Trayvon Martin

[Accuser]

Originally Posted by ItsTheSheppy

I don't think you're fully up to speed on the details of the case.

Witness saw Martin on top of Zimmerman slamming his head into the ground. Martin is fatally shot.

No matter how big of an idiot or liar Zimmerman is, that alone pretty much wraps this up.

[WildGunsTomcat]

Originally Posted by Accuser

Witness saw Martin on top of Zimmerman slamming his head into the ground. Martin is fatally shot.

No matter how big of an idiot or liar Zimmerman is, that alone pretty much wraps this up.

Yup.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Accuser

Witness saw Martin on top of Zimmerman slamming his head into the ground. Martin is fatally shot.

No matter how big of an idiot or liar Zimmerman is, that alone pretty much wraps this up.

Did the witness see why? Because clearly, people get jumped and attacked for no reason whatsoever?

[Accuser]

Originally Posted by Figment

Did the witness see why? Because clearly, people get jumped and attacked for no reason whatsoever?

I know right? Because clearly, people get shot in a movie theater for no reason whatsoever. The next time my face is being smashed into the ground, I'll be sure to ask the assailant why he's doing it before I bother defending myself. I mean, maybe he just saw a bug on the back of my head and he's trying to crush it with my skull.

Whether Zimmerman had a bug on the back of his head or not, he had every right to defend himself. One less aggressor in the world, maybe one less bug too?

[Warborn]

Originally Posted by Accuser

Witness saw Martin on top of Zimmerman slamming his head into the ground. Martin is fatally shot.

No matter how big of an idiot or liar Zimmerman is, that alone pretty much wraps this up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shootin...tness_accounts

There are numerous accounts describing different versions of the same event, some with Martin atop Zimmerman, others vice-versa. Nobody claims to have seen Zimmerman having his head hit against the ground.

All of Zimmerman's injury claims were thrown out by the lead homicide investigator. Martin's hands had only a single small abrasion on them, while Zimmerman claimed to have been hit "20 - 30 times" in the face by Martin. The back of Zimmerman's head had superficial scratches on it, while the investigator mentions that people who get their heads hit against cement repeatedly end up severely injured. And Zimmerman claimed that he was both screaming for help and being suffocated at the same time, which would be impossible and considering the calls for help go right up until the single shot is fired, the investigators were not convinced.

Honestly, this stuff is freely available. They've released the witness recordings. They've released the interrogation tapes. You can see Zimmerman doing the re-enactment. Why would you bother making assertions about the event that are obviously untrue when it'd be so simple to see what the actual evidence is with a couple keystrokes?

[Accuser]

Originally Posted by Warborn

Honestly, this stuff is freely available. They've released the witness recordings. They've released the interrogation tapes. You can see Zimmerman doing the re-enactment. Why would you bother making assertions about the event that are obviously untrue when it'd be so simple to see what the actual evidence is with a couple keystrokes?

The witness statements are "obviously untrue"? I'm more than willing to let this play out in court (which is where these things should be, rather than at the center of a media circus), but conflicting witness testimony certainly makes "reasonable doubt" pretty easy to achieve.

When a witness says that Martin had Zimmerman pinned and was assaulting him moments before the shooting, it's tough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was the aggressor.

[Warborn]

The witness statements are contradictory, and none of them ever said they saw Zimmerman's head being hit into the ground. So that claim that you made, that witnesses saw his head being hit in such a way, is false.

Zimmerman has provided multiple accounts of the events that night, has a violent past, and claims an unarmed child, alone, with no violent tendencies himself, attempted to kill him after running away from Zimmerman in the first place. As probable as it is that Zimmerman's story that Martin attacked him is yet another lie, it will be tough to prove that Zimmerman acted in a murder 2 fashion, but the good news is that in Florida he could still be nailed for manslaughter even if murder 2 doesn't stick. Manslaughter is what the homicide investigator, Detective Serino, wanted to charge him with initially anyway, and seems more appropriate to be honest.

[Accuser]

Originally Posted by Warborn

As probable as it is that Zimmerman's story that Martin attacked him is yet another lie, it will be tough to prove that Zimmerman acted in a murder 2 fashion, but the good news is that in Florida he could still be nailed for manslaughter even if murder 2 doesn't stick. Manslaughter is what the homicide investigator, Detective Serino, wanted to charge him with initially anyway, and seems more appropriate to be honest.

My point is that it's basically impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman acted criminally here. Sure, there's a laundry list of bad decisions, lies, and stupidity on his part... but none of that can prove his guilt. I think the charge of murder 2 was a strategic bluff. They won't be able to convict on that, but they may be able to pressure him into a plea deal to avoid the scary (though low) possibility of conviction.

[Malorn]

Meh.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Malorn

Wonder how long it'll take Accuser to realize that Warborn is not a rational person.

Wonder how long it takes before you realise that Accuser isn't being realistic but biased.

Considering you're biased too, probably long.

[Warborn]

Originally Posted by Accuser

My point is that it's basically impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman acted criminally here. Sure, there's a laundry list of bad decisions, lies, and stupidity on his part... but none of that can prove his guilt. I think the charge of murder 2 was a strategic bluff. They won't be able to convict on that, but they may be able to pressure him into a plea deal to avoid the scary (though low) possibility of conviction.

I don't know much about Florida murder prosecution so I have no idea what Angela Corey and her team are actually expecting. Maybe they think they can make murder 2 stick. Maybe they're hoping, as you say, to intimidate him into pleading to manslaughter. I don't know.

But there is also essentially no evidence that Zimmerman's life was actually in danger. His injuries were 100% superficial, and given the amount of lying he's done I find his story that this kind just up and tried to murder him one night. That isn't something people like Trayvon attempt to do without serious provocation.

So, whatever Zimmerman is guilty of will come out during the trial next year. At this point I'm content to say he's guilty of killing a kid under ambiguous circumstances, and his past and currently ongoing behaviour suggests he's not someone to be trusted. So, like with OJ, even though the verdict hasn't come down yet, the evidence seems pretty clearly stacked in one direction. Although that doesn't mean I'm contending Zimmerman is guilty of murder 2 as the prosecution is charging him with.

[Firefly]

Wow. I go away for a month or two, and I find a thirty-three page thread in Political Debate talking about the same two fucking things over and over and over. For thirty-three pages.

Fucking unreal.

[SecSRaven]

Originally Posted by DjEclipse

This case has made me reevaluate stand your ground. I now view it as bad law.

There is a very visible exploit in this law, where the assailant is the troublemaker, plus, the one claiming stand your ground.

NY has it right in that you are obligated to walk away first. I think a law like that is even more important in states where ccw is popular. Two people having a bad day and they are both ccw and neither is willing to walk away from trouble..

Most laws are bad. However, there is a law that at least allows you to defend yourself without fear of going to jail for it (If the evidence definitively points towards self-defense). Which is a real possibility in some states. The law being bad because might be able to exploit it and thus getting rid of that law because of it throws another question into the mix. Should it be done with every law.. say unemployment, Social Security etc. Unfortunately there is no video evidence in this case however... a great example of the stand your ground law can be found
As for the 'Walk away' first rule.. like hell you are going to walk away from someone that is robbing you, threatening your life with a weapon themselves or any situation where your life is in danger. Different actions for different situations.

[SecSRaven]

Originally Posted by DjEclipse

Fyi, Grandpa's self defense actions are protected by New York law. You don't
have to walk away from a crime being committed against you.

Walk away first simply means you can't be a troublemaker. There is an exploit
in stand your ground law in that you can be a troublemaker + claim SYG.

We shall see if that is the case with Zimmerman. It's not an exploit if you commit a crime and then claim SYG (*Claim and actually SYG are two separate things.. which is why Zimmerman is on trial now). That law doesn't protect criminals doing criminal acts.

[Warborn]

Doesn't the fact that that Zimmerman was arrested and is being charged for 2nd degree murder mean that Stand Your Ground no longer applies? That's what the grand jury business was all about, wasn't it? People to whom SYG applies are immune from prosecution, according to the way the law seems to be written.