Just like Zims apology to the victims parents, far too late.-Sh1fty- wrote:
The picture only came out now?!
Beyond that, did it give him the right to initiate that confrontation in the first place? Shooting someone in self-defense in a "fight" you started is weeeeeeeaaaaaaaaak.Uzique wrote:
people get bloodied up in fist-fights and confrontations all the time. look at an average post-nightclub exiting scene.
does that give someone the right to shoot and kill someone else? that's a fucked up law.
That there is the crux of it really. Some people are arguing Zimmerman defended himself from an attacker. But they aren't stopping to think of the scenario that Martin, walking through a fairly high crime neighbourhood at night on his way home from the store notices someone following him. The guy continues to follow him. Thinking the guy has got a gun and is trying to mug him or worse, he stands his ground. But because he didn't have a firearm, and Zimmerman did, he's now somehow in the wrong? What if it was Zimmerman who is dead and Martin pulled the trigger? The story would then be as outlined above.
Sure, Zimmerman said Martin attacked first, but that's only his word - for all we know he could've gone up to Martin and initiated the confrontation, and Zimmerman is just covering his arse.
Sure, Zimmerman said Martin attacked first, but that's only his word - for all we know he could've gone up to Martin and initiated the confrontation, and Zimmerman is just covering his arse.
It doesn't even have to get to there. He loses his claim to self defense after getting out of his car. I don't see any reason why you have to justify it in that way.Jaekus wrote:
That there is the crux of it really. Some people are arguing Zimmerman defended himself from an attacker. But they aren't stopping to think of the scenario that Martin, walking through a fairly high crime neighbourhood at night on his way home from the store notices someone following him. The guy continues to follow him. Thinking the guy has got a gun and is trying to mug him or worse, he stands his ground.
I'm not justifying it at all. I think by Zimmerman's account alone he is guilty of at least manslaughter.
Some lawyers are in the habit of advising someone not to apologize, at least not before being charged? as it could be construed as an admission of guilt.AussieReaper wrote:
Just like Zims apology to the victims parents, far too late.-Sh1fty- wrote:
The picture only came out now?!
Jaekus- Of course what zimmerman did was reprehensible, but in the eyes of the law, martin was potentially the one to initiate a felony by attacking zim. first. I dunno if theres a witness for the initial confrontation, but if the courts decide in zim's favor on that one, I think he'll get away with it. He covered his own ass if he didn't pull the gun until he was allegedly getting his ass beat.
All this IMO obviously.
At the moment though there isn't any evidence to my knowledge that Martin did in fact initiate the confrontation, other than Zimmerman's statemnt to police (which I'm not taking solely at face value). We do know he was following Martin and pursued him in both vehicle and on foot, which implicates him IMO.
In any case I hope I'm wrong
I think Zim lost his self defense claim by continuing to pursue Martin when advised not to.
I'm not sure how the law will interpret that however.
I'm not sure how the law will interpret that however.
Following somebody is not instigating a confrontation, for fucks sake people. The only story we have to go by is Zimmerman's, and he said he was returning to his vehicle when Martin confronted him. Following somebody is following somebody. If Zimmerman began speaking to Martin or physically touched him, then he would be confronting.AussieReaper wrote:
I think Zim lost his self defense claim by continuing to pursue Martin when advised not to.
I'm not sure how the law will interpret that however.
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
He still has the right to go where he wants and do what he wants within the law.
Providing he didn't provoke a confrontation he's OK, even if he did provoke a confrontation he's probably still OK - thats just how dumb this stand your ground' law is.
Providing he didn't provoke a confrontation he's OK, even if he did provoke a confrontation he's probably still OK - thats just how dumb this stand your ground' law is.
Fuck Israel
Sh1fty wrote:
The only story we have to go by is Zimmerman's
Fuck Israel
Trayvon Martin is dead. We don't know shit about what led up to the confrontation. We have two phone calls that happened before it, and an eyewitness from afterward. Nothing about who started it and how things progressed.Dilbert_X wrote:
Sh1fty wrote:
The only story we have to go by is Zimmerman's
It's a futile trial.
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
That means that Zimmerman's obviously telling the truth? /Shiftylogic.
So if follow you in my car at night through a rough neighbourhood, and you notice me, then get out and follow you whilst I'm packing a gun, this is totally cool with you?-Sh1fty- wrote:
Following somebody is not instigating a confrontation, for fucks sake people. The only story we have to go by is Zimmerman's, and he said he was returning to his vehicle when Martin confronted him. Following somebody is following somebody. If Zimmerman began speaking to Martin or physically touched him, then he would be confronting.AussieReaper wrote:
I think Zim lost his self defense claim by continuing to pursue Martin when advised not to.
I'm not sure how the law will interpret that however.
Righto...
No it doesn't.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
That means that Zimmerman's obviously telling the truth? /Shiftylogic.
It means that we'll never know what freaking happened so there's no damn point talking about it.
Only two people know what happened and one of them is dead so we only have one side to the story. We can't prove he's innocent or guilty of manslaughter or murder in the II'd.
Pissing me off how dumb case gets more media attention that far more important things.
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
There are such things as confessions and witnesses. Ever heard of forensics?-Sh1fty- wrote:
No it doesn't.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
That means that Zimmerman's obviously telling the truth? /Shiftylogic.
It means that we'll never know what freaking happened so there's no damn point talking about it.
Only two people know what happened and one of them is dead so we only have one side to the story. We can't prove he's innocent or guilty of manslaughter or murder in the II'd.
Sure but the media is in the business of ratings, not importance.Pissing me off how dumb case gets more media attention that far more important things.
My theory is that they went with 2nd degree murder knowing they did not have enough for a conviction, as opposed to manslaughter. There's just no way the state leadership would want to be responsible for a national upset in the eyes of conservatives. This way Zimmerman gets off, and the politicians wipe their hands clean and can say the justice system worked.
Just thinking like a politician. If they truly have enough for 2nd degree murder it will be surprising.
Just thinking like a politician. If they truly have enough for 2nd degree murder it will be surprising.
Most of my conservative pals think Zimmerman is full of shit and was out looking for trouble. Even some of the starry-eyed Fox sponges think it's an abuse of self-defense.
He's obviously been over-charged and will probably get off.Spearhead wrote:
My theory is that they went with 2nd degree murder knowing they did not have enough for a conviction, as opposed to manslaughter. There's just no way the state leadership would want to be responsible for a national upset in the eyes of conservatives. This way Zimmerman gets off, and the politicians wipe their hands clean and can say the justice system worked.
Just thinking like a politician. If they truly have enough for 2nd degree murder it will be surprising.
If he takes the stand the jury can assess his honesty.Jaekues wrote:
There are such things as confessions and witnesses. Ever heard of forensics?
Fuck Israel
Why does that picture even matter? All of us would fight back against a stranger following us around. Why would Martin not assume it was just a weird pedo and not a neighborhood watch person?
I think it does matter since his injuries were questioned. Now we know he was hurt. I also believe Zimmerman was wrong in shooting Martin.
So you're saying it matters only because someone else said something. I'm not talking about what other people say or think.CC-Marley wrote:
I think it does matter since his injuries were questioned. Now we know he was hurt. I also believe Zimmerman was wrong in shooting Martin.
The interest in this case just shows why there are so many law and order shows CSI NCIS SVU everyones an expert now
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat