- #106
KC_Smallz
- 7
- 0
jim hardy said:Am I the only one who thinks Martin was a big city hoodlum who jumped the wrong country boy?(duck and cover)
old jim
Nope.
jim hardy said:Am I the only one who thinks Martin was a big city hoodlum who jumped the wrong country boy?(duck and cover)
old jim
Then you need to read what I posted above.KC_Smallz said:Nope.
reenmachine said:Didn't follow this case at all , all I know is the murderer is a middle-aged white guy and the victim a black guy and that everybody thinks the killer should be convicted (I'm unaware if there's enough information available for the public to have an informed opinion , is there?).It seems that the interest of this case is very racial in nature.
I say who cares about their race , just give him a fair trial and let the justice system operate like they always do , for better or for worst.
The new trend in social medias with people regrouping and putting other people on their own amateurish trial is starting to worry me to be honest.
Evo said:Then you need to read what I posted above.
I posted a link previously with a number of the calls Zimmerman made to the police department about "blacks" in the neighborhood. But this isn't about if he was a racist, it's about him being a self appointed vigilante that didn't follow the rules. Do you deny that if he had followed the rules that nothing would have happened and that kid would still be alive? That's what this is about. He broke the rules and needlessly caused the end of the life of that kid. I hope that Trayvon's family sues Zimmerman for wrongful death, they will surely win. I am so disheartened by the people here that seem to miss the tragedy of what happened because of this person that decided to take the law into his own hands, that they even seem happy about it. Disgusting.russ_watters said:FYI, for all: There is an awful lot of misinformation flying around here that was fomented by a malicious media. But the Wiki on the case lays the facts and malfeasance out pretty well. A number of NBC employees were fired for editing the 911 call to cut out where the 911 operator asked for a description of Martin and splice together different parts where Zimmerman described him as suspicious and black. And the lawsuit is underway: I expect Zimmerman will win.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin#Misleading_audio_editing_by_NBC
The next section of the wiki is about how another network aired a video of Zimmerman and commented on how it didn't look like he had any injuries when you could clearly see that he had two head wounds.
Given all of the media malfeasance, it should not be surprising that even well educated people on PF have such factually wrong understandings of the facts of this case.
Evo said:I posted a link previously with a number of the calls Zimmerman made to the police department about "blacks" in the neighborhood. But this isn't about if he was a racist, it's about him being a self appointed vigilante that didn't follow the rules.
The way you phrased that, I can only half agree: IMO the case should not have gone to trial at all. The problem faced by the prosecution in choosing the charges is that the charges have to fit the theory about what happened. If Zimmerman is a racist who hunted down a black man to kill, that really is 2nd degree murder. But the evidence just doesn't support that and the prosecution's case fell apart due to the clear evidence that Zimmerman was on the bottom, so they threw-in involuntary manslaughter at the end as an additional possibility. But involuntary means without malice aforethought and if there was no malice, then why was the prosecution trying to hard to prove malice? I think they threw up a hail mary at the end that probably hurt more than helped.D H said:This case should never have gone to trial as second degree murder. Classical prosecutorial excess.
Zimmerman wasn't on watch that night. It was raining, of course the kid had his hood up. Do you know anything about this case?KC_Smallz said:I myself am not racist, but do know that the likely hood of a young black male wearing his hood up in a wealthy neighborhood being up to no good is very high. Not to say that it's because he's black, but you know what I mean. Zimmerman was on neighborhood watch, and there was a shady character in his neighborhood. While he was doing nothing wrong, can you blame him for his suspicion?
These kinds of ill-fated deaths are not uncommon by any means of course because people of various ages are killed all the time; the media certainly glorified this case like crazy to the point of inciting needless riots across the country. But what does it matter in the end; it won't bring the kid back to life. I can't imagine being that kid's parents.lurflurf said:Maybe Zimmerman should not have been convicted, but either way he should be ashamed.
I do indeed read it the same way you do. That surprises me. I was under the impression that self defense was typically an affirmative defense, but like you said it logically can't be both at the same time. Ie, a 25% chance it was self defense means only a 75% chance it wasn't, which isn't beyond a reasonable doubt.lugita15 said:Attached is the portion of the jury instructions dealing with self-defense, so you have some context.
EDIT: Wow, it looks like I missed the very next sentence: "However, if from the evidence you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that George Zimmerman was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find him guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved." So it's just the usual burden of proof for the prosecution.
You are correct and I was just using it for illustrative purposes. Still, I'd think 90% would probably be a good standard. At 99% you start getting into some wild theories to fill the last 1%.I don't think there is any precise cutoff for reasonable. In most cases one would not be able to assign a numerical chance. A 25% chance is certainly reasonable. A 1% chance might even be reasonable, but would result in few convictions.
Evo said:Zimmerman wasn't on watch that night. It was raining, of course the kid had his hood up. Do you know anything about this case?
I agree. The sad thing is that if Zimmerman had followed his neighborhood watch rules, he would have reported it and then gone home. The rules clearly state not to get involved, not to pursue. The Martins have an iron clad wrongful death suit, IMO, based on Zimmerman's actions. Perhaps that was all this should have been, taking the Florida law into account.KC_Smallz said:If you're on neighborhood watch (at least where I'm from) you're always "on watch." I did know it was raining, which makes sense. All I'm saying is see both sides. Trayvon didn't deserve to die. But I also don't think Zimmerman deserves abuse for make a spurt of the moment eat or be eaten decision. Was it the wrong one, yes. Did he try to kill him? That really depends on whose story you believe.
Evo said:I agree. The sad thing is that if Zimmerman had followed his neighborhood watch rules, he would have reported it and then gone home. The rules clearly state not to get involved, not to pursue.
Evo, you just can't take a March article from Mother Jones (!) at face value. The media is *lying to you* and you are buying it. At trial, that just isn't how it went:Evo said:The 911 calls from witnesses say that two men were arguing, then started to wrestle and that one started to scream for help and was shot. Listen to these calls. There is not one person saying that one was beating the other.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/03/what-happened-trayvon-martin-explained
http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zim...tion-witnesses/story?id=19517236#.UeTYFfnVD9UTwo witnesses called by the prosecution today described George Zimmerman as being on the losing end of a fight with Trayvon Martin in the moments before Zimmerman shot the Florida teenager.
Yes, I did. She said the injuries were not life threatening. You do understand that the injuries don't have to be life threatening in order for Zimmerman to feel his life is threatened, right?Did you read the experts testimony on his lack of injuries that I posted?
Could be, yes. Is "could be" good enough to get a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt?Zimmerman's injuries could be that he was punched in the nose and fell backwards and hit his head.
I've bumped my head a number of times without drawing blood and still felt like i got my bell rung. I can't see considering a bump on the head that is hard enough to draw blood to not be considered "a beating".Zimmerman's injuries were very minimal, not at all representative of a beating.
I'm really not clear on what you are claiming there, Evo. Qualitative labeling is not how you make a case: The fact of the matter is that Zimmerman had multiple wounds sustained at the hands of Martin, who was in a position of dominance. That's completely consistent with the factual content of Zimmerman's testimony.http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/...man-medical-examiner-20130702,0,1358679.story
Lets not assume that Zimmerman is telling the truth when live calls to 911 don't corroborate his story.
russ_watters said:Evo, you just can't take a March article from Mother Jones (!) at face value. The media is *lying to you* and you are buying it. At trial, that just isn't how it went:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zim...tion-witnesses/story?id=19517236#.UeTYFfnVD9U
Yes, I did. She said the injuries were not life threatening. You do understand that the injuries don't have to be life threatening in order for Zimmerman to feel his life is threatened, right?
Could be, yes. Is "could be" good enough to get a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt? I've bumped my head a number of times without drawing blood and still felt like i got my bell rung. I can't see considering a bump on the head that is hard enough to draw blood to not be considered "a beating".
I'm really not clear on what you are claiming there, Evo. Qualitative labeling is not how you make a case: The fact of the matter is that Zimmerman had multiple wounds sustained at the hands of Martin, who was in a position of dominance. That's completely consistent with the factual content of Zimmerman's testimony.
If Zimmerman had shown better judgement, Martin would still be alive. And if Martin had shown better judgement, he would still be alive. But neither of those things automatically mean a crime was committed.Evo said:Do you deny that if he had followed the rules that nothing would have happened and that kid would still be alive? That's what this is about...
Uhm, Russ, did you listen to the 911 calls? That's what I posted it for. I didn't post it for the article. They don't corroborate later "testimony". It has nothing to do with media reports, it's the live calls from eye witnesses as it happened.russ_watters said:Evo, you just can't take a March article from Mother Jones (!) at face value. The media is *lying to you* and you are buying it. At trial, that just isn't how it went:
Evo said:The 911 calls from witnesses say that two men were arguing, then started to wrestle and that one started to scream for help and was shot. Listen to these calls. There is not one person saying that one was beating the other.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/03/what-happened-trayvon-martin-explained
If you look at the pictures of Zimmerman after he was taken in that night, he had a tiny scratch on the bridge of his nose and two very tiny superficial scratches on the back of his head. Did you read the experts testimony on his lack of injuries that I posted?
Zimmerman's injuries could be that he was punched in the nose and fell backwards and hit his head. Zimmerman's injuries were very minimal, not at all representative of a beating.
she treated Zimmerman at the scene, who had a swollen, bleeding nose and two cuts on the back of his head. When [she was] asked if Zimmerman should have been concerned with his medical well-being because of his injuries, Livingston said, "Possibly."
Zimmerman had at least six injuries from the struggle: two head lacerations, two wounds to his temples and wounds on his nose and forehead. Di Maio said those injuries were consistent with Zimmerman having his head banged into a sidewalk, and that such injuries can be dangerous. Di Maio stated it's possible to receive trauma without visible wounds, testifying that, "You can get severe trauma to the head without external injuries, actually."' Di Maio said Zimmerman's nose may have been fractured, which was consistent with Zimmerman being punched in the nose.
Jonathan (John) Good, a neighbor at the retreat, testified that he heard a faint noise outside and he could not tell the direction. As the noises grew louder, he looked outside through his blinds. He opened his door and looked out and saw "some sort of tussle" where the participants were on the ground. He called out "what's going on" and "stop it" as he started to step outside. Good said the participant wearing "dark or black" was on top, and the person wearing "red or white" was on the bottom, and the person on the bottom had lighter skin. He described the person on top had their legs straddling the person on the bottom, who was face up.
He could not hear any pounding or hitting, but did see "downward arm motion, multiple times" that "looked like punches" from the person on top. He heard a "help" from the person on the bottom, and Good said "cut it out", and that he was going to call 9-1-1. He went back inside to call 9-1-1, but he heard a gunshot before the call was completed. Good's call to 911 was played for the jury.
False.lurflurf said:^Zimmerman claims he was on the ground being beaten. The evidence is not consistent with that.
Er, well, "insignificant" is qualitative. The fact is, he had injuries.Zimmerman's injuries were insignificant...
False. That's another lie often repeated in the media. Here's the truth:Martin's has no offensive injuries...
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...uckles-report-article-1.1079190#ixzz2ZBTz9clEThe medical examiner found two injuries on Martin’s body: the fatal gunshot wound on his chest and broken skin on his knuckles, according to WFTV.
The lack of blood spatter is not telling evidence considering it was raining when the incident happened....blood splatter was not consistent Zimmerman's version...
But not impossible....with it is difficult to draw a gun and shoot someone who is onto of you beating you.
Martin was walking home when some nutbag self appointed vigilante decided not to wait for the real police. He didn't even have any reason to call the police because as it has been pointed out, only "suspicious" behavior is to be reported, such as peering into windows. He was wrong to even report Martin's presence. I can't believe that you are defending that nuts actions. Are you wanting us to take you seriously? On what grounds do you think Zimmerman's actions were warranted? Based on the neighborhood watch rules. I want to know.russ_watters said:If Zimmerman had shown better judgement, Martin would still be alive. And if Martin had shown better judgement, he would still be alive. But neither of those things automatically mean a crime was committed.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776.html776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—
(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force,
Ok... in that case then you are willfully, selectively ignoring eyewitness testimony during the trial. You're right: I can't blame that on Mother Jones.Evo said:Uhm, Russ, did you listen to the 911 calls? That's what I posted it for. I didn't post it for the article. They don't corroborate later "testimony". It has nothing to do with media reports, it's the live calls from eye witnesses as it happened.
The things said later don't match the live calls.
Listen to the live calls.
Did you not read what I wrote? I said Zimmerman showed poor judgement. He should not have gotten out of his car and followed Martin. Are you not able to compartmentalize the different actions Zimmerman took and judge them separately? Don't lump me into that black and white world.Evo said:I can't believe that you are defending that nuts actions. Are you wanting us to take you seriously? On what grounds do you think Zimmerman's actions were warranted? Based on the rules. I want to know.
So you agree that this whole incident is the result of willfull defiance of the neighborhood watch rules, and that Zimmerman acted wrongfully.russ_watters said:Did you not read what I wrote? I said Zimmerman showed poor judgement. He should not have gotten out of his car and followed Martin. Are you not able to compartmentalize the different actions Zimmerman took and judge them separately? Don't lump me into that black and white world.
Yep minimal. If you had to sustain Zimmermans's injuries or Martin's which would you prefer? I wish Zimmerman had more injuries, Martin might still be alive.daveyrocket said:How does that look minimal to you?
Evo said:So you agree that this whole incident is the result of willfull defiance of the neighborhood watch rules, and that Zimmerman acted wrongfully.
This has nothing to do with the court case. Just that Zimmerman is at fault for causing the entire incident.
lurflurf said:Yep minimal. If you had to sustain Zimmermans's injuries or Martin's which would you prefer? I wish Zimmerman had more injuries, Martin might still be alive.
Curious3141 said:http://www.opposingviews.com/i/soci...rs-firing-warning-shot-while-george-zimmerman
Sure, we can argue legalistic semantics about how the two cases cannot be compared, but ask yourself this: when you look at the two verdicts, do you really *feel* the cause of justice is being served down there in Florida? I sure as heck don't.
Curious3141 said:It's interesting to compare this case to another recent judgement in Florida, where a person who *didn't* kill (or even hurt) anyone with a warning shot got 20 years.
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/soci...rs-firing-warning-shot-while-george-zimmerman
The case was clearly different, but the most glaring thing to me is that the defendant was a black woman. Didn't matter that the man she was trying to warn off was her abusive husband against whom she had a restraining order. She still got 20 years, while Zimmerman walks free after killing a black kid.
Sure, we can argue legalistic semantics about how the two cases cannot be compared, but ask yourself this: when you look at the two verdicts, do you really *feel* the cause of justice is being served down there in Florida? I sure as heck don't.
In May 2012, Corey prosecuted 31-year-old Marissa Alexander and obtained a mandatory minimum sentence of 20 years in prison. Alexander had a restraining order issued against her ex husband at the time and, during the day of the incident, had returned to their old home to collect clothes and some possessions thinking he was not there. Her ex husband was there, with their children, and they began to argue. After the argument became heated, Marissa Alexander returned to her car, picked up her firearm, and returned inside the house where she threatened him with the handgun before firing a warning shot into the wall. She was charged with reckless endangerment of children and threatening with a deadly weapon. Despite being offered a 3 year sentence and later a probational sentence with time served, Alexander chose to attempt a SYG defence at trial. She was found guilty and according to Floridas gun laws (where 10 years can be added for committing a crime while carrying a firearm, with an added 10 years for discharging a firearm during a crime) was sentenced to 20 years.
Curious3141 said:It's interesting to compare this case to another recent judgement in Florida, where a person who *didn't* kill (or even hurt) anyone with a warning shot got 20 years.
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/soci...rs-firing-warning-shot-while-george-zimmerman
The case was clearly different, but the most glaring thing to me is that the defendant was a black woman. Didn't matter that the man she was trying to warn off was her abusive husband against whom she had a restraining order. She still got 20 years, while Zimmerman walks free after killing a black kid.
Sure, we can argue legalistic semantics about how the two cases cannot be compared, but ask yourself this: when you look at the two verdicts, do you really *feel* the cause of justice is being served down there in Florida? I sure as heck don't.
Possibly not. We'll never know what might have transpired had Zimmerman ended up being the one who died, but I suspect Martin would also have been found not guilty on the grounds of self defense.daveyrocket said:If Zimmerman didn't have a gun, he might have suffered brain damage or death, and then Martin would probably be in jail for assault or possibly second degree murder.