Support NeoGAF

[agrajag]

Could Zimmerman of tried to grab Martin?

What language is this in?

 

[empty vessel]

Unless the "Stand Your Ground" law differs hugely from my local ones in Michigan, I'm not arguing to repeal them. I'm no lawyer, but I don't know of any place where it's legal to attack someone for following you.

It's legal everywhere if the totality of the circumstances would have caused a reasonable person to fear imminent harm. I've told you this before.

 

[BeFlatLine]

George Zimmerman is the perfect counter argument to the concept of karma.

To quote the movie "Way of the Gun": "Karma is justice without the satisfaction, and I don't believe in justice."

The amount of people that get off on technicalities is absolutely disturbing. I don't like when people get off that are probably guilty, but the system is designed in a way that is supposed to keep the innocent out of jail . . . which, hopefully, it does.

It's legal everywhere if the totality of the circumstances would have caused a reasonable person to fear imminent harm. I've told you this before.

Quoting myself above: Last time I spoke to a lawyer on self-defense, it was stated that there's a fine line between self-defense and assault. Continuing an attack while you are on top is considered assault, and no longer self-defense. This may differ in Florida. Either way, without proof of who started the altercation, there is still reasonable doubt.

Are you a lawyer? Can you show where this statement is false?

 

[Ploid 3.0]

The first thin that came to my mind was, "Girlfriend?" So the guy got famous and got a divorce? Rockstar.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

A history of fighting, as described from his own cell phone and friends statements? Enough of a background that when combined with other details in the case, cast enough reasonable doubt to cause a not guilty verdict to go through?

Once again, what puts his past on the same level as Zimmermans assaulting a cop, retraining orders? Some texts about a schoolyard fight? Really?

There is none. Which doesn't help dispel "Reasonable Doubt".

Reasonable doubt is for the courts. I'm talking about people in this thread that defend Zimmermans bullshit and assume...continually...that Trayvon struck first. That he was the initiator of the contact. Perhaps he was. Perhaps he was approached and just swung and started going in. But there's evidence on the phone with his homegirl that at least gives some insight. But no one talks about that.

You act like I'm characterizing Zimmerman as a saint. You do realize the only defense I've given is a lack of evidence to prove him guilty, right? Enough to dispel reasonable doubt?

That's always the fallback argument. Once again, I'm not in court. The courts have spoken. I respectfully disagree with their verdict but that's our system and it's settled.

Let's say he is racist. Can you prove it? Can you dispel reasonable doubt? Can you show that he targeted him ONLY because he's black? There were 46 911 calls present that Zimmerman had placed (Details of calls here: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...an-s-history-of-911-calls-a-complete-log.html) that were logged as evidence. Of those, at most (assuming my counting is right), there were 9 involving those described as black.

Here, let me clarify. I think George Zimmerman is prejudiced against certain types of Blacks. I think he pre-judged this kid based solely on his appearance and the fact that others of his ethnicity committed crimes in the area. The only thing his other calls to 911 proves is that he's prejudiced -AND- paranoid. Not a winning combination.

It's evident the reason was because he was Black. Martin wasn't doing ANYTHING other than walking while Black to justify ANY suspicion. Was he walking up to side windows? Was he hiding in bushes? Did he have a TV in his hands? He was Black and walking with his hoodie on. Is the hoodie now suspect? It was raining.

This is true. With reasonable force based off the situation. If a person grabs you, you don't get to pummel them on the ground and claim "Stand Your Ground" though. Based off the lack of defensive wounds on Martin (minus the singular gunshot wound), it doesn't appear more than a tussel took place.

So now it's not reasonable force when it's the kid standing up for his ground? But when Zimmerman blows a hole in a kids chest cause he started this mess and got his ass kicked (sake of argument) it's ok? One set of rules for one guy and another for the other?

So it's ok to shoot a kid over a tussel? Over an incident Zimmerman set in motion by following this kid in the first place?

 

[Enzom21]

My argument may not of been stated eloquently. I would never say being discriminated by race or sexual preference is on the same level as being discriminated against for carrying a weapon. The point was that it is not cool to be discriminated against. Period. Ginger, black, white, gun carrier, liberal, felon, single, whatever the reason, it's not cool. My apologies for not making the point eloquently and mincing the words a bit.

That was your argument up until people pointed out how ridiculous it was.

The issue people are having with you in this thread is the fact that you're bending over backwards to give Zimmerman the benefit of the doubt. Yet Trayvon gets none of that.

You said that Trayvon was well within his rights to punch Zimmerman but after that he should have left the confrontation. The problem with that is we don't know if he was able to leave the confrontation.

He could have punch Zimmerman and tried to get away but Zimmerman may have tried to detain him because he got punched.
But you chose to believe that Trayvon decided to stay and pummel based on the word of a liar.

The only thing we know is that there was an altercation, we don't know who started and we don't know if Zimmerman tried to detain Trayvon.

The fact is Trayvon Martin is dead and he was killed by a guy with a history of violence and a weird obsession with law enforcement.

Had Trayvon been anything other than a black male, this whole fiasco would have played out completely different. He wouldn't have been called a "thug" by the racists, the right wing news organizations, and certain gun owners.

The problem wasn't that Zimmerman was a racist it was that Trayvon was black.

If a black man(maybe even a white man) had been following a 17 year old white girl because he thought she was suspicious, called the police, confronted her, then killed her there would be no doubt about his guilt. Even if she pepper sprayed him then kicked him in the groin before he did anything to her she would be given the benefit of the doubt. Because Trayvon was a young black male certain types of people assume that he has to be the aggressor because he's a "thug."

Zimmerman does not deserve any benefit if the doubt because none of this would have happened if he had just kept his wannabe cop ass in the car.

 

[BeFlatLine]

That was your argument up until people pointed out how ridiculous it was.

The issue people are having with you in this thread is the fact that you're bending over backwards to give Zimmerman the benefit of the doubt. Yet Trayvon gets none of that.

You said that Trayvon was well within his rights to punch Zimmerman but after that he should have left the confrontation. The problem with that is we don't know if he was able to leave the confrontation.

He could have punch Zimmerman and tried to get away but Zimmerman may have tried to detain him because he got punched.
But you chose to believe that Trayvon decided to stay and pummel based on the word of a liar.

The only thing we know is that there was an altercation, we don't know who started and we don't know if Zimmerman tried to detain Trayvon.

The fact is Trayvon Martin is dead and he was killed by a guy with a history of violence and a weird obsession with law enforcement.

Had Trayvon been anything other than a black male, this whole fiasco would have played out completely different. He wouldn't have been called a "thug" by the racists, the right wing news organizations, and certain gun owners.

The problem wasn't that Zimmerman was a racist it was that Trayvon was black.

If a black man(maybe even a white man) had been following a 17 year old white girl because he thought she was suspicious, called the police, confronted her, then killed her there would be no doubt about his guilt. Even if she pepper sprayed him then kicked him in the groin before he did anything to her she would be given the benefit of the doubt. Because Trayvon was a young black male certain types of people assume that he has to be the aggressor because he's a "thug."

Zimmerman does not deserve any benefit if the doubt because none of this would have happened if he had just kept his wannabe cop ass in the car.

I'm defending the outcome of the trial and the fact that there has not been enough proof to charge him with anything since the trial. That's it. As I said before, I wish the dude would get charged and disappear for life. He doesn't make gun owners look good at all.

Much like I think Casey Anthony should also get charged for something and disappear for life. That trial I didn't follow as closely, so I can't argue definitively if she did it or not, or if there was enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt . . . but from what I saw, her defense was weak and the prosecution had some pretty hard hitting points.

The system is designed to let 1,000 guilty parties off the hook in exchange for not letting 1 innocent person go to jail. Is it working as intended? Probably not 100%. But I'd rather see a guilty man go free than an innocent be locked up. That's the entire point of this debate.

 

[empty vessel]

Quoting myself above: Last time I spoke to a lawyer on self-defense, it was stated that there's a fine line between self-defense and assault. Continuing an attack while you are on top is considered assault, and no longer self-defense. This may differ in Florida. Either way, without proof of who started the altercation, there is still reasonable doubt.

Are you a lawyer? Can you show where this statement is false?

First, every state has different rules, so it is not possible to be much more specific than to say that the test for self-defense is a belief in imminent harm that is reasonable under all of the circumstances. Second, an important legal principle that you are probably unaware of relevant to self defense is that the initial aggressor who provokes force against himself loses the right to use force unless circumstances substantially change in the way defined by law. The question of whether a person provokes violence against himself is even more open-ended than the question about whether a person's exercise of force is justified as self-defense. Common law gave initial aggressors little refuge, and interpreted provocation very broadly, meaning that if you were the person who interjected yourself in a provocative way into somebody's life who was minding his own business or otherwise would not have used violence against you, then you could not claim self-defense. With the ascendancy of the neo-vigilante movement, that interpretation has begun to narrow somewhat, but it still exists, including in Florida.

So a person who thinks that Zimmerman should have been convicted does not have to establish that Martin reasonably feared imminent harm, even if that person believes Martin initiated the physical confrontation. In short, one need not establish that Martin was exercising self-defense for Zimmerman to have committed murder, even if Martin physically punched Zimmerman first.

I'm defending the outcome of the trial and the fact that there has not been enough proof to charge him with anything since the trial. That's it. As I said before, I wish the dude would get charged and disappear for life. He doesn't make gun owners look good at all.

The outcome of the trial is unreliable, because the trial court erroneously gave jury instructions to the jury that misrepresented self-defense per Florida law. The jury had little choice but to acquit under those erroneous instructions, which were exceedingly favorable to Zimmerman.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

To quote the movie "Way of the Gun": "Karma is justice without the satisfaction, and I don't believe in justice."

The amount of people that get off on technicalities is absolutely disturbing. I don't like when people get off that are probably guilty, but the system is designed in a way that is supposed to keep the innocent out of jail . . . which, hopefully, it does.

And you know what? I can accept that. I really can. What pisses me off are people in this thread that still defend Zimmermans bullshit. That's what annoys me. Because there are a FUCK ton of them out there that assumed because Martin took some shitty urban thugged out picks and hand some fistfights in school and....*gasp* *wince* *tear* smoked reefer that that made him the obvious one who was in the wrong.

The only thing Martin did "wrong" is for one walk to the store he forgot he was Black in America. For one evening he put his guard down and forgot that there are people that will just see him minding his business and assume he is up to no good. Or plotting something. And those people will decide not to simply call the police and let them do their job but just assume it's their place to confront and detain.

That was his only "mistake". He didn't dress "nice" enough. He didn't smile. Speak that Margaret Thatcher English. "What is your boggle, sir?". And the notion that we need to teach our young males to

*Just* while writing this post I got up and went to open my window cause it smells like burnt toast in here (posting while cooking...) and guess what I see: a Black male walking down the street. With sagging pants. And a hoodie. On his phone. Guess what? He kept walking and is minding his business: That's the way it should be. And until such time he does something to justify apprehension he should be left alone.

He doesn't make gun owners look good at all.

This we can 100% agree with. And last time I went to the gun shop I talked to a few guys about this for a long while and they all agreed: You don't conceal carry then approach a stranger like that. If you think he shady you call the cops. We disagreed about everything else, lmao...but we all agreed on that. I want a law like stand your ground. I think it *can* be beneficial. But not if it's applied like this. SYG was supposed to be for when you're driving and someone tries to car jack you. Or when someone comes at you with a machete. Not when you try to play cop and it backfires.

 

[Enzom21]

I'm defending the outcome of the trial and the fact that there has not been enough proof to charge him with anything since the trial. That's it. As I said before, I wish the dude would get charged and disappear for life. He doesn't make gun owners look good at all.

Much like I think Casey Anthony should also get charged for something and disappear for life. That trial I didn't follow as closely, so I can't argue definitively if she did it or not, or if there was enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt . . . but from what I saw, her defense was weak and the prosecution had some pretty hard hitting points.

The system is designed to let 1,000 guilty parties off the hook in exchange for not letting 1 innocent person go to jail. Is it working as intended? Probably not 100%. But I'd rather see a guilty man go free than an innocent be locked up. That's the entire point of this debate.

He doesn't make gun owners look bad, gun owners who defend him make gun owners look bad.

You shouldn't be defending the outcome of the trial either. He killed someone and he should be in prison. You have been assuming that Trayvon was the aggressor here and you have been giving Zimmerman the benefit of the doubt so you have been doing a bit more than defend the out come of the trial.

Plenty of innocent people are sent to prison but Zimmerman isn't one of them, her killed someone and should be in prison.

This we can 100% agree with. And last time I went to the gun shop I talked to a few guys about this for a long while and they all agreed: You don't conceal carry then approach a stranger like that. If you think he shady you call the cops. We disagreed about everything else, lmao...but we all agreed on that. I want a law like stand your ground. I think it *can* be beneficial. But not if it's applied like this. SYG was supposed to be for when you're driving and someone tries to car jack you. Or when someone comes at you with a machete. Not when you try to play cop and it backfires.

I disagree. The gun owners who defend Zimmerman make gun owners look bad. The gun owners who make targets out of Trayvon's silhouette make gun owners look bad. The gunshop owner who took a picture with ZImmerman make gun owners look bad. He has become a hero to some gun owners and that's what makes gun owners look bad, not Zimmerman.

 

[BeFlatLine]

First, every state has different rules, so it is not possible to be much more specific than to say that the test for self-defense is a belief in imminent harm that is reasonable under all of the circumstances. Second, an important legal principle that you are probably unaware of relevant to self defense is that the initial aggressor who provokes force against himself loses the right to use force unless circumstances substantially change in the way defined by law. The question of whether a person provokes violence against himself is even more open-ended than the question about whether a person's exercise of force is justified as self-defense. Common law gave initial aggressors little refuge, and interpreted provocation very broadly, meaning that if you were the person who interjected yourself in a provocative way into somebody's life who was minding his own business or otherwise would not have used violence against you, then you could not claim self-defense. With the ascendancy of the neo-vigilante movement, that interpretation has begun to narrow somewhat, but it still exists, including in Florida.

So a person who thinks that Zimmerman should have been convicted does not have to establish that Martin reasonably feared imminent harm, even if that person believes Martin initiated the physical confrontation. In short, one need not establish that Martin was exercising self-defense for Zimmerman to have committed murder, even if Martin physically punched Zimmerman first.

The outcome of the trial is unreliable, because the trial court erroneously gave jury instructions to the jury that misrepresented self-defense per Florida law. The jury had little choice but to acquit under those erroneous instructions, which were exceedingly favorable to Zimmerman.

Like I said, I'm not a lawyer. I'm not in Florida. But in Michigan, which has Stand Your Ground laws that closely resemble Florida's, I was advised by my lawyer about the fine line between self-defense and becoming an aggressor in a self-defense situation. From their description, it follows the exact premise I outlined earlier and puts Martin as an aggressor instead of self-defense. Am I saying he was absolutely an aggressor? No. I'm saying there's enough evidence to put reasonable doubt into play.

You shouldn't be defending the outcome of the trial either. He killed someone and he should be in prison. You have been assuming that Trayvon was the aggressor here and you have been giving Zimmerman the benefit of the doubt so you have been doing a bit more than defend the out come of the trial.

Plenty of innocent people are sent to prison but Zimmerman isn't one of them, her killed someone and should be in prison.

I have not assumed he is the aggressor. I've assumed it's a POSSIBILITY he was based off corroborating evidence, which casts enough doubt to put reasonable doubt into play.

Many people predicted the outcome of the trial before it happened that are lawyers. The fact that I'm agreeing with them shouldn't be so off putting.

And yes, there have been innocent people thrown in jail. I don't like that. The criminal justice system isn't perfect.

 

[vas_a_morir]

When was this? I know at one point there was false rumors that he had burglary tools found on him after he was killed, but that turned out completely false. Is that what you are referring to?

Partially, although I had forgotten that one. I'm referring to several unsubstantiated/unproven accusations people said about Trayvon. like his use of Purple Drank, marijuana, being suspended from school for suspicion of burglary, possession of stolen goods, fighting and so on. We don't know if it's true or not, yet people used these accusations as proof of a pattern of criminality.

In the same way, we don't KNOW Zimmerman ever committed a violent act, but people use unsubstantiated accusations about Zimmerman made by people with whom he had a strained relationship as a 'history of violence.' To me, for a 'history of violence' to be relevant, I would want to see a documented criminal history. Otherwise, I feel it's not relevant to the court proceedings, and was part of the reason why it was not introduced by the prosecution. People can accuse you of anything. If your GF went crazy and called the police and said you'd beat her, there's a chance you'd be arrested on her word alone. Your only defense against these things is the justice system, and as far as I know, both Trayvon and Zimmerman had no relevant criminal convictions. But, I could be wrong.

 

[Enzom21]

I have not assumed he is the aggressor. I've assumed it's a POSSIBILITY he was based off corroborating evidence, which casts enough doubt to put reasonable doubt into play.

Many people predicted the outcome of the trial before it happened that are lawyers. The fact that I'm agreeing with them shouldn't be so off putting.

That's exactly what you have been doing. You bring up Trayvon's history of fights and smoking weed as some sort of indicator that he most likely was the aggressor but ignore Zimmerman's? Aside from Zimmerman's word what evidence suggests that Trayvon was the aggressor?

Yes Zimmerman got his ass kicked but that only suggests that he lost a fight that he most likely started. A fight that would have never happened if Zimmerman had just left Trayvon Martin alone.

And yes, there have been innocent people thrown in jail. I don't like that. The criminal justice system isn't perfect.

No, the criminal justice system is a nightmare if you're black.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

I disagree. The gun owners who defend Zimmerman make gun owners look bad. The gun owners who make targets out of Trayvon's silhouette make gun owners look bad. The gunshop owner who took a picture with ZImmerman make gun owners look bad. He has become a hero to some gun owners and that's what makes gun owners look bad, not Zimmerman.

Yea, I can agree with this too. Fuck. I remember that bullshit. Thankfully my ranges don't allow pictures of anyone. Just generic sillouettes.

Seeing him at that gun factory was fucking atrocious.

 

[BeFlatLine]

That's exactly what you have been doing. You bring up Trayvon's history of fights and smoking weed as some sort of indicator that he most likely was the aggressor but ignore Zimmerman's? Aside from Zimmerman's word what evidence suggests that Trayvon was the aggressor?

Yes Zimmerman got his ass kicked but that only suggests that he lost a fight that he most likely started. A fight that would have never happened if Zimmerman had just left Trayvon Martin alone.

What part have you missed about the compilation of evidence that I've pointed to that casts "reasonable doubt"? Maybe I need to work on my written word better. I bring it up as casting reasonable doubt, not that he was definitely the aggressor. Some evidence points to him being more the aggressor. Some points to Zimmerman. There is enough conflicting evidence to say "No, I can't charge you as guilty for this crime." And when did I mention him smoking weed? If anything, isn't that counterproductive to proving aggression?

 

[Figboy79]

God damn. This guy is going to kill again...

 

[empty vessel]

A fight that would have never happened if Zimmerman had just left Trayvon Martin alone.

This would be key under common law understandings.

 

[Figboy79]

I find it interesting that you conviently ignore every single bit of evidence that Zimmerman confronted him and Martin tried to defend himself and solely believe the many different stories Zimmerman told. For someone who claims to dislike the man and is only defending him because it's 'reasonable', you sure seem a bit one sided.

Sorry, but if some strange guy with a gun came at me at night after following me, I'd fight for my life too.

The big difference, Fiction, and forgive me for saying, is that you have two things in your favor:

1) You are a female.
2) You are very pretty.

If some creeper like George Zimmerman was following you at night, harassed, you, and then shot you dead, and claimed self defense, he'd be in jail right now. Instead, his victim was a young black male, and so he's given every benefit of the doubt concerning "how things went down." His take on events is seen as "reasonable," and "well, there's no way Trayvon would have been scared, because, well, black power and stuff." You have people going through crazy mental gymnastics in their attempt to rationalize why a young male who doesn't have a history of violence or aggressive behavior, would suddenly turn into Sam Jackson in Pulp Fiction at the drop of a hat.

If you were Zimmerman's victim, because of double standards in society, no one would ever believe his tale of being jumped from behind by a young female.

It's absurd that this guy is still free, and is going to hurt/kill someone else. If not his new girlfriend, then someone else. At this point, I'm convinced he thinks he's untouchable.

 

[User 100115]

The big difference, Fiction, and forgive me for saying, is that you have two things in your favor:

1) You are a female.
2) You are very pretty.

If some creeper like George Zimmerman was following you at night, harassed, you, and then shot you dead, and claimed self defense, he'd be in jail right now. Instead, his victim was a young black male, and so he's given every benefit of the doubt concerning "how things went down." His take on events is seen as "reasonable," and "well, there's no way Trayvon would have been scared, because, well, black power and stuff." You have people going through crazy mental gymnastics in their attempt to rationalize why a young male who doesn't have a history of violence or aggressive behavior, would suddenly turn into Sam Jackson in Pulp Fiction at the drop of a hat.

If you were Zimmerman's victim, because of double standards in society, no one would ever believe his tale of being jumped from behind by a young female.

It's absurd that this guy is still free, and is going to hurt/kill someone else. If not his new girlfriend, then someone else. At this point, I'm convinced he thinks he's untouchable.

I was trying to make people think how they would react in such a situation, since not everyone knows I am female heh.

 

[Figboy79]

I was trying to make people think how they would react in such a situation, since not everyone knows I am female heh.

Doh!

Sorry! Lol.

I think most of us would have been fucking freaked out, regardless of gender, if we were being followed in a vehicle, so we move off the road where the vehicle can't follow, and that person gets out of the fucking vehicle and continues to follow us.

At that point, I think a reasonable person would be preparing to defend themselves from a potential kidnapper/rapist/robber/killer.

The fact that Trayvon just turned 17, and was a kid, gets overlooked continuously by the adults looking at the situation through adult eyes. I remember what I was like at age 16/17. I would have been scared shitless. Black people do get scared. Shocking, I know.

 

[vas_a_morir]

I was trying to make people think how they would react in such a situation, since not everyone knows I am female heh.

Fiction
Stranger than a lot of things.
(Today, 05:14 PM)

 

[Enzom21]

What part have you missed about the compilation of evidence that I've pointed to that casts "reasonable doubt"? Maybe I need to work on my written word better. I bring it up as casting reasonable doubt, not that he was definitely the aggressor. Some evidence points to him being more the aggressor. Some points to Zimmerman. There is enough conflicting evidence to say "No, I can't charge you as guilty for this crime." And when did I mention him smoking weed? If anything, isn't that counterproductive to proving aggression?

It casts only "reasonable doubt" because that's what you're looking for. You say there is no evidence that Trayvon threw the first punch or started the altercation but you believe he did because that fits your characterization of him.

What evidence points to him being more of the aggressor, other than his texts about fighting, smoking weed and being black?

 

[User 100115]

Doh!

Sorry! Lol.

I think most of us would have been fucking freaked out, regardless of gender, if we were being followed in a vehicle, so we move off the road where the vehicle can't follow, and that person gets out of the fucking vehicle and continues to follow us.

At that point, I think a reasonable person would be preparing to defend themselves from a potential kidnapper/rapist/robber/killer.

The fact that Trayvon just turned 17, and was a kid, gets overlooked continuously by the adults looking at the situation through adult eyes. I remember what I was like at age 16/17. I would have been scared shitless. Black people do get scared. Shocking, I know.

People like to pretend they are invincible, and they would survive an otherwise dire situation because they are wittier and stronger than the general population.

Fiction
Stranger than a lot of things.
(Today, 05:14 PM)

Every time I start to think it's common knowledge at this point...

 

[vas_a_morir]

girls don't really exist on internets LOL amirite

There are plenty of women on the internet. That's a bit of an outdated generalization.

 

[Figboy79]

People like to pretend they are invincible, and they would survive an otherwise dire situation because they are wittier and stronger than the general population.



Every time I start to think it's common knowledge at this point...

Especially on the internet. We're all just a bunch of badasses in here...

 

[Killing_Joke]

It's baffling anyone can take his side in the Trayvon shooting. It's like the people who stick up for Casey even though she was partying up less than a couple of weeks after her baby supposedly drowned. It's bizarre how anyone can just drop all common sense to support these idiots.