Man follows black teen who seems "suspicious" and kills him.

1) if he got onto the grass to prevent serious injury, you are making my point, re: he wasn't in mortal danger

2) given the only physical evidence we have at this point are the wounds, that would seem to be the best evidence we have to assess how much danger zimmerman was in

1) just because he got to the grass doesnt mean he was no longer in danger. if someone is shooting and you take cover does that now mean you are in no danger? does covering your face when being puched repeatedly stop the danger of brain damage? reduces it? yes but stops it? no

2) and a toy gun poses no real threat at all but if you are unaware of it being fake then you still feel as tho you are in danger

could someone be in a life threatening situation and sustain no wounds? yes. could that be the case when the life threatening situation is allegedly having one's head smashed into concrete? no.

dur

he had injuries as stated by you. he could have shot Martin before the injuries were extreme. was he supposed to wait until he had brain damage to fire? your points are stupid at best

[quote]I'm not sure what you mean, I've answered every question you asked, afaik. clarify what it is you want me to comment on[quote]

all my little situations involving killing and/or self defense.

[quote]right, what did or did not happen that night is of no relevance in determining if zimmerman is guilty.

your intellect stuns me

my questions at this point arent to determine whether Zim is guilty or not. its amazing you cant keep up.

im simply asking in these situations i make up (without trying to say what happened or didnt happen that night or that it has nothing to do with it) what do you honestly think. trying to make points about self defense outside of this situation

yes, but situations you make up are useless because they in no way reflect what happened.

Yes it is.

nah son

yes, but situations you make up are useless because they in no way reflect what happened.

i know but its the way i make points. if you cant follow ill try to alter my way of doing so

Originally posted by juggerman
i know but its the way i make points. if you cant follow ill try to alter my way of doing so

ok, so you are saying you don't want to talk about the thread topic?

you can make another about self defense and ask as many hypotheticals as you want, because none of your points are relevant to the OP

Originally posted by juggerman
just want honest opinions about it not what did or did not happen that night

But what actually objectively happened that night is the most honest opinion there can be :/

no not at all. like i said i was just making a point. but youre right i do tend to go off topic and for that i apologise.

lets take this one point at a time shall we? lets talk about the wounds on the back of his head. you say that they werent serious but can you say for sure that they wouldnt have became more serious had he not shot Martin?

was he supposed to just wait until his wounds were so serious that he could no longer defend himself?

Originally posted by juggerman
no not at all. like i said i was just making a point. but youre right i do tend to go off topic and for that i apologise.

lets take this one point at a time shall we? lets talk about the wounds on the back of his head. you say that they werent serious but can you say for sure that they wouldnt have became more serious had he not shot Martin?

was he supposed to just wait until his wounds were so serious that he could no longer defend himself?

apply that standard to any physical confrontation

"hypothetical harm" cannot be an excuse, for the same reason as the presumption of innocence.

EDIT: actually, using that logic, I could shoot you dead in the street and claim we can't prove you weren't about to kill me

Originally posted by inimalist
he didn't throw the first punch! obviously the fleeing, unarmed and law abiding teen was the aggressor.

As Symmetric Chaos has pointed out, both may be legally justified with "stand your ground". Also, we do not really know if he fled: I talked about that, before.

One thing we do know is that Zimmerman got his ass handed to him at some point after the confrontation...and he shot the boy in reaction.

stand your ground is a legal defense for murder, Treyvon would not be protected by it, because he did not murder anyone.

We know Zimmerman took some minor wounds to the head, yes.

"hypothetical harm" cannot be an excuse, for the same reason as the presumption of innocence.

so is it your opinion that one cannot kill in self defense unless severe bodily harm is done?

EDIT: actually, using that logic, I could shoot you dead in the street and claim we can't prove you weren't about to kill me

not really there would have to be some reasonable threat to your life like a weapon in my hand or some marks on your body

Originally posted by inimalist
stand your ground is a legal defense for murder, Treyvon would not be protected by it, because he did not murder anyone.

The argument is: "They both stood their ground because both of them can defend that they were preventing deadly force from the other."

Originally posted by inimalist
We know Zimmerman took some minor wounds to the head, yes.

Where did you get this medical report that says they were "minor wounds to the head"?

Originally posted by dadudemon
One thing we do know is that Zimmerman got his ass handed to him at some point after the confrontation...and he shot the boy in reaction.

We don't know whether he got his ass handed to him, at most we know that Trayvon got one shot in that injured Zimmermann at least a little bit. The severity is definitely up to debate.

Where did you get this medical report that says they were "minor wounds to the head"?

this is what inimalist has been saying

i think the prosecutor and/or defense in the case should contact members of this forum
since they obviously know more about the events that took place than everyone, perhaps including zimmerman.

id testify

Originally posted by Bardock42
We don't know whether he got his ass handed to him, at most we know that Trayvon got one shot in that injured Zimmermann at least a little bit. The severity is definitely up to debate.

Third party - police - say that Zimmerman got his ass handed to him.

Zimmerman says he got his ass handed to him.

The scenario you propose does not fit with what we know. In order for the scenario you propose to be true, Trayvon would have had to have hit Zimmerman right in the nose and for Zimmerman to have fallen back and hit his head a couple of times. That does not match the long-drawn out scuffle that people were reporting, as it happened, to 911.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
i think the prosecutor and/or defense in the case should contact members of this forum
since they obviously know more about the events that took place than everyone, perhaps including zimmerman.

I agree. They could contact inimalist for the medical report, juggerman for the actual events the went down, and you for the police report.

co-signed

Originally posted by dadudemon

I agree. They could contact inimalist for the medical report, juggerman for the actual events the went down, and you for the police report.

waste of time and resources. they should just call you and ask "what happened?"

Originally posted by focus4chumps
waste of time and resources. they should just call you and ask "what happened?"

Doesn't make sense since I have stated my ignorance of "what went down" from the beginning.

You tried your best to troll, though, right? 🙁

Originally posted by dadudemon
Doesn't make sense since I have proposed ignorance from the beginning.

You tried your best to troll, though, right? 🙁

perhaps, if you define "proposing ignorance" as presenting unsubstantiated assumptions as fact. perhaps.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You tried your best to troll, though, right? 🙁

why is it that you cannot handle constructive criticism without playing the victim in an overly dramatic fashion and crying "troll"?