17yr old black kid shot and killed for walking in white suburbia?

[QUOTE=giovanni_hotel;1147845]Look, I was a HS jockhead and IAA college athlete in track and even at 230# it would be hard for me to kill another man by dropping bombs on his face.

Not to diss, but to flippantly suggest a 158# kid has the wherewithal, intent or even ability to kill a grown man with his bare hands is just crap.

The reason you hear of so few cases of one man beating another to death in the news is because for the most part it's almost impossible to do.
The instances of someone Trayvon Martin's size beating someone to death are IMO even more rare.

Even Floyd Mayweather would have to work to kill a man with his bare hands. After assuming this pro boxer would knock out a random in a street fight, he would have to keep pounding on this guy who's unconscious, breaking his own hands in the act, for about five minutes and hope the victim choked on his own blood, or somehow managed to crack this guy's skull with his knuckles. Again, almost impossible to do.

You must think very highly of your fighting skills to think as a 17 year old you could have used just your fists and killed another man who outweighed you by 40#.

I've 'play fought' wrestlers before in HS who I outweighed by 50-60#, and I know those dudes aren't going to box. They're gonna try to choke your ass out or twist your arm off and break it.

Trayvon had no special fighting skills. Just a kid who freaked out because he was being stalked.[/QUO

I believe that Trayvon was likely strong enough to hurt another person with his fists. However, Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter, as the "stand your ground" requirement was never in place, he was never at risk of being killed. This was a bullshit fight, that probably would have ended in another 30 seconds had Zimmerman not pulled out his gun.

How about, just hitting Trayvon with the gun, or shooting him in the arm....why the chest?

Agreed, I do believe if Zimmerman had never pulled his gun, the fight would have ended soon after with both of them still alive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by giovanni_hotel

Look, I was a HS jockhead and IAA college athlete in track and even at 230# it would be hard for me to kill another man by dropping bombs on his face.

Not to diss, but to flippantly suggest a 158# kid has the wherewithal, intent or even ability to kill a grown man with his bare hands is just crap.

The reason you hear of so few cases of one man beating another to death in the news is because for the most part it's almost impossible to do.
The instances of someone Trayvon Martin's size beating someone to death are IMO even more rare.

Even Floyd Mayweather would have to work to kill a man with his bare hands. After assuming this pro boxer would knock out a random in a street fight, he would have to keep pounding on this guy who's unconscious, breaking his own hands in the act, for about five minutes and hope the victim choked on his own blood, or somehow managed to crack this guy's skull with his knuckles. Again, almost impossible to do.

You must think very highly of your fighting skills to think as a 17 year old you could have used just your fists and killed another man who outweighed you by 40#.

I've 'play fought' wrestlers before in HS who I outweighed by 50-60#, and I know those dudes aren't going to box. They're gonna try to choke your ass out or twist your arm off and break it.

Trayvon had no special fighting skills. Just a kid who freaked out because he was being stalked.

---

I think you underestimate the damage that can be done by being repeatedly struck with concussive blows and having your head slammed against concrete.

That said, I think that Zimmerman's actions precipitated the entire sequence of events. He was an untrained man following around a 17 year old teenager with a concealed weapon. At the worst, Trayvon overreacted and attacked someone who was basically stalking him. If every 17 year old who would react this way were to end up dead then we would have a real problem in this country. If every time I reacted with anger at an overzealous "authority figure" I were to be facing the business end of a firearm, I'd be dead a hundred times over.

BTW, I'm just saying that I think hypothetically Trayvon probably had the physical strength to kill someone if he was determined to do so. I don't think that George Zimmerman was ever in that kind of danger. I think his discussions with the police department show that he had already come to the conclusion that Trayvon was a criminal even though he hadn't seen him do anything wrong. Once he was confronted with a physical situation he probably saw himself justified in using his gun. Racial profiling plus a man who thinks he has the sanction of the law to kill someone he is fighting with. Of course he didn't and there's a real problem with those who think they do. Self-defense only applies to those who aren't the initial aggressors and who use the minimum amount of force necessary to protect themselves. I think it's manslaughter at the least.

There's obviously a big problem with the gun issue, but I think another issue that needs to be emphasized is Zimmerman's behavior before the incident. Vagrancy laws in this country have been ruled unconstitutional because they are void for vagueness and vest too much discretion in the hands of those enforcing the laws. These laws basically allowed police officers to arrest people who were walking around without any clear purpose or who were "loitering".

I think Zimmerman's first words to Trayvon were, "what are you doing here?". People shouldn't have to justify what they're doing to police officers, let alone overzealous wannabe cops. The main issue is that an untrained civilian thought it was law enforcement to follow around a teenager because he "looks suspicious."

Does anyone know Zimmerman's history with firearms? How long had he had a permit? How much training had he received? Did he carry a weapon all the time?

Also, can you get a permit to carry a tazer in Florida? If so, why didn't he have one? Why wasn't he carrying pepperspray? I just don't understand going nuclear as his only option. He must have known he was tangling with a kid, right?

[quote=fastingforlife;1147849]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by giovanni_hotel

Look, I was a HS jockhead and IAA college athlete in track and even at 230# it would be hard for me to kill another man by dropping bombs on his face.

Not to diss, but to flippantly suggest a 158# kid has the wherewithal, intent or even ability to kill a grown man with his bare hands is just crap.

The reason you hear of so few cases of one man beating another to death in the news is because for the most part it's almost impossible to do.
The instances of someone Trayvon Martin's size beating someone to death are IMO even more rare.

Even Floyd Mayweather would have to work to kill a man with his bare hands. After assuming this pro boxer would knock out a random in a street fight, he would have to keep pounding on this guy who's unconscious, breaking his own hands in the act, for about five minutes and hope the victim choked on his own blood, or somehow managed to crack this guy's skull with his knuckles. Again, almost impossible to do.

You must think very highly of your fighting skills to think as a 17 year old you could have used just your fists and killed another man who outweighed you by 40#.

I've 'play fought' wrestlers before in HS who I outweighed by 50-60#, and I know those dudes aren't going to box. They're gonna try to choke your ass out or twist your arm off and break it.

Trayvon had no special fighting skills. Just a kid who freaked out because he was being stalked.[/QUO

I believe that Trayvon was likely strong enough to hurt another person with his fists. However, Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter, as the "stand your ground" requirement was never in place, he was never at risk of being killed. This was a bullshit fight, that probably would have ended in another 30 seconds had Zimmerman not pulled out his gun.

How about, just hitting Trayvon with the gun, or shooting him in the arm....why the chest?

---

Because when you shoot you shoot to kill

If he shot to kill, then he had intent to kill. Doesn't sound like a good defense.

Wow.. there are some pretty strange opinions here...

There is nothing illegal about Zimmerman following someone through his condo complex parking lot. I can follow anyone I want as long as I'm not on someone's private property. (Think otherwise? Think paparazzi)

At one point, one engaged the other. Who put his hands on who first is the one in the wrong. It's doesn't matter if Zimmerman was following him. If Trayvon hit him first, it's his fault. If Zimmerman grabbed Trayvon, then it's Zimmerman who's in the wrong.

Trayvon's own father said the voice on the 911 tape WAS NOT his son and he was 100% positive. Witness statements have changed drastically.

You can conjecture all you want but bottom line is, there are two people who know EXACTLY what happened that night and one of them is dead. You will never have a verdict that satisfies both sides.

The racist whites think Martin was a hood. The racist minorities think Zimmerman the racist.

The Black Panthers put a bounty on Zimmerman. Could you image if the races were reversed and the Skinheads put a bounty out? WOW

Hopefully, what ever comes out the public rests and no one else gets hurt.

Quote:

---

Who put his hands on who first is the one in the wrong.

---

You're assuming there was only one person in the wrong and there was only one offense to be wrong about. If you shoot and and kill an unarmed person when your life is not in danger, then you may be found guilty of murder regardless of who laid a hand on who first.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaveinBoston

Wow.. there are some pretty strange opinions here...

There is nothing illegal about Zimmerman following someone through his condo complex parking lot. I can follow anyone I want as long as I'm not on someone's private property. (Think otherwise? Think paparazzi)

At one point, one engaged the other. Who put his hands on who first is the one in the wrong. It's doesn't matter if Zimmerman was following him. If Trayvon hit him first, it's his fault. If Zimmerman grabbed Trayvon, then it's Zimmerman who's in the wrong.

Trayvon's own father said the voice on the 911 tape WAS NOT his son and he was 100% positive. Witness statements have changed drastically.

You can conjecture all you want but bottom line is, there are two people who know EXACTLY what happened that night and one of them is dead. You will never have a verdict that satisfies both sides.

The racist whites think Martin was a hood. The racist minorities think Zimmerman the racist.

The Black Panthers put a bounty on Zimmerman. Could you image if the races were reversed and the Skinheads put a bounty out? WOW

Hopefully, what ever comes out the public rests and no one else gets hurt.

---

You're confusing the issues. Of course what the Black Panthers did was wrong. But Zimmerman is still probably guilty. First of all, one doesn't have to do something illegal to be a first aggressor.

Second of all, one of the definitions of reckless, which is used as the mental state for manslaughter and even depraved heart murder, is to consciously disregard an unjustifiable risk. Following around an unarmed man with a gun is the definition of risk creation.

So, while the independent act of following someone around may not rise to the level of stalking (an illegal act in some states), it can be used to demonstrate recklessness, which would foreclose the argument of justification.

Even if Trayvon Martin committed unlawful assault, this would not justify shooting him dead. It would probably not even justify shooting to maim or injure him.

Finally, perhaps you should quote the person you think is expressing "strange opinions" and actually present a cogent counterargument.

I also love how DaveinBoston tries to create the impression of impartiality by creating false equivalences. For instance, those who have tried to portray Trayvon Martin as a "thug" and a criminal who deserved to be "put down" are equivalent to those who think Zimmerman might have acted based on racial animus. It's the racist majority vs. the racist minorities. One would almost be tempted to forget the entire history of police abuse of African-Americans in this country, or the history of aggressive police tactics being used to harass African-Americans.

There's also the claim that I frequently hear from those who think a criminal case isn't worthy of much scrutiny such as "only two people know what happened and one of them is dead". Perhaps we shouldn't even have a trial because dead men can't speak? This is one of the reasons the facts are stated in terms of contingencies.

What I love most is the admonition to the angry public who wants to see a fair trial that the verdict needs to be accepted regardless of what it is. You are right that you will never have a verdict that pleases both sides as in most cases the defense wants "not guilty" and the prosecution "guilty". But I for one don't think that people should get shot and killed unless a valid self-defense argument can be made. I don't think it's sufficient for someone standing over the dead body of a teenager to say, "now prove your case without any witnesses." The jury is allowed to make inferences from the circumstances and the physical evidence even if George Zimmerman can fall back on a lack of eyewitness testimony to create doubt.

I also don't think that people should be subject to surveillance by armed, potentially unstable people when they are walking the streets. You say well it's not illegal. Well, it probably depends on the state and it is something the legislature should consider if one group of people is going to be subject to harassment by armed men.

Imagine Trayvon as a white kid. Everyone on this board knows the police would have behaved differently, regardless of where in this Country the confrontation occurred. "An hispanic guy, killing an unharmed white juvenille....outrageous, throw the book at that dirtbag!"

I am guilty of the same kind of instinctual profiling, it is in my DNA. It is our inborn survival mechanism, to be wary of those who look and act different from us. The shame is, that no amount of diversity training, can overcome what is deeply inbedded in our brainstem. It is a crying shame, but it cannot be changed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fastingforlife

Imagine Trayvon as a white kid. Everyone on this board knows the police would have behaved differently, regardless of where in this Country the confrontation occurred. "An hispanic guy, killing an unharmed white juvenille....outrageous, throw the book at that dirtbag!"

I am guilty of the same kind of instinctual profiling, it is in my DNA. It is our inborn survival mechanism, to be wary of those who look and act different from us. The shame is, that no amount of diversity training, can overcome what is deeply inbedded in our brainstem. It is a crying shame, but it cannot be changed.

---

I completely agree with you. I think the instinctual mechanism you speak of also involves guilt as well. People don't want to hear charges of racism made no matter how supported they are by the facts because they feel unable to distance themselves from those being accused. For instance, if George Zimmerman is guilty of murder and the justice system was not appropriately used, then they feel they are somehow complicit. So they do the only thing that actually involves a moral transgression in a situation they weren't personally involved in. They obscure the illegal acts and attempt to make the picture murkier by claiming everyone is wrong so therefore nobody is wrong.

But what you suggest is actually a fairly good technique. Imagine Trayvon Martin as a family member. Maybe he was hot-headed, maybe he was a wild kid, but essentially he was minding his own business. Now he's dead.

Also, imagine yourself spending your day in civilian clothing with a gun in your waistband following around teenage kids. Follow them at close range in a car; make yourself conspicuous. How often might you find yourself needing to use a gun? How often would you ordinarily need to pull a gun? As they say, "if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail."

Edit: also the reason the paparazzi gets additional room to engage in surveillance is because of their first amendment protection. In most invasion of privacy tort cases, the reason the law can't go further than it does is because there is a risk of jeopardizing a free press. This is one of the reasons in other countries without the equivalent of our first amendment, invasion of privacy can actually exist in public ironically.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

I see we're now speaking hypothetically. So if the hypothetical Martin said, "I've got a gun!" and the hypothetical Zimmerman shot him dead on the spot, it would obviously not be justifiable homicide. If you can't figure that out for yourself, you shouldn't be allowed to carry a pez dispenser, let alone a gun.

<removed due to nonsensicalness and length>

---

At last, I've got you thinking... rather than ranting emotionally (though I understand why)... though you did resort to emotional ranting later... shame I was slow in being able to reply.

I did not pick my examples aimlessly, each involves an increasing about of perceived threat to one party... however in each case the degree of the actual threat is unknown. Don't forget that the actual threat is not something you can fully know until after the fact (either the threat was made good on, removed, or false).

There is a reason why the law treats a person wielding a fake gun much the same way as a real one, while the actual threat is different from either item, the perceived threat is the same. Doing so may allow you to rob a liquor store successfully... but it also may get you shot by the police.

It all goes back to Q of how reasonable the fear of the perceived threat is.

You seem to think that claiming "I was afraid for my life" is a get out of jail free card. If it was, I would expect more bank robberies where the robber yells "I am afraid for my life" just before shooting a teller... thankfully, it's not. Instead it simply opens the door to if it was a legitimate fear or not, something that may have been acted upon during the incident, but that the police, prosecutor, and even a judge and jury may get to give an opinion on... which is exactly what is happening now (i.e. the system is working!).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

If he shot to kill, then he had intent to kill. Doesn't sound like a good defense.

---

Wait, so Zimmerman's intent when shooting was to kill? I'd not heard this! Do please share your sources.

As an experienced hunter I know that a person or animal can be shot many places in the chest/upper body and live quite some time (without treatment)... hell my first deer lived more than 12 hours before succumbing because of a bad shot on my part (from the side and more or less between its lungs and intestines)... a mistake I will never repeat (if I can't make a clean kill on my game, I will hold my shot).

Q: How often does anyone... civilian, police, or military shoot to wound (instead of kill)? Why don't we just require it of all shooters?

A: I'll tell you a secret... it's very rare. Sure... they could aim for a knee or an arm... but those are rather small targets, missing is easy and an unchecked bullet can wound or kill someone completely unrelated to the situation.

Trained and/or competent shooters, be they civilian, police or military know to shoot for center of mass... not because that's where all the vital organs are, but because it is an easier shot! ...and unless you are a trained/skilled shooter (which I'm guessing you are not), it's improper for you to talk about where one should/shouldn't shoot.

To re-iterate, the intent isn't necessarily to kill... but to remove the threat, which may (unfortunately) result in death.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

You're assuming there was only one person in the wrong and there was only one offense to be wrong about. If you shoot and and kill an unarmed person when your life is not in danger, then you may be found guilty of murder regardless of who laid a hand on who first.

---

Bingo! To which I again remind you... the system is working! ... so wait... you don't like the system that we are now seeing?

Of course... as new evidence comes to light... it's becoming increasingly clear that Martin may have increasingly been in the wrong. Did that mean he deserved to die? Absolutly not, but it does paint an ever clear picture as to which side had more power to prevent what happend.

Bobvela, you should be careful which sources you choose to site and understand why they have an agenda to smear Trayvon as somehow make him responsible for his own death.

I have smoked MANY blunts in my younger days and there's NO WAY I could have smoked a blunt completely in the short walk from the 7-11 to his father's GF's condo. I don't like the meme that if Trayvon was smoking pot, he somehow deserved his fate.
Maybe it will come out in open court, but there's been no evidence reported that a blunt was found on Trayvon's body after the shooting or among his personal affects.

The one detail that can't be ignored, except by George Zimmerman, was that Trayvon was ON HIS CELLPHONE for most his walk back to the condo. Why was this considering menacing or potentially criminal??
Also for those who believe Trayvon was dressed like a 'thug', notice the appearance of those White kids who came into the 7-11 after Martin left. One has his entire face wrapped in a scarf like a terrorist with only his eyes exposed. The other guy has a stocking cap pulled almost down over his eyes.

It might be Trayvon on the surveillance vid outside the store. It might not be. It's certainly not definitive enough to make the claim it absolutely is him.

The guy with the gun riding in the SUV still had the most responsibility to prevent this tragedy. That hasn't changed. Trayvon wasn't a stick up kid, he wasn't a cat burglar.
That Zimmerman thought he was isn't an excuse for shooting a kid dead.

Hi Bob, unlike you I never stopped thinking, and unfortunately I wasn't able to get you started. Since you couldn't make yourself read, understand and answer the points I leveled against your post I see no reason to waste more time on you. Here's a link to my previous post.

http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/sho...postcount=1518

You might also try to learn how to interpret the word "if".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by giovanni_hotel

Bobvela, you should be careful which sources you choose to site and understand why they have an agenda to smear Trayvon as somehow make him responsible for his own death.

---

Given the attempts by the media and some on this forum to smear Zimmerman as the most evil man to walk the earth since Hitler, and paint Martin as a child saint... it's not surprising that some would dig into what has gone on and draw other conclusions. When this whole thing began I was actually anti-Zimmerman as I'd listened only to media reports which made it sound like he was the aggressor and 100% at fault... with time and information my opinion changed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by giovanni_hotel

I don't like the meme that if Trayvon was smoking pot, he somehow deserved his fate.

---

Again... that is not the claim of post I linked to, plus you'll note the last sentence of my post above:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobvela

Did that mean he deserved to die? Absolutly not, but it does paint an ever clear picture as to which side had more power to prevent what happend.

---

To split part of what you said:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by giovanni_hotel

I have smoked MANY blunts in my younger days and there's NO WAY I could have smoked a blunt completely in the short walk from the 7-11 to his father's GF's condo.
&
Maybe it will come out in open court, but there's been no evidence reported that a blunt was found on Trayvon's body after the shooting or among his personal affects.

---

Never having smoked blunts, or anything else for that matter... I cannot say how long it would take to do such a thing... but have known people who will put out what they are smoking so they can finish it later. Some of the speculation from the site I linked to speculates that Trayvon could easy have ditched whatever illicit material that he was carrying just in case the police did come.

Did that happen? Only Martin really knew... however given his drug history, the alleged activates at the 7-11, and the autopsy report, it's not too hard to believe that he was smoking pot on his walk home.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by giovanni_hotel

The one detail that can't be ignored, except by George Zimmerman, was that Trayvon was ON HIS CELLPHONE for most his walk back to the condo. Why was this considering menacing or potentially criminal??

---

On his cell phone on a hands free device if the contents of Martin's pockets are to believed... making his activities less clear to an observer... but let's go back to the 911 call though (edited for length):

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 911 Call

This guy looks like he's up to no good or he's on drugs or something. It's raining and he's just walking around looking about.
...
Yeah, now he's coming toward me. He's got his hands in his waist band.
...
Something's wrong with him. Yep, he's coming to check me out. He's got something in his hands. I don't know what his deal is.

---

Zimmerman thought Martin was up to no good, Martin was aware of Zimmerman and decided to check him out before running. Again, this paints a picture that given the recent break-ins in the area, someone was being a good neighbor by keeping an eye out, saw someone who he didn't recognize in the area who looked to be on drugs looking odd... something that a concerned neighbor should call the police about.

Broncofan hinted at this above... while you are free in a place you are legally able to be to ask anyone else "Who are you? What are you doing here?" or most anything else you... they are just as free to say "go to hell." Unless you have witnessed a crime (of a certain level) occurring or there is a clear and present threat, you can do little more than watch and report... which is from what I can tell, what happened here before things became escalated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by giovanni_hotel

The guy with the gun riding in the SUV still had the most responsibility to prevent this tragedy.

---

Again, I am not saying Martin deserved to die, or that Zimmerman is blameless as well... I am simply pointing out that a series of events were put in motion that both men had a say in. Both parties played a part in this and your explicit claim that Zimmerman had "the most responsibility" ignores everything else that lead to the confrontation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by giovanni_hotel

That hasn't changed. Trayvon wasn't a stick up kid, he wasn't a cat burglar. That Zimmerman thought he was isn't an excuse for shooting a kid dead.

---

I was unaware that anyone had seriously claimed that Zimmerman got out of his SUV thinking "Hrm, he looks like a cat burglar, I think I'll shoot him just in case!"

Again, what happened was an unfortunate and tragic end to a series of events that both parties could have prevented at some point along the path... many of which the potential consequences of which were not known.

Had Zimmerman not fired
Had Martin not jumped on top of Zimmerman and repeatedly punched him
Had Zimmerman not gotten out of his car
Had Martin not walked by the car
Had Zimmerman not been suspicious of someone walking around in the rain
Had Martin not been smoking pot that night
Had Zimmerman not been on patrol that night
Had Martin not been suspended for school for drug use
Had Zimmerman not been a neighborhood watch volunteer
Had the Martin parents never had Trayvon
Had the Zimmerman parents never had George

... how far back should we go?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

Hi Bob, unlike you I never stopped thinking, and unfortunately I wasn't able to get you started.

---

Really? I'd like to see some evidence of that. Instead it's more likely you are simply incapable of a rational response...

You'll note that I raised some points, you half assed addressed them (as I'd expected you to)... then I tied the whole lot together with my reply to explain the underlying point which you seemingly missed (ie "I was afraid for my life" isn't a get out of jail free card and the system is working to determine of Zimmerman's killing of Martin is/was justified/excusable). Rather than reply in kind, you hurl attempted insults? It's a shame you either didn't read or consider what I said above, because I replied to your underlying points quite well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

Since you couldn't make yourself read, understand and answer the points I leveled against your post I see no reason to waste more time on you. Here's a link to my previous post.

http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/sho...postcount=1518

---

Just because I do not quite every single word that you said doesn't mean I didn't read or respond to your comments. In fact, if you would care to point out a part or idea of your post that I missed... I'd love to hear it! But since you fail to do any such thing here I again go back to my earlier point... you are clearly unable to respond with rational and/or coherent thought here, so instead unleash attempts attacks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

You might also try to learn how to interpret the word "if".

---

Funny... I'm a professional software engineer, that word is one of the key constructs of my industry... I'd wager I am far more familiar with it than you.

POLICE: Black teenagers light 13-year-old on fire; &#39;You get what you deserve, white boy&#39; - YouTube

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eded

POLICE: Black teenagers light 13-year-old on fire; 'You get what you deserve, white boy' - YouTube

---

That's horrible...

Look Bob. Your orginal “by your logic” post to me was one list of idiotic insults. Nevertheless, I responded to each accusation explaining how none of the inferences you drew followed from my logic. I finished that post with a little “by your logic” coda just to give you the flavor of your own medicine. You opened your rebuttal to my response with an insult. That’s okay. But then don’t complain when get an insult or two in return. Every time you post it seems you provide us with evidence that you still aren’t thinking yet.

Perhaps you can explain to us Mr. Genius Software Engineer how it is then that you got so fucked up in your understanding the word "if". When I say "If X, then Y" it doesn't follow that I need to provide a link certifying the veracity of Y now does it? The interpretation might be that if one believed Y were false, then one would have to believe the same of X. LOL

Quote:

---

It all goes back to Q of how reasonable the fear of the perceived threat is.

---

On this we nearly agree. I would say the question is, “How reasonable was the judgment that the situation required the use of potentially and likely deadly force?” The emotional state is irrelevent and in fact may hamper proper judgement.

Quote:

---

You seem to think that claiming "I was afraid for my life" is a get out of jail free card.

---

The Florida police department seemed to think so too. Perhaps it has something to do with their interpretation of the SYG law together with laziness and a propensity to prejudge situations based on stereotypes.

Quote:

---

<Originally Posted by trish
You're assuming there was only one person in the wrong and there was only one offense to be wrong about. If you shoot and and kill an unarmed person when your life is not in danger, then you may be found guilty of murder regardless of who laid a hand on who first.>

Bingo! To which I again remind you... the system is working!

---

No, the system didn’t work. Only when the media and the general public stepped in did the system shift gears and look seriously into the case.

You're playing rhetorical games, Bobvela.

The autopsy reports said that Trayvon had trace amounts of THC in his bloodstream. If Trayvon had just taken three or four drags off a blunt, he would have had a significant THC spike in his blood count, not a trace level residual amount that showed prior use at minimum days earlier.

You don't think Sanford PD didn't want to find drugs on Martin?? It's easier to justify Zommerman's claims with multiple plausible scenarios if they could infer on scene that Trayvon was involved in illicit drug activity.

There was nothing justified about what Zimmerman did, or the spot judgement he made about Trayvon being a potential criminal. THis is what it comes down to and why the majority of the responsibility for what happened after Zimmerman left his SUV is his fault alone. George saw a Black kid walking through this gated community and assumed criminal intent. His judgement call was horrifically wrong and led directly to another human being's murder.

All this crap about analyzing surveillance tape to infer the state of mind or intentions of Trayvon Martin is irrelevant. Nothing Martin did that night justified Zimmerman's violent response, except his skin color, which George Zimmerman decided to criminalize.

Hi Bobvela,
you make some good points but I still think the verdict ultimately comes down to manslaughter at least. As you say, you cannot know what the result of not acting will be until it is too late. But the law requires self-defense to be proportionate to the violence used by the aggressor. Let's assume the aggressor was Trayvon Martin, something that I don't really believe.

In self-defense cases, the law uses a fairly objective standard in evaluating the degree of threat. That is to say, if George Zimmerman was unreasonable in believing his life was in danger, then he does not have a valid self-defense claim. Someone who is defending himself is not assumed to have only two options; to kill someone or to be completely passive. The right to use deadly force is only justified when defending against deadly force, or in some cases within one's home.

If we were to accept your argument that the reasonableness of Zimmerman's defense depended on what kind of weapon he was carrying, the argument could get somewhat extreme depending on what types of weapons people chose to walk around with. What if for instance Zimmerman was carrying an elephant gun? Would his decision come down to doing nothing to defend himself or firing a weapon fit to bring down a multi-ton elephant at a teenager? His attacker was unarmed and smaller than he was, and while it's plausible that one could have to use deadly force against an unarmed individual, nothing indicates Zimmerman's life was in danger. A physical altercation is not enough. Being the victim of assault is not enough.

Also, in murder cases intent comes in multiple forms. The old criminal law used to use the words specific and general intent. These complicate the analysis a little bit. The model penal code if memory serves uses purpose, knowledge, and recklessness. Purpose is if you do something where your object is to achieve a certain result. For instance shoot to kill. Knowledge is where you do something where you know what the outcome will be but that is not necessarily your aim. For example, you want someone to get out of your way so you shoot at them with the knowledge they will be killed. Recklessness is where you consciously disregard a known risk. For instance, you are aware that shooting at someone is likely to kill them but you don't care. Purpose intent is not required and recklessness is usually made out by a killing that was not complete self-defense (imperfect self-defense argument).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobvela

Had Zimmerman not fired
Had Martin not jumped on top of Zimmerman and repeatedly punched him
Had Zimmerman not gotten out of his car
Had Martin not walked by the car
Had Zimmerman not been suspicious of someone walking around in the rain
Had Martin not been smoking pot that night
Had Zimmerman not been on patrol that night
Had Martin not been suspended for school for drug use
Had Zimmerman not been a neighborhood watch volunteer
Had the Martin parents never had Trayvon
Had the Zimmerman parents never had George

... how far back should we go?

---

This is an important issue as well. In law they try to find cause in fact. Without any limitation, you can go even further back than this. So the limitation is usually proximate cause in tort cases. In criminal cases, you need both an act and intent to be guilty of a crime (except for a limited number of strict liability offenses). If you kill someone using force, and it was not an accident or the result of a lack of capacity, you need justification. Justification is a lot harder to make out than people think.

I remember in crim. law we had this long argument where a very stubborn student insisted that if someone robbed him at gunpoint, then dropped his gun, and ran away, he would be "justified" in killing them. That one is not even close. Some people's intuition may be that he would be, but doing so would be murder. If Trayvon Martin committed assault then this is a closer case than that. But it's still a lot harder than people assume it should be. How far back do you go? In reckless homicide cases, they blame you for behaving in a way that gives rise to the set of risks that led to someone's death. For instance, if you are accused of vehicular manslaughter, you are not allowed to use the fact that you were drinking as a defense that you did not have the requisite mental state. Why is that? Well, you chose to drink and then to get into a car which actually creates a presumption of recklessnes. What if the drink was spiked? Well, then you have a possible defense.

But if Zimmerman cannot plausibly argue that when he fired his gun, he believed his life was in danger (the subjective component) and he was reasonable in believing his life was in danger (the objective component), then we don't need to go back any further. Guilty as charged!!!

weed or cannabis does not make you violent.

the report states that the thc in martins system was consistent with someone not smoking weed for 3 days. basically the amount of THC in trayvon martins blood means he did not smoke weed for three days

His lawyer will blame it on the Trayvon case. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/05/29...#ixzz1wK3p4veJ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yourdaddy

His lawyer will blame it on the Trayvon case. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/05/29...#ixzz1wK3p4veJ

---

So what??

When has revenge ever been a credible defense in a criminal case??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yourdaddy

His lawyer will blame it on the Trayvon case. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/05/29...#ixzz1wK3p4veJ

---

Generally, I don't like responding to a post by saying, "you're an idiot." But in your zeal to put this up here you didn't read the article. THE MAN IS DEAD.

Since when do dead men get tried for crimes? Since when do dead men have lawyers representing them?

More proof that Foxnews consumers aren't actually interested in the news but in their own burning agenda.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yourdaddy

His lawyer will blame it on the Trayvon case. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/05/29...#ixzz1wK3p4veJ

---

"The officer shot Eugene, but he just kept chewing, Vega said. The officer fired again, killing Eugene."

Attention Fox News Readers: Do not ignore sentences such as this. When trying to post a completely irrelevant article to take attention away from the main issue please get the facts right.

FOX NEWS FOR IDIOTS



STUDY FINDS THAT Fox News Makes You Stupid?


http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/ar...kes-you-stupid



FOX NEWS INSIDER: “Stuff Is Just Made Up”

Asked what most viewers and observers of Fox News would be surprised to learn about the controversial cable channel, a former insider from the world of Rupert Murdoch was quick with a response: “I don’t think people would believe it’s as concocted as it is; that stuff is just made up.”

Indeed, a former Fox News employee who recently agreed to talk with Media Matters confirmed what critics have been saying for years about Murdoch’s cable channel. Namely, that Fox News is run as a purely partisan operation, virtually every news story is actively spun by the staff, its primary goal is to prop up Republicans and knock down Democrats, and that staffers at Fox News routinely operate without the slightest regard for fairness or fact checking.

“It is their M.O. to undermine the administration and to undermine Democrats,” says the source. “They’re a propaganda outfit but they call themselves news.”

And that’s the word from inside Fox News.

Note the story here isn’t that Fox News leans right. Everyone knows the channel pushes a conservative-friendly version of the news. Everyone who’s been paying attention has known that since the channel’s inception more than a decade ago. The real story, and the real danger posed by the cable outlet, is that over time Fox News stopped simply leaning to the right and instead became an open and active political player, sort of one-part character assassin and one-part propagandist, depending on which party was in power. And that the operation thrives on fabrications and falsehoods.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201102100007

WARNING! BREAKING NEWS!:exposure to Fox News makes voters stupid, university study finds




exposure to Fox News makes voters stupid, university study finds


http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/1...voters-stupid/

Fox News Viewers Believe the Darndest Things, Study Finds


(Dec. 17) -- Fair and balanced ... and factually incorrect?

A newly released study out of the University of Maryland concludes that viewers of the Fox News Channel were "significantly more likely" to believe a host of factually incorrect information than viewers who watched other television news organizations.

Fox is by no means the only media outlet guilty of spreading what the study considers misniformation, but the channel's viewers were found to believe incorrect views on matters of established fact in much higher percentages than those peple who got their news of the world elsewhere.

Those who watched Fox News during the 2010 election cycle were significantly more likely than those who never watched it to believe that ...

... most economists estimate the stimulus caused job losses (12 points more likely).

... most economists have estimated the health care law will worsen the deficit (31 points more likely).

... the economy is getting worse (26 points more likely).

... most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring (30 points more likely).

... the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts (14 points more likely).

... their own income taxes have gone up (14 points).

... the auto bailout only occurred under Obama (13 points).

... when TARP came up for a vote, most Republicans opposed it (12 points).

... it is not clear that Obama was born in the United States (31 points).

The study found that it wasn't just Republican Fox viewers who were swayed to believe the less-than-accurate information. Democratic viewers of the channel also more likely to believe those things, too.

Surge Desk's calls to the Fox News Channel for comment on the study were not returned.



http://www.aolnews.com/2010/12/17/fo...s-study-finds/

The latest
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/...190108284.html

Zimmerman has 48 hours to report to jail, his bond was revoked.

I haven't been on this this board for a few months, but was it ever discussed how Zimmerman came up with all of those donations? I have heard that the Koch brothers were donating a shit ton of money but never could found out if it was true or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tsdvdman

The latest
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/...190108284.html

---

Note to self: don't read the comments...

He set up a site on the interwebz to raise money for his legal bills and like minded individuals sent him cash.
It's not like he raised millions of dollars, but even the $100,000 he got is significant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Token Williams-Black

Note to self: don't read the comments...

---

The right wing zealots are out full force today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Silcc69

I haven't been on this this board for a few months, but was it ever discussed how Zimmerman came up with all of those donations? I have heard that the Koch brothers were donating a shit ton of money but never could found out if it was true or not.

---

The Koch brothers are a boogeyman for some on the left of the political spectrum, the way Soros is a boogeyman for some of those on the right of the political spectrum. I'm skeptical of anybody that uses these boogeyman arguments.

Zimmerman raised around $200 thousand dollars. The Koch brothers have very, very deep pockets. $200k is nothing to them. It came in much smaller amounts from regular citizens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Queens Guy

The Koch brothers are a boogeyman for some on the left of the political spectrum, the way Soros is a boogeyman for some of those on the right of the political spectrum. I'm skeptical of anybody that uses these boogeyman arguments.

Zimmerman raised around $200 thousand dollars. The Koch brothers have very, very deep pockets. $200k is nothing to them. It came in much smaller amounts from regular citizens.

---

LOL at your boogeyman comment. But I found a link. http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive...gone-crazy.php

I'm not a huge fan of the Koch brothers but I did want to find out more info rather than just jumping the gun.