twa Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 What about Treyvon's civil rights? In order for this to be reasonable, George has the right to accost an individual at his own discretion. Once the situation escalates his previous actions are oblivious to the outcome. So it's Treyvon fault that George decided to approach him? None of it makes sense. How can you start an altercation, cause some ones death, and be completely exonerated? Evidence or not, none of this would have happened if George just left Treyvon alone. everyone has the right to peacefully accost another in a public place. it would not have happened if M stayed home, went straight home after confronting Z....or dozens of other options.(the burden is not on one side to avoid another be it Z or M) you can ask the Feds about his civil rights since they investigated in depth and still no charges(despite a low need of(proof of) a violation) exoneration comes from presenting a affirmative self defense case....which he did, and the lack of any proof he acted outside the law what he did was foolish,not illegal(from the evidence available) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sacase Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 What about Treyvon's civil rights? In order for this to be reasonable, George has the right to accost an individual at his own discretion. Once the situation escalates his previous actions are oblivious to the outcome. So it's Treyvon fault that George decided to approach him? None of it makes sense. How can you start an altercation, cause some ones death, and be completely exonerated? Evidence or not, none of this would have happened if George just left Treyvon alone. The problem with your reasoning is that its not illegal to approach someone. I can approach anyone I want in public. Hell, I can even ask them questions. I can't impede their progress nor assault them. Now this is where things get murky. We don't know who put hands on who first. However, that matters little in this case as Martin escalated the situation to a point that Zimmerman felt his life was threatened. At that point he had the ability to protect his life. Whether you agree or not, it is obvious Zimmerman had wounds to the back of his head and face. That in itself is enough to justify his actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 The problem with your reasoning is that its not illegal to approach someone. I can approach anyone I want in public. Hell, I can even ask them questions. I can't impede their progress nor assault them. Now this is where things get murky. We don't know who put hands on who first. However, that matters little in this case as Martin escalated the situation to a point that Zimmerman felt his life was threatened. At that point he had the ability to protect his life. Whether you agree or not, it is obvious Zimmerman had wounds to the back of his head and face. That in itself is enough to justify his actions. Wait, what? Ok, imagine this scenario. I go into a bar. I pick a fight. I take a swing at someone and I miss. He wheels around, punches me in the snout and I get a nosebleed. I whip out the gat and gun him down. Are my actions justified? After all, I have wounds and he doesn't. I have always said that there was not enough evidence to convict Zimmerman in a court of law beyond a reasonable doubt. But likewise, there sure as hell isn't enough evidence to say his actions were justified either, since none of us know for sure what his actions actually were. The more I see how Zimmerman operates, his anger problems, his stupidity.... the more I come to believe that he caused the fracas. He was acquitted and I'm fine with that, but justifying his actions is getting harder and harder to accept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 Wait, what? Ok, imagine this scenario. I go into a bar. I pick a fight. I take a swing at someone and I miss. He wheels around, punches me in the snout and I get a nosebleed. I whip out the gat and gun him down. Are my actions justified? After all, I have wounds and he doesn't. I have always said that there was not enough evidence to convict Zimmerman in a court of law beyond a reasonable doubt. But likewise, there sure as hell isn't enough evidence to say his actions were justified either, since none of us know for sure what his actions actually were. The more I see how Zimmerman operates, his anger problems, his stupidity.... the more I come to believe that he caused the fracas. He was acquitted and I'm fine with that, but justifying his actions is getting harder and harder to accept. Can you legally carry in this bar?.....if not you are already in trouble examples like that are fun though, especially if ya are in a state with a duty to retreat .....in which case you would have to justify striking the guy that swung at ya and missed instead of retreating. lot of odd laws that vary by area, pretty sure if carrying a gun in a bar is a felony in Florida then ya would have a much higher bar to asserting self defense. Z does seem a stupid turd, but that is nothing new....or criminal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 Can you legally carry in this bar?.....if not you are already in trouble examples like that are fun though, especially if ya are in a state with a duty to retreat .....in which case you would have to justify striking the guy that swung at ya and missed instead of retreating. lot of odd laws that vary by area, pretty sure if carrying a gun in a bar is a felony in Florida then ya would have a much higher bar to asserting self defense. Z does seem a stupid turd, but that is nothing new....or criminal For the 30th time, I agree that he should not have been criminally convicted. So stop garbling everything up and let it go. The fact that Z is a stupid turd - not just a stupid turd but a stupid, impulsive, violent turd - makes me think it likely that his story of what happened is crap, and he is the root cause for the confrontation that led to Martin's death. That his actions almost assuredly were not justified. That he was not jumped, out of the blue, by a teenage thug. That he is morally responsible for the death, even if not proven so legally. Absent further evidence, I will continue to believe this in the same manner that I believe OJ Simpson shot Nichole Brown. When people try to say that it has been "proven" that Zimmerman's "actions were justified," I will just shake my head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 Wait, what? Ok, imagine this scenario. I go into a bar. I pick a fight. I take a swing at someone and I miss. He wheels around, punches me in the snout and I get a nosebleed. I whip out the gat and gun him down. Are my actions justified? After all, I have wounds and he doesn't. I have always said that there was not enough evidence to convict Zimmerman in a court of law beyond a reasonable doubt. But likewise, there sure as hell isn't enough evidence to say his actions were justified either, since none of us know for sure what his actions actually were. The more I see how Zimmerman operates, his anger problems, his stupidity.... the more I come to believe that he caused the fracas. He was acquitted and I'm fine with that, but justifying his actions is getting harder and harder to accept. I know these laws vary from state to state, but in VA that wouldn't fly. You're required to make every effort to deescalate the situation/remove yourself from the situation before using deadly force as self defense. You throwing the first punch kind of eliminates that. You'd likely be arrested, tried, and convicted of murder. The real problem is you've laid out a case with clear, indisputable facts, which the Zimmerman case didn't have. Not to mention Florida has different laws than VA when it comes to this stuff, and I'm not well versed in them. But I agree with you, generally speaking - you lose your right to self defense when you escalate the situation. I don't know if I'm biased because that's the rules I'm obligated to follow, or if I like the rules I'm obligated to follow because I think they make sense. But Florida works differently. Everything that came out after the case re: Zimmerman has confirmed what I thought from the start - there's something wrong with him and he likely contributed to the death of Martin. Martin's still an idiot for attacking him, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sacase Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 Wait, what? Ok, imagine this scenario. I go into a bar. I pick a fight. I take a swing at someone and I miss. He wheels around, punches me in the snout and I get a nosebleed. I whip out the gat and gun him down. Are my actions justified? After all, I have wounds and he doesn't. No because he didn't put you in a position that you had legitimate concern for your life. Its not about fighting. Its about taking actions during the fight that escalate it into a life and death situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chachie Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 I have always said that there was not enough evidence to convict Zimmerman in a court of law beyond a reasonable doubt. But likewise, there sure as hell isn't enough evidence to say his actions were justified either, since none of us know for sure what his actions actually were. The more I see how Zimmerman operates, his anger problems, his stupidity.... the more I come to believe that he caused the fracas. He was acquitted and I'm fine with that, but justifying his actions is getting harder and harder to accept. This is the video GZ made right after the incident and before he went to court. He changed elements of his story when he got to court, but he basically details in this video that he followed Trayvon into a courtyard. This courtyard only had one way out... and Zimmerman was blocking it. Anyway, this video is GZ's side of the story only... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PX1sxARNq_c Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 No because he didn't put you in a position that you had legitimate concern for your life. Its not about fighting. Its about taking actions during the fight that escalate it into a life and death situation. How do you know that Predicto wasn't in fear of his life? Maybe Predicto had never been hit like that before and thought the guy would hit him again? Pretty easy to claim you are concerned you were scared for your life. He could have knocked me down my head hits the bar and it would have been all over. My life was in danger. It was self-defense, man! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 This is the video GZ made right after the incident and before he went to court. He changed elements of his story when he got to court, but he basically details in this video that he followed Trayvon into a courtyard. This courtyard only had one way out... and Zimmerman was blocking it. there was clearly more than one way out,not even including the home he was staying at.(which he had ample time to reach if he so desired) For the 30th time, I agree that he should not have been criminally convicted. So stop garbling everything up and let it go. T I'm not the one not letting it go and alleging things with no proof. Pretty easy to claim you are concerned you were scared for your life. He could have knocked me down my head hits the bar and it would have been all over. My life was in danger. It was self-defense, man! which is why they use the reasonable standard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slateman Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 How dunny/ironic/twisted would it be if he gets convicted and then gets murdered when he gets out because he didn't have his CCW anymore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chachie Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 there was clearly more than one way out,not even including the home he was staying at.(which he had ample time to reach if he so desired) I'm not even sure this statement makes sense, twa. He was on his way back to the home he was staying at when GZ rolled up in his car and began following him. He ducked into the courtyard to get away from a stranger that was literally stalking him without announcing their "neighborhood watch" status. GZ followed him to the courtyard and by his own description of where he was standing when they encountered each other, George's back was to the sidewalk out and Trayvon's back was to the courtyard. Now- Still no announcement from GZ that he's on neighborhood watch. In Martin's mind, he's the one standing his ground and from there the tragic decision is made to "man up" and fight Zimmerman. The case played out and anyone supporting martin (despite his own questionable background) simply loses here. Nothing is going to be changed. Zimmerman's yellow flag was picked up from the field of play. However, I think it's important for us all to imagine for a moment that one of our neighbors has suddenly taken it upon themselves to become the guardian of our street or small community. A fine intent on the surface, sure. Over time though, we notice that this guardian does not announce his intent to passers-thru or perhaps even to neighbors he doesn't recognize. He simply follows them from boundary to boundary with a concealed weapon. Zimmerman is a dangerous little turd that none of you want in your zip code. I think that's what this thread is about. Arguments over the legal precedents and proceedings belong in the old thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 there was clearly more than one way out,not even including the home he was staying at.(which he had ample time to reach if he so desired) Admiring the way that Zimm leaving his car so he could pursue a Martin (who's trying to avoid a confrontation) is completely irrelevent. (Because pursuing him isn't ILLEGAL). But Martin failing to go home by the fastest method possible, is both terribly important and relevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 So did he throw a wine bottle at his girlfriend? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 I'm not even sure this statement makes sense, twa. what makes no sense is claiming he was trapped when there were multiple other exits Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boobiemiles Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 The problem with your reasoning is that its not illegal to approach someone. I can approach anyone I want in public. Hell, I can even ask them questions. I can't impede their progress nor assault them. Now this is where things get murky. We don't know who put hands on who first. However, that matters little in this case as Martin escalated the situation to a point that Zimmerman felt his life was threatened. At that point he had the ability to protect his life. Whether you agree or not, it is obvious Zimmerman had wounds to the back of his head and face. That in itself is enough to justify his actions See this is what I am saying. How do you know Zimmerman didn't get those wounds before, or inflicted them himself. It's clear Zimmerman wanted to take the law in his own hands. The 9-11 operator told him to chill. But he wants to be Wyatt Earp, and someone got shot. Zimmerman had the deadly weapon, not Treyvon. Zimmerman didn't want to hear anyone but himself, and a child got killed. Again how do you initiate an altercation, kill someone and get off? What is to prevent this from happening again? Zimmerman wasn't the police. He had no identification saying he was law enforcement. If I am walking through a neighborhood, and some one stops me, do they have the right to accost me just because they want to. Who is held accountable? I am never coming to Florida, and I think the good people of Florida wants it that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 See this is what I am saying. How do you know Zimmerman didn't get those wounds before, or inflicted them himself. Well, just my opinion, but the witness who saw somebody getting his head slammed into the concrete does lend some extra credibility. It's clear Zimmerman wanted to take the law in his own hands. Maybe to you. Certainly not to me. (Nor, I suspect, to a very large majority of everybody else.) Again how do you initiate an altercation, kill someone and get off? Well, from where I sit in the cheap seats, turning the guy you killed into the Bad Guy seems to be an important part of the formula. (It also seems to help a lot if you're white, and he's black.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 It's sad that Larry is right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 Well, from where I sit in the cheap seats, turning the guy you killed into the Bad Guy seems to be an important part of the formula. (It also seems to help a lot if you're white, and he's black.) any evidence he was not the bad guy? you can certainly play the race card and it seems to help when you ignore facts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chachie Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 what makes no sense is claiming he was trapped when there were multiple other exits I wasn't claiming he was trapped at all. We know he wasn't trapped by the way he stomped a mud hole in Zimmerman's face. It's about confrontational positioning. The courtyard was to his back. No path behind him as it was all apartment buildings. A "u-shaped" building, if you will. If he were to walk out, it was going to be over this stranger who stalked him here with no announcement of his "watch" status and posted up between Trayvon and the sidewalk out. It's being proverbially cornered and it's a legitimately scary spot for anyone walking home. Therefore, for you to say he had numerous ways out just doesn't make sense. He had one way out and by GZ's own testimony, it was the sidewalk George was occupying. I'm out until the next incident, which should be about 5-6 weeks. You stand by your man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 Interesting how it seems that the call with the GF is completely dismissed. Somehow her testimony is irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 I'm not the one not letting it go and alleging things with no proof. We do have proof (of sorts) we have a pattern of behavior. We know how this guy responds to stress and that he is prone to volatile behaviors. We can now add that into our calculus at least as far as the question of "confrontation" goes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 I wasn't claiming he was trapped at all. We know he wasn't trapped by the way he stomped a mud hole in Zimmerman's face. It's about confrontational positioning. The courtyard was to his back. No path behind him as it was all apartment buildings. A "u-shaped" building, if you will. If he were to walk out, it was going to be over this stranger who stalked him here with no announcement of his "watch" status and posted up between Trayvon and the sidewalk out. It's being proverbially cornered and it's a legitimately scary spot for anyone walking home. Therefore, for you to say he had numerous ways out just doesn't make sense. He had one way out and by GZ's own testimony, it was the sidewalk George was occupying. I'm out until the next incident, which should be about 5-6 weeks. You stand by your man. I'll miss your insight...a U shaped building with a walkway in two directions at each ens AND grass cutthroughs between buildings. no wonder so many are confused and ignorant. Stomping a mud puddle worked out well for him eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 We do have proof (of sorts) we have a pattern of behavior. We know how this guy responds to stress and that he is prone to volatile behaviors. We can now add that into our calculus at least as far as the question of "confrontation" goes. that and a dollar might get ya a cup of coffee....some might call that confirmation bias Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 So did he throw a wine bottle at his girlfriend? good question http://www.wnd.com/2015/01/cashill-zimmermans-new-arrest-sign-of-troubled-soul/ Based on the police reports filed by Lake Mary, Florida, officers, it appears the officers relied as much on inductive reasoning as on solid evidence and testimony to determine Zimmerman’s guilt, according to author Jack Cashill, an Emmy-award winning independent writer and producer. The incident began when two patrolling officers heard glass shatter in a nearby driveway. They saw a car pull out of the driveway in question, and they pulled the car over because its taillights were not on in the darkness. The woman in the car claimed she was romantically involved with Zimmerman and that he had thrown a wine bottle at her as she was getting into her car. She also said Zimmerman had thrown her cell phone, breaking it. When the officers pressed her for more details, she claimed she didn’t want to get involved with the investigation, even if it meant not advocating for herself as a domestic-violence victim. Four days later, another pair of officers traveled to Zimmerman’s house to question him about the incident. For two hours, Zimmerman refused to come to the front door, but eventually he opened it and conversed with the officers. He denied having thrown the bottle at the woman, insisting she threw it against the garage door. He also said the woman’s child had broken her cell phone a year prior. Sgt. Steven Towler, in his report of the incident, concluded the woman was the victim of a domestic violence-related assault, even though she didn’t cooperate with the investigation. He also concluded that Zimmerman’s account of events held little credibility because Zimmerman had several days to think up a response to the allegations. Therefore, Towler arrested Zimmerman and booked him in the John Polk Correctional Facility, from where he was released 14 hours later. not that it will matter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.