Trayvon Martin

[WildGunsTomcat]

Originally Posted by Warborn

Or maybe there's another reason why I might think poorly of a man who chased down an unarmed teenager and shot him to death with a pistol. Or do you suppose all the Americans who agree with my sentiment are themselves... non-American? Honestly I'm not sure why where I'm from makes any difference. Is there a place on the planet where it's a fine thing for men to go around shooting boys because they think they're suspicious?

Good God Warborn...you just keep jumping over the fact that Zimmerman was attacked by this man. I'm not going to call him a kid because he was almost 18 and almost 3 feet taller than Zimmerman.

I'm sorry you don't quite understand it, and that's okay...but in this country you have the right in some states to defend yourself from being attacked with deadly force. If someone is on top of me attacking me, like this kid supposedly was according to two witnesses and police evidence...I have the legal right to put a bullet in them.

How is this a hard concept to understand?

It's mostly the non-americans and soft liberal types that are arguing against this....and saying that it MUST be a racial profiling thing and that Zimmerman was stalking him.

When the evidence and witness testimony does not corroborate that viewpoint at all.

So at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter to anyone if you think poorly of this man. This man was legally well within his rights to use his sidearm to stop from being attacked.

Is there a place on the planet where it's a fine thing for men to go around shooting boys because they think they're suspicious?

And this is absolute unsubstantiated rubbish. You're trying to make it seem like Zimmerman was following this kid around with the express intent to shoot him, when again...the evidence doesn't support it. It's adding fuel to the fire that "Zimmerman saw a black kid and was obviously racist because he said "These assholes always get away with this" and that he might have said "Coon" on a 911 recording that was so garbled as to be laughable...so that's all the evidence we need to convict him of wrongdoing in the court of public opinion." Rubbish. Pure Rubbish with no basis in fact other than it jives with your own personal ethos and social viewpoint.

Is your entire argument to be based around innuendo and straw men?

[TheSHiFT]

Originally Posted by Hamma

Innocent until proven guilty.

Zimmerman admitted to killing Martin. Zimmerman claims self-defense. Self-defense is an affirmative defense, the burden of proof shifts to Zimmerman. However, Flordia's SYG law is so terrible, whoever lives through an altercation can use self-defense as an immunity to trial! Total bullshit.

[TheSHiFT]

Originally Posted by WildGunsTomcat

Good God Warborn...you just keep jumping over the fact that Zimmerman was attacked by this man. I'm not going to call him a kid because he was almost 18 and almost 3 feet taller than Zimmerman.

Where is the evidence that MARTIN wasn't standing his ground from Zimmerman?

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force.

[Malorn]

Meh.

[TheSHiFT]

And that makes it justifiable homicide? Because he failed to defend himself?

[Malorn]

Meh.

[TheSHiFT]

Looks like you are not understanding me. There is a probability that Martin had reasonable belief to defend himself against Zimmerman. Now because Martin failed to do so, does that make his death a justifiable homicide?

[Baneblade]

If Martin were alive and Zimmerman dead, none of us would know who either of them are.

[CutterJohn]

Quote from another place on this topic..

As a gun owner, you have to be cool-headed, moreso than the police ever have to be.

And you do not ever run around pretending to be the police while carrying a gun because then shit like this can happen.

You do not start shit, act aggressively, flip the bird, roll your eyes, talk shit, or even raise your voice. To anyone. Ever.

A combat instructor (who happened to be Buddhist and a Marine) once said to me: "From now on, when dealing with (ed.) crazy / possibly violent people, you will lose every argument. You are always wrong. You are sorry for impinging on their day. You will apologize and apologize again. You will back the fuck down. You will put your tail between your legs. You will let them talk shit about your ladyfriend. You will let them call your mother a bitch and a whore and your dad a bastard. You have no ego. "

"You do all this because if you are the one to start a fight, by default that fight now has a gun in it, and if you start losing, you're going to pull it and kill him. And even if you don't go to jail because you could convince the jury that it was self-defense, you're going to have to live with the fact that you could have saved someone's life and yet you let your ego kill someone."

"You are not the police, so don't act like them. Though all of you [civilians] are better shots than the police, you do not have the training, the continuum of force policy, or a union plus free lawyers protecting you if you screw up."
ed: He also said: "but after backing down and trying to apologize, if at any time you then feel your life or that of a loved one is in danger, put three rounds into his [cardiothoracic] vault, call the police, give a statement, go home, and sleep like a baby. You did all you could for your attacker, and he was the one that made the final decision to kill himself."

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Hamma

Innocent until proven guilty.

"Probable cause". If it is established the guy killed, that's enough probable cause for me. Why he killed is IMO to be established in court (a case has to be made by both sides).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probable_cause

Innocence until proven guilty is fine, but that doesn't mean you should walk by default as long as you claim self-defense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_self-defense

Most of the above goes on about US application. Now, it seems to me that even in the US law, there should be a clear indication of threat to own life. Not just protection against bruises and some superficial wounds, in order to justify lethal force.

You should also have done all you can to evade hurt, including having no place to retreat to, correct? And with the castle law thing, that is defined as your own house, not your own neighbourhood.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doctrine

Which ironically is NOT of American origin, but British. So please drop the "you foreigners don't understand anything" routine, please. It's stupid and insulting. Anyway:

Conditions of use

Each state differs in the way it incorporates the castle doctrine into its laws, what premises are covered (abode only, or other places too), what degree of retreat or non-deadly resistance is required before deadly force can be used, etc.

Typical conditions that apply to some Castle Doctrine laws include[citation needed]:

1. An intruder must be making (or have made) an attempt to unlawfully or forcibly enter an occupied residence, business or vehicle.
2. The intruder must be acting illegally—the Castle Doctrine does not give the right to attack, for example, officers of the law acting in the course of their legal duties
3. The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to inflict serious bodily harm or death upon an occupant of the home
4. In some states, the occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to commit some lesser felony, such as arson or burglary
5. The occupant(s) of the home must not have provoked or instigated an intrusion, or provoked or instigated an intruder to threaten or use deadly force
6. The occupant(s) of the home may be required to attempt to exit the house or otherwise retreat (this is called the "Duty to retreat" and most self-defense statutes referred to as examples of "Castle Doctrine" expressly state that the homeowner has no such duty)

In all cases, the occupant(s) of the home must be there legally, must not be fugitives from the law or aiding or abetting another person in being a fugitive from the law, and must not use force upon an officer of the law performing a legal duty

So let's see:

1. Not applicable.
2. Not applicable.
3. No an occupant of home, but Zimmerman claims to serious impending bodily harm.
4. Me thinks this might apply, in terms of Zimmerman believing so, but you'd think more than a mere suspicion is required? Paranoid people would always have an excuse?
5. It is at the very least possible Zimmerman provoked a response and instigated the incident by following / stalking Martin if Martin felt threatened. If Martin had legal authority to attack Zimmerman is something completely different. It is not know if or why Martin would have attacked Zimmerman.
6. Considering he was in the middle of the a neighbourhood, he had the chance to retreat. You could argue he was doing so by returning to his car (the car in some laws is considered to fall under the castle).

So basically, what Zimmerman needs is the Stand-your-ground law to appeal to #6.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law

That could provide him with immunity from arrest and prosecution. So in the strictest sense of the laws available, Malorn and co. could be right that he should not be prosecuted. This though depends on the exact wording of the state law.

One would think that there has to be sufficient reason for a self-defense claim. And that too entirely depends on interpretation of events. If you look at the actual Florida clause:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-y...nd_law#Florida

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

Here the problem is "reasonably believes". What is reasonable? And doesn't this shift the burden of proof to the claimant since this is the person who made the judgement on what was reasonable?

And as others have said, what would have been the reason for Martin to initiate an attack, which all depends on what actually happened (which is word against no word). Would it be possible he felt threatened by Zimmerman? Did Zimmerman block his escape route? Did Martin believe Zimmerman was the guy who was suspicious and did HE try to subdue Zimmerman for whatever reason, without wanting to resort to deadly force or great bodily harm?

Was Martin armed? No. Was it likely he'd have won a fist fight? When did Zimmerman actually pull his gun? What were their respective positions? Is it reasonable to assume Zimmerman had no other options left for self-defense? There are a lot of questions to be answered IMO before you can make someone immune to prosecution.

Etc. etc.

[Warborn]

Originally Posted by WildGunsTomcat

Good God Warborn...you just keep jumping over the fact that Zimmerman was attacked by this man. I'm not going to call him a kid because he was almost 18 and almost 3 feet taller than Zimmerman.

The only person who claims that Martin attacked Zimmerman is Zimmerman. The only reason anyone believes that a kid with no record and packing Skittles and iced tea would randomly attempt to kill someone in the neighborhood he was staying with his dad in is because of a reason unrelated to reality. Zimmerman's story is horseshit. It makes no sense whatsoever, and is in contrast with the events the girl Zimmerman was on the phone with describes.

Originally Posted by Sobekeus

If Martin were alive and Zimmerman dead, none of us would know who either of them are.

Yes, we are aware that people like Al Sharpton and groups like the NAACP exist to ensure that someone advocates against injustice for a demographic that has a long history of being the victim of injustice.


Also: http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/...ific-certainty

"Trayvon Martin shooting: It's not George Zimmerman crying for help on 911 recording, 2 experts say"

If this goes to trial he's fucked.

[Hamma]

I'll just leave this right here (again)

[Firefly]

So because the kid has tattoos and smoked a little weed that makes him the aggressor? That's the stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard.

[Hamma]

No.

But 90% of the people in this thread want to convict the guy when they know nothing about it other than what the bias media is feeding them.

The bias media reporting of this entire situation is "the stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard." to use your eloquent method of communication...

I'm not saying either dude is right or wrong. But I hope that if Zimmerman is found wrong he goes to jail for it. He gives all gun owners a bad name and gives the douches at the Brady campaign a new spotlight for a few months.

[WildGunsTomcat]

Originally Posted by Warborn

The only person who claims that Martin attacked Zimmerman is Zimmerman. The only reason anyone believes that a kid with no record and packing Skittles and iced tea would randomly attempt to kill someone in the neighborhood he was staying with his dad in is because of a reason unrelated to reality. Zimmerman's story is horseshit. It makes no sense whatsoever, and is in contrast with the events the girl Zimmerman was on the phone with describes.



Yes, we are aware that people like Al Sharpton and groups like the NAACP exist to ensure that someone advocates against injustice for a demographic that has a long history of being the victim of injustice.


Also: http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/...ific-certainty

"Trayvon Martin shooting: It's not George Zimmerman crying for help on 911 recording, 2 experts say"

If this goes to trial he's fucked.

So Warborn.....you just ignore the fucking witness testimony at the scene...on the ground... in favor of a girl's testimony that was on the phone?

Remind me never to make you a federal judge.

Two witnesses have come forward to say that it was Zimmerman screaming help while Martin was on top of him hitting him in the face.

I love how you keep ignoring these facts. Even the police have stated that the scene was consistent with Zimmerman's story...but you still ignore it in favor of your anti-gun, Zimmerman was a racist stance.

Hilarious.

I think you should read this before you continue your bullshit rant about how injustice was done. Educate yourself please.

Link To News Story

Also, I know it's from a Fox Affiliate...sorry...you'll just have to put your bias aside for a second to absorb some fucking facts about this case before you continue.