zimmerman could in no way be a victim and when presented with a way he could be you still said he couldnt be. hypocrite was clearly the wrong word i should have used stupid
(oh well how am i stupid when you used hypocrite wrong) i actually used it against what you believe a victim is and if it went down that way how you still dont think he would be. hypocrite. but stupid works too
well, sure, but now we are talking about what a decent standard is for shooting someone. You have said "being punched twice" justifies murdering someone, we clearly disagree on this.how about this, if it is so obvious to you that Zimmerman was defending himself, explain how Zimmerman was in mortal danger? I know, I know, stand your ground and all that, but try to justify it in a way that doesn't rely on a law that a judge who presided over a stand your ground case said turned Florida into the wild west
i already clarified what i meant so if you still dont understand what i said there is no hope for you
if someone is slamming your head into the pavment then your life is in danger as it can kill you. lets try that again shall we? slamming someones head can kill them. kill as in mortal danger.
and i dont believe "stand your ground" applies here and as ive said before i have not defended that law here once or have i used it to defend Zim. please figure out what ive said before you try to come at me friend
oh, no, don't get me confused at allI'm not interested in telling America how it should be run. I'm happy to see it run itself into the ground. I'm acting as more of an authority about how any nation should be run if they don't want people shot in their streets.
You seem to have a pro-street shooting platform, so it is obvious why we wouldn't agree here
what makes you an authority on anything again?
and im pro "shooting someone who is trying to kill you" but i see how you would get confused
g2g for tonight but ill be here tomorrow to respond to whatever hogwash you dream up in response to me
Originally posted by juggerman
my post wasnt saying Zimmerman wasnt the heavier of the two which is what you seem to believe. i was simply stating that the whole "much larger" wasnt really much of an advantage considering the hight that Martin had and the supposed one sided fight that took place here. his weight was clearly a non factor in the scuffle while Trayvons hight may have played to his advantage ie busting Zims nose before Zim could do much of anything
? ok, fighting analysis aside...
go back and look at the post you quoted the original statement from. I was creating a scenario alike the one Trayvon faced for DDM and I to imagine our own actions in. In describing that scene, I said something like "you are 17 and the guy following you is a much larger adult", which, someone who weighs 45 lbs more than you would be.
You tried to say, first, that he wasn't larger, second, that being larger didn't help him, and now, Treyvon being taller is a greater advantage than an extra 45 lbs [sic: wut?]. Your first point was incorrect and the following were irrelevant to either the accuracy of your first point or the relevance of me bringing up the weight discrepancy.
You want my opinion on it, fine, DDM got it right, "tough guy" got his ass kicked by a kid.
Originally posted by juggerman
lol you are funny. maybe Tray had a magic dagger and was about to stab Zim but after being shot it just disappeared and instead of mentioning it and looking crazy he just ommited completely. works for me
Zim?
Originally posted by juggerman
and i used CAPS cuz you were clearly not getting my point which you still dont seem to be and i figured bold type might help you to see what i said beeter instead of ignoring it like you have been. apparently you are helpless
no, I actually get your point. You think that because Zimmerman may have been hit first he is justified in killing Martin, and you do have legal support for your claim.
Originally posted by juggerman
you are trying to say that Zimmerman could in no way be a victim and when presented with a way he could be you still said he couldnt be. hypocrite was clearly the wrong word i should have used stupid(oh well how am i stupid when you used hypocrite wrong) i actually used it against what you believe a victim is and if it went down that way how you still dont think he would be. hypocrite. but stupid works too
what if my use of the term "victim" refers to the person that died?
Originally posted by juggerman
i already clarified what i meant so if you still dont understand what i said there is no hope for youif someone is slamming your head into the pavment then your life is in danger as it can kill you. lets try that again shall we? slamming someones head can kill them. kill as in mortal danger.
The prosecution doesn't believe his head was slammed into the ground
he had lacerations that needed nor were given stitches by the ambulance and medic that checked him out at the scene. His nose was broken and bleeding, but not enough to get onto his clothing, and he had slight scrapes, bruises, and some indeterminate back injury called "minor" (according to his family doctor).
he didn't have a concussion, no massive bleeding. Treyvon was unarmed.
I really just thinks this speaks volumes to our differences in opinion as to what justifies lethal force. By Zimmerman's own account, he never tried to get away or stop Martin, just shot him.
Originally posted by juggerman
and i dont believe "stand your ground" applies here and as ive said before i have not defended that law here once or have i used it to defend Zim. please figure out what ive said before you try to come at me friend
what part of it don't you agree with?
interesting side note, one of the major things about "stand your ground" is that it removes what are known as "retreat" clauses from self-defense arguments. To make a "self-defense" criminal defense, you have to prove you attempted to get away or stop the attacker and that lethal force was your last option. Zimmerman's own account of events contain no such "retreat" behaviours, and therefore cannot constitute a legal defense.
he sort of has to use stand your ground... (also, the police themselves said it was stand your ground that caused them to not arrest him in the first place)
Originally posted by juggerman
what makes you an authority on anything again?
I'm like Layla Miller:
Originally posted by juggerman
and im pro "shooting someone who is trying to kill you" but i see how you would get confused
how do you determine the motive of a dead person?
good points all around actually.
1. i dont feel like Zim ( yes i said Zim because Zimmerman is a name thats too long for me to type over and over again. im lazy. im about to just refer to them as a & b) being heavier should be taken into account as much as it is.
was he heavier? yes. is that the end all be all in a confrontation? no. was Zim even trying to have a confrontation? yet to be seen. did being heavier help in in the actual altercation? signs point to no. why keep bringing it up.
in my 1st post i was under the impression (wrong impression ill admit) that Martin was a bit bigger than 5'11". i dont know why exactly but i thought he was which is why i brought up the reach. after you told me different and i confirmed it i agree the reach isnt too much of an advantage here but i still think Zimmers weight mean exactly dick here
2. not that he was hit first. that he was getting his head slammed and had reasonable fear for his life. if of course thats what actually happened
3. Zim could still be a victim. lemme paint you a picture. you wake up in the middle of the night to find someone has broken into your house and when they see you they attack you and you believe they will kill you. in the struggle you grab a knife/sharp object and stab them and they die from it. now they died so does that mean you werent a victim?
if Zim was attacked 1st with no provacation and feared for his life then he was a victim. plain and simple. could he have been smarter about the situation? hell yeah be that doesnt take away that he could be a victim here
4. ok im not saying his life was actually in danger but if he had a reasonable reason to fear for his life then it was justified.
lemme give you another example. you hear someone break in downstairs so you get your gun (im guessing you dont own a gun but lets say you do) and your mindset is just to scare them off. you have no intention to actually shoot anyone. now you see the guy and he has a gun of his own. he sees you and raises his gun to shot you. you beat him to it. later you find out his gun was a toy. was your life actually in danger? no. did you have reason to believe it was? hell yes.
was Zim supposed to say "hey can you stop for a sec? i just need to know what your intent is here. if you just want to rough me up ok but if your trying to kill me, which im feeling like you might be, then i can fire this weapon i have?
5. i dont think "stand your ground" works here because him following Tray wasnt him standing up for anything he was just being a nosey a$$. then self defense started when he was attacked and according to him Tray was on top of him. there is no way he could have retreated so the option wasnt there which just makes it self defense. if anything "stand your ground" would apply to Martin more so since he was clearly scared and had to option to retreat but stood and fought instead
6. lol
7. you can to a point depending on their actions but like i said earlier it really depends on your reasonable fear. you can reasonably assume that someone is trying to kill you if they are taking steps that could in fact kill you. in fact they could just be trying to scare you but you cant just wait to see what happens. would you rather someone wait to see what actually happens and in fact they are being killed?
you have a human right to defend your life if it in danger
p.s. i couldnt repost your posts cuz my computer is being an ass so hopefully you know what im responding to. sorry
Originally posted by juggerman
was Zim even trying to have a confrontation? yet to be seen.
We know for a fact that he was trying to have a confrontation. But I think you're assuming that the only type of confrontation is a physical one. Zimmers (my own lazy abbr.) was definitely going to have a verbal confrontation. He had a gun with him so he did anticipate at least the possibility for a lethal confrontation (against his (Zimmer's) person).
So, by all accounts, Zimmers anticipated and created a confrontation. BUT...was Zimmers legally justified in going through with the confrontation? Verbally, yes. Lethally? Probably...but he may get a manslaughter charge if they cannot prove he was getting his ass kicked enough for a lethal reaction.
Originally posted by dadudemon
We know for a fact that he was trying to have a confrontation. But I think you're assuming that the only type of confrontation is a physical one. Zimmers (my own lazy abbr.) was definitely going to have a verbal confrontation. He had a gun with him so he did anticipate at least the possibility for a lethal confrontation (against his (Zimmer's) person).So, by all accounts, Zimmers anticipated and created a confrontation. BUT...was Zimmers legally justified in going through with the confrontation? Verbally, yes. Lethally? Probably...but he may get a manslaughter charge if they cannot prove he was getting his ass kicked enough for a lethal reaction.
So, just because you have a gun on you mean you expect to have a confrontation? That is totally lame. I know people who have a license to carry, and they don't go around looking for a confrontation. Just because you have a gun, does not mean you are a criminal.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, just because you have a gun on you mean you expect to have a confrontation? That is totally lame. I know people who have a license to carry, and they don't go around looking for a confrontation. Just because you have a gun, does not mean you are a criminal.
Do they intentionally follow people and try to act as some de facto police-force?
Originally posted by Robtard
Do they intentionally follow people and try to act as some de facto police-force?
No. Except for people who are part of a neighborhood watch program. Of course we all know that Zim was not a member of a neighborhood watch and was just looking for someone (back kid) to kill. 😛
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No. Except for people who are part of a neighborhood watch program. Of course we all know that Zim was not a member of a neighborhood watch and was just looking for someone (back kid) to kill. 😛
Neighborhood Crime Watches are just that, they're not law enforces. They see something suspicious, they call 911. It's not like Zimmerman caught Martin in the middle of raping someone and jumped in to the rescue.
If you listen to the 911 call, Zimmerman clearly had an agenda and wanted to take the law into his own hands: "These assholes. They always get away.", "He’s running." Zimmerman follows despite the 911 operator telling him he didn't have to. All he had to do was take the professionals advice and allow the real police to do their job.
Originally posted by Robtard
Neighborhood Crime Watches are just that, they're not law enforces. They see something suspicious, they call 911. It's not like Zimmerman caught Martin in the middle of raping someone and jumped in to the rescue.If you listen to the 911 call, Zimmerman clearly had an agenda and wanted to take the law into his own hands: "These assholes. They always get away.", "He’s running." *Zimmerman follows despite the 911 operator telling him he didn't have to. All he had to do was take the real law-enforcers advice and allow the real police to do their job.
We don't know enough to make a judgment. You can believe whatever you want too, but remember people can believe wrong. Angels and unicorns are widely believed in.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
We don't know enough to make a judgment. You can believe whatever you want too, but remember people can believe wrong. Angels and unicorns are widely believed in.
What we don't know is who attacked first. What we do know is what was said on the 911 call. Zimmerman clearly followed Martin (despite being told he didn't need to) and he clearly had a grudge towards Martin "these assholes".
Originally posted by Robtard
What we don't know is who attacked first. What we do know is what was said on the 911 call. Zimmerman clearly followed Martin (despite being told he didn't need to) and he clearly had a grudge towards Martin "these assholes".
You don't KNOW any of that. Was you there? Did you see it with your own eyes? Did you hear all the evidence in court?
Think about this: We are assumed innocent. We have to be proven guilty.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You don't KNOW any of that. Was you there? Did you see it with your own eyes? Did you hear all the evidence in court?Think about this: We are assumed innocent. We have to be proven guilty.
Um, I can read and hear and I both read the 911 transcript and heard the call. Last time I checked I didn't say "Zimmerman guilty", but the evidence so far isn't in his favor considering the 911 call and his actions.
Zimmerman clearly said: "These assholes always get away", which to anyone who isn't purposely trying to be obtuse denotes clear bias towards Martin as being one of "these assholes" that Zimmerman classifies as such. Do you seriously entertain the notion Zimmerman was saying "these assholes" in a fun or joking manner?
We know that Martin ran and Zimmerman followed (against the advice of the 911 operator), because Zimmerman said "he's running" and then later there was obviously a confrontation.