Unarmed black 17 year old shot by Neighborhood watch captain in gated community...

[SpatiallyAware]

Come on people, clearly if a thug is on top of you bashing your head against the ground you need to determine if you're being brutally assaulted on sidewalk or dirt before protecting yourself.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

There is evidence that once person was assaulted, and no evidence that the other was.

There is evidence that TM was directly over top of GZ when shot.

You have your theory, and you're entitled. I have mine, and I have some circumstantial evidence that backs it up.

The bottom line is two stubborn idiots ran into each other that night. Both of then made decisions that led to TMs death. Only one can be criminally liable and currently that evidence points at TM.

If there is something being held back that proves GZ stated the physical altercation I look forward to seeing it.

Right now all I see is a man who successfully defended himself from a teenage delinquent. Airdata et al claim TM would've stopped, sooner or later. But I doubt if the situation were reversed they would take that position. I imagine they would defend themselves, or their mom, or their wife or sister if they were being assaulted.

THAT is the legal standard. Not can Jean Claude Can Damme take it. Can your grandmother?

How much would you let TM assault your girlfriend before it was enough?

So much logic, I love it.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Well then, let's get GZ on the stand and let him purger himself or plead the 5th.

If TM went for the gun after it was pulled, how in the world do you possibly conclude who is in the right? The guy who fears he's about to be shot? Or the guy who failed to listen to direction and follow orders and decided to play cops & robbers and get himself into a physical altercation in the first place?

If Zimmerman pulled out his gun and trayvon grabbed it to try to prevent his death, he's a victim. Had Trayvon wrestled the gun away and shot zimmerman, zimmerman would be the victim.

I have a small question: in a struggle for the gun would not TM's bagged hands have GSR residue?

 

[emperus]

Florida's Stand Your Ground Defense More Likely To Succeed If Victim Is Black: Study

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/06/stand-your-ground-defense-study_n_1575686.html

 

[NeoV]

"2 weeks prior a similar circumstance occured where zimmerman stated to police he didnt not want to perosnally confront the suspect. It was the right choice even though they did get away."

I'd be interested to hear why Zimmerman chose to get out of his car for Martin, but didn't two weeks prior to that?

Did he not have his gun? Was he frustrated that the guy 2 weeks prior got away?

Might explain a bit of the 'they always get away' mentality.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/06/stand-your-ground-defense-study_n_1575686.html

Rofl, talk about distorted statistics

 

[Aegeon]

Right now all I see is a man who successfully defended himself from a teenage delinquent. Airdata et al claim TM would've stopped, sooner or later. But I doubt if the situation were reversed they would take that position. I imagine they would defend themselves, or their mom, or their wife or sister if they were being assaulted.

THAT is the legal standard. Not can Jean Claude Can Damme take it. Can your grandmother?

How much would you let TM assault your girlfriend before it was enough?

By your own basic admission, at a minimum we don't have conclusion evidence one way or the other about who initiated hostilities, yet you are very clearly leaping to one conclusion. There is a big difference between there possibly not being enough evidence to prove Zimmerman was not acting in self defense according to the law and him actually being innocent of wrongdoing.

The rest of your argument is a rather intellectually bankrupt appeal to emotion over reason. Its an apples and oranges situation unless your girlfriend is something like a professional bodybuilder or MMA fighter. In the situation you're talking about, clearly you would not expect the girlfriend or grandmother to be able to handle things physically on their own, nor is it as plausible that TM mistakenly initiated things thinking that person was going to attack them regardless and they needed to take the initiative. I would still say at least morally you really should if possible make some sort of effort to pull the person off and subdue them before actually shooting them, especially since you really need to carefully position yourself to avoid accidentally hitting your grandmother or girlfriend regardless. (This could consist of simply putting the gun to the temple of the attacker and giving them orders.)

Certainly based on all the evidence I've seen so far I've yet to see a plausible scenario where at a minimum TM didn't initiate things because he genuinely feared for his personal safety.

 

[TerryMathews]

By your own basic admission, at a minimum we don't have conclusion evidence one way or the other about who initiated hostilities, yet you are very clearly leaping to one conclusion. There is a big difference between there possibly not being enough evidence to prove Zimmerman was not acting in self defense according to the law and him actually being innocent of wrongdoing.

The rest of your argument is a rather intellectually bankrupt appeal to emotion over reason. Its an apples and oranges situation unless your girlfriend is something like a professional bodybuilder or MMA fighter. In the situation you're talking about, clearly you would not expect the girlfriend or grandmother to be able to handle things physically on their own, nor is it as plausible that TM mistakenly initiated things thinking that person was going to attack them regardless and they needed to take the initiative. I would still say at least morally you really should if possible make some sort of effort to pull the person off and subdue them before actually shooting them, especially since you really need to carefully position yourself to avoid accidentally hitting your grandmother or girlfriend regardless. (This could consist of simply putting the gun to the temple of the attacker and giving them orders.)

Certainly based on all the evidence I've seen so far I've yet to see a plausible scenario where at a minimum TM didn't initiate things because he genuinely feared for his personal safety.

So by your admission, GZ is innocent.

That's the point we've been trying to make. Absent contrary proof, GZ is innocent. He doesn't have to prove his innocence, the state has to prove his guilt.

By the way, you completely avoided my point, but its not surprising. Airdata, emperus, sound et al have been saying that GZ wasn't beaten enough, but not one of them has been brave enough to eloquate what "enough" is.

I think most everything you guys have been saying is "intellectually bankrupt" but instead of saying that outright I've just been disproving what I can with logic and facts.

Difference in people, I guess.

 

[micrometers]

Did anyone hear about the shooting of Darius Simmons by John Henry Spooner?

http://www.ksdk.com/news/article/322260/28/John-Spooner-charged-in-killing-Darius-Simmons

This one is definitely about race. This is also why I think that guns should be outlawed.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

This could consist of simply putting the gun to the temple of the attacker and giving them orders.

You are not allowed to do this as it would be considered brandishing and is against the law.

Every person that gets a concealed weapons permit or license is taught that you never brandish your weapon or draw you weapon unless you are in danger/need to use it. You are also taught to shoot center mass as trying to wound someone may result in a bystander being wounded or killed.

 

[WHAMPOM]

So then it's OK to follow and harrass OJ? There is a guy who I think got azway with murder, bu7t they couldn't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt so he walked. Now the same racist punks who thought that it was OK for OJ to walk think Zimmerman should fry.

Fuck them!!

You are so funny! It is the same stripe of racist punks that then thought OJ should walk that think GZ shoud walk.

 

[TerryMathews]

Did anyone hear about the shooting of Darius Simmons by John Henry Spooner?

http://www.ksdk.com/news/article/322260/28/John-Spooner-charged-in-killing-Darius-Simmons

This one is definitely about race. This is also why I think that guns should be outlawed.

You would. For one thing, you have no idea what races these two were. Isn't it racist to assume their race based solely on their names?

 

[TerryMathews]

So much logic, I love it.

It's "intellectually bankrupt", didn't you see?

 

[Londo_Jowo]

I noticed some interesting comments in the Tampa Bay Times article that the HuffintonPost cited in their article.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/article1233133.ece

I would say that GZ had the right to be where he was that night. He wasn't engaged in any unlawful activity. He could reasonably have been in fear of death or great bodily harm during the altercation.

The new law only requires law enforcement and the justice system to ask three questions in self-defense cases: Did the defendant have the right to be there? Was he engaged in a lawful activity? Could he reasonably have been in fear of death or great bodily harm?

Looks like this could be an uphill battle for the prosecution. I do believe this is why O'Mara hired another very experienced lawyer to assist him in the case.

Without convincing evidence to the contrary, "stand your ground'' protection prevails.
If prosecutors press charges, any defendant claiming self-defense is now entitled to a hearing before a judge. At the immunity hearing, a judge must decide based on the "preponderance of the evidence" whether to grant immunity. That's a far lower burden than "beyond a reasonable doubt," the threshold prosecutors must meet at trial.
"It's a very low standard to prove preponderance," said Weaver, the West Palm Beach lawyer. "If 51 percent of the evidence supports your claim, you get off."

 

[Aegeon]

Keep in mind, airdata... the "situation" for which George Zimmerman was the "catalyst" could have easily been the following:

TM walks up to GZ upon realizing he's gotten out of his car and is watching him from the T junction.

TM: "Yo why you followin' me man? wtf?"
GZ: "Um, we've had a lot of break ins in the neighborhood lately and I am the head of the neighborhood watch here. I didn't recognize you. You match the description of the burglars we've had lately."
TM: "Yea well I'm not one of them. That's fucked up. You thinkin' I'm a burglar just 'cuz I'm BLACK? Y'all racist. I'm here visiting my dad. So you can go fuck yoself"
GZ: "Um, sorry... I was just trying to do my job."

aaaaaand SCENE!

That's how it could've played out. Or even a much more civil version where they end up having a laugh about the misunderstanding.

The massive problem is everything we know about the scenario so far contradicts this possibility if you're thinking this is close to what actually happened, and you're completely missing Zimmerman's role in this.

If someone you don't personally know is following you in the neighborhood you now live in without explanation, it would not be that unusual to be concerned about the situation. In the case of the 911 call with Zimmerman, he continued to follow Martin even when Martin was running away. Its actually not that surprising at all that Martin was worried Zimmerman meant him harm by this point, especially if he had been in situation in the past where he was worried about being targeted by criminal activity. Crucially at no point did Zimmerman attempt to talk to Martin based on what we know, which could have been initially as low key as "Hey kid you look lost can I help you?" and seeing what Martin's reaction was. Even a more confrontational approach verbally where it was made clear why Zimmerman was following him would have potentially diffused things by making clear to Martin why Zimmerman was following him. Incidentally, if Zimmerman actually did think Martin might have had a concealed gun, chasing him on foot was an even dumber idea given the likely way Martin would have reacted if truly cornered.

Basically the evidence presented so far suggests that at worse Martin falsely believed he was being physically threatened by Zimmerman and needed to try to get the jump on him in order to properly defend himself, and this is partially Zimmerman's fault given how he handled things. (Yes if Martin didn't verbally confront Zimmerman first that was clearly a mistake, but it doesn't mean Zimmerman didn't mishandle things at all. Of course this is leaving out the definite real possibility given what we know for sure so far that Zimmerman went so far to initiate things physically and lied about it after the far.)

Attempts to argue right now that Zimmerman definitely did nothing wrong and did everyone a favor say way more about the person making them than anything else.

 

[TerryMathews]

Attempts to argue right now that Zimmerman definitely did nothing wrong and did everyone a favor say way more about the person making them than anything else.

As do attempts to say that Martin did no wrong.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Come on people, clearly if a thug is on top of you bashing your head against the ground you need to determine if you're being brutally assaulted on sidewalk or dirt before protecting yourself.

Too bad "John" the one eye witness to the fight reports he saw no blows or banging of the head. OHH! BETTER MAKE that two, GZ did not report that either.

 

[Aegeon]

So by your admission, GZ is innocent.

That's the point we've been trying to make. Absent contrary proof, GZ is innocent. He doesn't have to prove his innocence, the state has to prove his guilt.

You apparently simply can't read. I said AT A MINIMUM which leaves open the clear possibility that after the prosecution presents their case in court with additional evidence its going to be obvious that Zimmerman is guilty as hell of at least manslaughter. Given the lack of a videotape or sufficient witnesses to the actual fight I expect it be be a somewhat tricky case to get a conviction, but we'll see and Zimmerman has certainly not helped his case recently.

By the way, you completely avoided my point, but its not surprising. Airdata, emperus, sound et al have been saying that GZ wasn't beaten enough, but not one of them has been brave enough to eloquate what "enough" is.

The reality is we don't have the full evidence yet on exactly what the medical evidence really shows about the severity of Zimmerman's injuries without testimony from medical experts and additional details we don't have yet. We know that Zimmerman did not require a lengthy hospital stay or the like after the fact, so the injuries we not that severe and at least many of us believe the gun should only be used if its clear you can't physically turn things around otherwise and you're not going to be able to shoot in the near future given the severity of your injuries. (In other words you really should believe its pretty much him or you in this situation with there being no way they are about to stop, especially if you realistically did something which helped cause the confrontation in the first place when it could have been avoided.)

What's troubling is how some are arguing that the law currently does and should effectively allow someone to deliberately start a fight with someone and then could deliberately let the other person gain the initial advantage and inflict a few injuries with the other person getting on top of them and they get to blow them away without having to possibly worry about the legal consequences. At a minimum this should suggest there are problems with the current law to reasonable people.

I think most everything you guys have been saying is "intellectually bankrupt" but instead of saying that outright I've just been disproving what I can with logic and facts.

Difference in people, I guess.

You clearly have been appealing to emotion and bringing up clearly not directly related situation to do so when you are not outrageously misrepresenting what other people have actually said.

 

[Aegeon]

You are not allowed to do this as it would be considered brandishing and is against the law.

Every person that gets a concealed weapons permit or license is taught that you never brandish your weapon or draw you weapon unless you are in danger/need to use it. You are also taught to shoot center mass as trying to wound someone may result in a bystander being wounded or killed.

Why I will admit my understanding of all aspects of gun laws may be imperfect, it seems really strange that in that situation it could be perfectly legal to use your gun but illegal to brandish if this is currently the case.

Certainly my understanding is you could have no problem drawing the gun and giving orders if someone breaks into your house, and in the situation previously described by the post I was responding to, the person in question is in the middle of committing a violent crime.

If the distinction is you need to press the gun to their center of mass before giving the order, (although you need to do so carefully in this situation to make sure the bullet doesn't go through them and hit your girlfriend or grandmother) that would seem a simple change.

At an absolute minimum, I would view screaming "get off her or I'll shoot" as something you should morally do before actually taking the action and something that realistically won't delay anything much since its generally going to take time to position yourself to safely shoot the gun in this situation.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

Too bad "John" the one eye witness to the fight reports he saw no blows or banging of the head. OHH! BETTER MAKE that two, GZ did not report that either.

Ah gotcha, I guess it just didn't happen then. Those gaping wounds and gashes on the back of his head came out of nowhere. Aliens probably, or the KKK.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Why I will admit my understanding of all aspects of gun laws may be imperfect, it seems really strange that in that situation it could be perfectly legal to use your gun but illegal to brandish if this is currently the case.

Certainly my understanding is you could have no problem drawing the gun and giving orders if someone breaks into your house, and in the situation previously described by the post I was responding to, the person in question is in the middle of committing a violent crime.

If the distinction is you need to press the gun to their center of mass before giving the order, (although you need to do so carefully in this situation to make sure the bullet doesn't go through them and hit your girlfriend or grandmother) that would seem a simple change.

At an absolute minimum, I would view screaming "get off her or I'll shoot" as something you should morally do before actually taking the action and something that realistically won't delay anything much since its generally going to take time to position yourself to safely shoot the gun in this situation.

You should not pull the gun and give orders even if someone is in your house. You draw the gun, get a bead (aim) on center mass, and slowly smoothly pull the trigger. Many times the slug doesn't pass through the body on a center mass shot as the bones stop the slug. Even in the case where the shot was at a very close range the slug was still within TM's chest cavity.

 

[TerryMathews]

Why I will admit my understanding of all aspects of gun laws may be imperfect, it seems really strange that in that situation it could be perfectly legal to use your gun but illegal to brandish if this is currently the case.

Certainly my understanding is you could have no problem drawing the gun and giving orders if someone breaks into your house, and in the situation previously described by the post I was responding to, the person in question is in the middle of committing a violent crime.

If the distinction is you need to press the gun to their center of mass before giving the order, (although you need to do so carefully in this situation to make sure the bullet doesn't go through them and hit your girlfriend or grandmother) that would seem a simple change.

At an absolute minimum, I would view screaming "get off her or I'll shoot" as something you should morally do before actually taking the action and something that realistically won't delay anything much since its generally going to take time to position yourself to safely shoot the gun in this situation.

If you do that, you prove you did not fear for your life and you will be convicted & go to jail.

You might think it is strange that the law allows for legal self-defense using firearms but does not allow for brandishing but that is the law. Please feel free to Google to confirm.

You cannot brandish a firearm to control a situation legally.

 

[TerryMathews]

You apparently simply can't read. I said AT A MINIMUM which leaves open the clear possibility that after the prosecution presents their case in court with additional evidence its going to be obvious that Zimmerman is guilty as hell of at least manslaughter. Given the lack of a videotape or sufficient witnesses to the actual fight I expect it be be a somewhat tricky case to get a conviction, but we'll see and Zimmerman has certainly not helped his case recently.


The reality is we don't have the full evidence yet on exactly what the medical evidence really shows about the severity of Zimmerman's injuries without testimony from medical experts and additional details we don't have yet. We know that Zimmerman did not require a lengthy hospital stay or the like after the fact, so the injuries we not that severe and at least many of us believe the gun should only be used if its clear you can't physically turn things around otherwise and you're not going to be able to shoot in the near future given the severity of your injuries. (In other words you really should believe its pretty much him or you in this situation with there being no way they are about to stop, especially if you realistically did something which helped cause the confrontation in the first place when it could have been avoided.)

What's troubling is how some are arguing that the law currently does and should effectively allow someone to deliberately start a fight with someone and then could deliberately let the other person gain the initial advantage and inflict a few injuries with the other person getting on top of them and they get to blow them away without having to possibly worry about the legal consequences. At a minimum this should suggest there are problems with the current law to reasonable people.


You clearly have been appealing to emotion and bringing up clearly not directly related situation to do so when you are not outrageously misrepresenting what other people have actually said.

So now not only am I intellectually bankrupt but I also cannot read?

It is, by the way, rich to accuse me of appealing to emotion. You really must be new to this thread.

In what way did I misrepresent what you said? As I recall, I quoted your post without editing it. Or are you claiming the looney toons didn't say that GZ wasn't beaten enough? Because I can find those posts for you, and I assure you it was said several times.

 

[Aegeon]

Ah gotcha, I guess it just didn't happen then. Those gaping wounds and gashes on the back of his head came out of nowhere. Aliens probably, or the KKK.

Actually one of the potential problems, particularly if the prosecution can prove enough of a pattern of Zimmerman lying is there are explanations which clearly leave the possibility of Zimmerman getting convicted. On top of there still being questions about the severity of the injuries, it is legitimately possible that Zimmerman realized after he shot Martin "oh crap I could be in legal trouble here and the cops are going to be here soon" and then deliberately hit his own head a couple times on the ground to make his injuries look worse. Its actually possible the prosecution could have a medical expert testify that most of the injuries are more consistent with being self inflicted, and it makes strategic sense that the prosecution won't tip its hand regarding their approach by revealing their plans in this area too early in this case.

Basically I'm personally not taking the position that Zimmerman is definitely going to convicted of murder or manslaughter at trial (the prosecution could at a minimum leave the second option open to the jury later on), but I find the position some are taking that he definitely did nothing wrong and there is no way he is going to be convicted quite unreasonable. If the evidence was really as cut and dry as some are arguing the judge should have thrown out the case by now.

 

[TerryMathews]

Actually one of the potential problems, particularly if the prosecution can prove enough of a pattern of Zimmerman lying is there are explanations which clearly leave the possibility of Zimmerman getting convicted. On top of there still being questions about the severity of the injuries, it is legitimately possible that Zimmerman realized after he shot Martin "oh crap I could be in legal trouble here and the cops are going to be here soon" and then deliberately hit his own head a couple times on the ground to make his injuries look worse. Its actually possible the prosecution could have a medical expert testify that most of the injuries are more consistent with being self inflicted, and it makes strategic sense that the prosecution won't tip its hand regarding their approach by revealing their plans in this area too early in this case.

Basically I'm personally not taking the position that Zimmerman is definitely going to convicted of murder or manslaughter at trial (the prosecution could at a minimum leave the second option open to the jury later on), but I find the position some are taking that he definitely did nothing wrong and there is no way he is going to be convicted quite unreasonable. If the evidence was really as cut and dry as some are arguing the judge should have thrown out the case by now.

And the piece de resistance! You actually said that GZ self-inflicted his wounds!

Head wounds? Aliens!

Please please please tell me you weren't able to keep a straight face when you typed that.

If the prosecution's case is that GZ beat himself, he will walk. Mark my words. They need proof. Doubt works in GZs favor, especially in Florida.