My 2 Cents on the Zimmerman case

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: My 2 Cents on the Zimmerman case

    In response to tvoter's comment:

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    WDYWN:

    "However, I see something wrong with the concept that people can initiate a confrontation/fight, and then shoot the other person dead upon developing a fear that they might lose the fight they started."

     

    WDYWN:

    "We do not know who started the fight. "

     

     



    rut roh.....bring on rationalization or something YOU did that was worse lol

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Apparently since he has me on ignore I'm supposed to not comment on his inconsistencies. I guess I'm supposed to pretend he doesn't exist?! He chose to put me on ignore and then expects that I'm supposed to follow his message board rules....yikes...hahaha

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from DamainAllen. Show DamainAllen's posts

    Re: My 2 Cents on the Zimmerman case

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    "And again: The evidence was NOT that his nose was broken! That was never proven. All the medical testimony was was that it COULD have been broken."

     

    ABC News reported that a medical report compiled by the family physician of George Zimmerman showed that, following the altercation with Martin, Zimmerman was diagnosed with a closed fracture of his nose



    Actually his medical report states that the doctor and Zimmerman discussed that his nose "is likely" broken and it was recommended that Zimmerman see a Ear Nose and Throat Specialist, Zimmerman declined.  

     

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: My 2 Cents on the Zimmerman case

    In response to DamainAllen's comment:

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    "And again: The evidence was NOT that his nose was broken! That was never proven. All the medical testimony was was that it COULD have been broken."

     

    ABC News reported that a medical report compiled by the family physician of George Zimmerman showed that, following the altercation with Martin, Zimmerman was diagnosed with a closed fracture of his nose

     



    Actually his medical report states that the doctor and Zimmerman discussed that his nose "is likely" broken and it was recommended that Zimmerman see a Ear Nose and Throat Specialist, Zimmerman declined.  

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Do you have a link/source? Mine was ABC News

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from DamainAllen. Show DamainAllen's posts

    Re: My 2 Cents on the Zimmerman case

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    In response to DamainAllen's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    "And again: The evidence was NOT that his nose was broken! That was never proven. All the medical testimony was was that it COULD have been broken."

     

    ABC News reported that a medical report compiled by the family physician of George Zimmerman showed that, following the altercation with Martin, Zimmerman was diagnosed with a closed fracture of his nose

     

     



    Actually his medical report states that the doctor and Zimmerman discussed that his nose "is likely" broken and it was recommended that Zimmerman see a Ear Nose and Throat Specialist, Zimmerman declined.  

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Do you have a link/source? Mine was ABC News

     

    [/QUOTE]

    My source is the actual medical report

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/99022693/George-Zimmerman-Medical-Report

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from GregoryFromMeffa. Show GregoryFromMeffa's posts

    Re: My 2 Cents on the Zimmerman case

    In response to DamainAllen's comment:

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to DamainAllen's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

    Wow.  Read the privacy disclaimer.  Lets put it on the internet!

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

    "And again: The evidence was NOT that his nose was broken! That was never proven. All the medical testimony was was that it COULD have been broken."

     

    ABC News reported that a medical report compiled by the family physician of George Zimmerman showed that, following the altercation with Martin, Zimmerman was diagnosed with a closed fracture of his nose

     

     

     



    Actually his medical report states that the doctor and Zimmerman discussed that his nose "is likely" broken and it was recommended that Zimmerman see a Ear Nose and Throat Specialist, Zimmerman declined.  

     

     

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Do you have a link/source? Mine was ABC News

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    My source is the actual medical report

     

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/99022693/George-Zimmerman-Medical-Report

    [/QUOTE]


     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: My 2 Cents on the Zimmerman case

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

     

     

    If we are to survive as a culture, we need to stop negative lifestyles like gansta-style

     

     



    Then you should probably rethink your desire to slash education and any and all programs that might conceivably help poor people.

     

     

     

    You can't destroy gangs with the sheer force of moral declarations.

     



    So, education is preventing this behavior?

     

    Focusing education would be more useful.

    Not enabling permant victimization would also be more useful.

    Moral declarations are obviously doing more than education.

     

    Your progressive illogic, that more government, in this case education, is what is needed, is not solving the problem.  More government generally does not solve anything, in education or elswhere.

    Individuals not putting up wiht the nonsense like the gansta lifestyle is what will have an impact.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: My 2 Cents on the Zimmerman case

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:

    In response to ppannos' comment:

     

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to ppannos' comment:

     

     

     

     

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:

    [QUOTE]

    Ahhh the disenfranchised defense.

    Not to say that drugs COULD have been a direct cause and effect.

    Painting this street ghetto punk as a saint ain't gonna cut it no matter how the media posts a cute picture of him from 6 years ago. 

     

     

     

     

     

    Thanks for your professional mental illness opinion.

     

     

     

    The violent punk on dope was innocent.

     

     

     




    Yes Martin could have been a punk  ..... but anyone who attacks a police offiecer , beats up his girlfriend and who shows a total disregard for authority isn't playing with a full deck

     

     

     

     

     

     



    Respectfully, some people are just like that... or might we be a product of our environment. race or culture?  

     

     

    Ahhh the disenfranchised defense.

    Not to say that drugs COULD have been a direct cause and effect.

    Painting this street ghetto punk as a saint ain't gonna cut it no matter how the media posts a cute picture of him from 6 years ago. 

     

     




    disenfranchiesed defense excuse ....... what are you talking about ..... Zimmerman was nut carrying a gun and fancied himself as a tough guy while he is under the influence of alcohol ....

     



    Was Zimmerman drinking?  I don't see that in evidence.

    Trayvon was high.  that is in evidence.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from DamainAllen. Show DamainAllen's posts

    Re: My 2 Cents on the Zimmerman case

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to ppannos' comment:

     

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to ppannos' comment:

     

     

     

     

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:

    [QUOTE]

    Ahhh the disenfranchised defense.

    Not to say that drugs COULD have been a direct cause and effect.

    Painting this street ghetto punk as a saint ain't gonna cut it no matter how the media posts a cute picture of him from 6 years ago. 

     

     

     

     

     

    Thanks for your professional mental illness opinion.

     

     

     

    The violent punk on dope was innocent.

     

     

     




    Yes Martin could have been a punk  ..... but anyone who attacks a police offiecer , beats up his girlfriend and who shows a total disregard for authority isn't playing with a full deck

     

     

     

     

     

     



    Respectfully, some people are just like that... or might we be a product of our environment. race or culture?  

     

     

    Ahhh the disenfranchised defense.

    Not to say that drugs COULD have been a direct cause and effect.

    Painting this street ghetto punk as a saint ain't gonna cut it no matter how the media posts a cute picture of him from 6 years ago. 

     

     




    disenfranchiesed defense excuse ....... what are you talking about ..... Zimmerman was nut carrying a gun and fancied himself as a tough guy while he is under the influence of alcohol ....

     

     



    Was Zimmerman drinking?  I don't see that in evidence.

     

    Trayvon was high.  that is in evidence.

    [/QUOTE]

    Zimmerman wasn't tested, so no one knows.

    And you might want to brush up on Toxicology, the presence of THC doesn't mean he was high, it means he smoked marijuana AT SOME POINT.  The t4est only notes the presense of the chemical, not when the chemical entered the body.   So given there is eveidence that Martin used marijuana with some regularity, then the THC in his system would remain there at low levels (such as the levels found in the report) for 30 days or more even if he hadn't consumed any more of the drug.  If he had recently consumed marijuana the THC found in his blood would have been over 100 nanagrams, what was found was in the single digits.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hansoribrother. Show Hansoribrother's posts

    Re: My 2 Cents on the Zimmerman case

    In response to DamainAllen's comment:

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to DamainAllen's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    In response to ppannos' comment:

     

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

     

     

     

    The violent punk on dope was innocent.

     

     

     



    The "violent punk on dope" WAS innocent, he committed no crime, and Zimmerman was not an officer of the law empowered to arrest, try, or execute him regardless of his "suspicions".

     

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Didn't he assault Zimmerman? Isn't that a crime? Martin had no right to assault Zimmerman because he was some "creepy cracker".

     

     

    Zimmerman, like everyone else, has a right to defend himself. Of course, someone who does defend themselves using deadly force has to expect an investigation by the police. That was what happened and he was found not guilty.

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    It isn't a fact that he assaulted Zimmerman, thats Zimmerman's story.  The fact is, Zimmerman wasn't in a uniform, did not identify himself, and stalked someone walking by themselves and clearly spooked Trayvon because he ran away at one point.  Zimmerman went out of his way to find and stalk him again, provoking a confrontation.  If it were me, I would have tried to lose him, because without any markings on his vehicle or person to identify himself as security, Zimmerman could have easily been a murderer, a gang member looking for trouble, he could have been anyone.  As it turns out, he was just a murderer operating under a flimsy neighborhood watch mandate.  What if Trayvon had been a young girl and she pepper sprayed George not knowing why he had been following her, would her murder be justified?  

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Zimmerman's story is backed up by a witness and the evidence. You choose not believe it.

    There is no evidence to support your version, otherwise Zimmerman would have been convicted.

    Zimmerman a murderer? LOL, Good one.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: My 2 Cents on the Zimmerman case

    In response to DamainAllen's comment:

     

     



    It isn't a fact that he assaulted Zimmerman, thats Zimmerman's story.  The fact is, Zimmerman wasn't in a uniform, did not identify himself, and stalked someone walking by themselves and clearly spooked Trayvon because he ran away at one point.  Zimmerman went out of his way to find and stalk him again, provoking a confrontation.  If it were me, I would have tried to lose him, because without any markings on his vehicle or person to identify himself as security, Zimmerman could have easily been a murderer, a gang member looking for trouble, he could have been anyone.  As it turns out, he was just a murderer operating under a flimsy neighborhood watch mandate.  What if Trayvon had been a young girl and she pepper sprayed George not knowing why he had been following her, would her murder be justified?  

     

    [/QUOTE]

    "Zimmerman went out of his way to find and stalk him again, provoking a confrontation." 

     

    Not according to Zimmerman's testimony. Zimmerman says the altercation happened when he was on his way back to his car and Trayvon appeared out of nowhere to confront him.

    Now, I wasn't there so I don't know what really happened. But you seem to think you know. So the question is...were you there? Is that how you know he went out of his way to stalk him again, provoking a confrontation?

    The bottomline is only TWO people know what really happened and unfortunately one is dead. 

     

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from GregoryFromMeffa. Show GregoryFromMeffa's posts

    Re: My 2 Cents on the Zimmerman case

    Pick one:

    1.  Shty prosecution

    2.  Great defense

    3.  Jury nullifies

    4.  Jury unamimous racists

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: My 2 Cents on the Zimmerman case

    skeeter Zimmerman assualted a police officer while under the influence of alcohol

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from macnh1. Show macnh1's posts

    Re: My 2 Cents on the Zimmerman case


    Why is everybody ignoring the the biggest fact of this case??? 

    Trayvon Martin punched Zimmerman in the face and when he dropped him with that punch he didn't stop, he jumped on Zimmerman hit him more, sat on his chest, grabbed his head and repeatedly smashed it against the cement.  Not sure about you but having my head smashed into cement repeatedly by a strong angry person would make me fear for my life.....

    .....nothing else matters....this is the entire case.....and the reason why Zimmerman's actions were viewed as lawful.

     

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: My 2 Cents on the Zimmerman case

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    Zimmerman a murderer? LOL, Good one.

     



    So you can see through Martin's eyes and clearly tell that to Martin, Zimmerman was not a potential attacker following him....he was clearly just a nice guy trying to do someone else's job?

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Zimmerman was a predator who was delusional

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from DamainAllen. Show DamainAllen's posts

    Re: My 2 Cents on the Zimmerman case

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    In response to DamainAllen's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

     



    It isn't a fact that he assaulted Zimmerman, thats Zimmerman's story.  The fact is, Zimmerman wasn't in a uniform, did not identify himself, and stalked someone walking by themselves and clearly spooked Trayvon because he ran away at one point.  Zimmerman went out of his way to find and stalk him again, provoking a confrontation.  If it were me, I would have tried to lose him, because without any markings on his vehicle or person to identify himself as security, Zimmerman could have easily been a murderer, a gang member looking for trouble, he could have been anyone.  As it turns out, he was just a murderer operating under a flimsy neighborhood watch mandate.  What if Trayvon had been a young girl and she pepper sprayed George not knowing why he had been following her, would her murder be justified?  

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    "Zimmerman went out of his way to find and stalk him again, provoking a confrontation." 

     

    Not according to Zimmerman's testimony. Zimmerman says the altercation happened when he was on his way back to his car and Trayvon appeared out of nowhere to confront him.

    Now, I wasn't there so I don't know what really happened. But you seem to think you know. So the question is...were you there? Is that how you know he went out of his way to stalk him again, provoking a confrontation?

    The bottomline is only TWO people know what really happened and unfortunately one is dead. 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    So Trayvon ran away from an unknown potential threat who was stalking him in a vehicle, got away, and then hid himself for the sole purpose of attacking his pursuer - a person he knew nothing about, not how tall he was, if he was skilled fighter, was armed, nothing - and he did this for what purpose?  

    Zimmerman's story was self serving and almost certainly a lie.  But here is the thng about killing someone, when it is time to tell the tale only one side gets heard and when that side is facing jail time and daunting circumstances (Zimmerman was armed, Martin was not, Zimmerman had nearly 50 pounds on Martin, Zimmerman was an adult, Martin a minor) its obvious the story being told is going to be favorable coming from the lips of the accused.  

    The idea that the predator turned to prey and killed in response is nothing more than the scary black man hypotheses, OF COURSE ZIMMERMAN WAS AFRAID FOR HIS LIFE A SCARY BLACK MAN SET UPON HIM WITH NO PROVOCATION!!!!!  Bullsh!t.  Trayvon Martin was dead a couple of minutes after Zimmerman ended his call with 911, at 7:13.  By 7:16 Trayvon was shot by Zimmerman after he was advised five minutes prior to stop following Martin.  In that time Martin's friend testified that while still on the call with Tayvon she heard Martin ask the unknown assailant (Zimmerman) why he was following him, and Zimmerman respond "what are you doing here", the call goes dead and so does Martin.  

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: My 2 Cents on the Zimmerman case

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:

     

     

     

    [QUOTE]a social narrative that says WE SHOULD NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO DEFEND OURSELVES WITH A GUN.



    The social narrative and the law sayous you do not have that right unless you reasonably believe your life is in danger.

     

     

     

     

    I'd make one exception and go over to the gun rights side on the question of home invasion: I think your life should be more or less forfeit if you break into someone's house and they happen to have a gun......

    .....at least, as long as you aren't lying face down surrendering to them. I don't believe in sadistic killings. My point is that the homeowner shouldn't have the burden of making careful calculations in the dark about whether the burglar might have a knife, gun, etc.

     

     

    However, I see something wrong with the concept that people can initiate a confrontation/fight, and then shoot the other person dead upon developing a fear that they might lose the fight they started.

     

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    So do you feel that Zimmerman initiated the confrontation/fight?

     

     

     

    Just becuase he didn't stay put doesn't mean he initiated the confrontation/fight.

    Yes he followed and Martin didn't like it as can be ascertained from his phone with Jeantel when he stated that there is a "crazy a33 cracker" following him, choice of words does give a glimpse of his state of mind.

    The actual start of the confrontation after that point is a little gray.  It could be that Martin was frustrated had enough turned and directly confronted Zimmerman or he intercepted immerman who had turned around and was heading to his vehicle.  How it started reaaly doesn't matter.  The crime started with Martin striking Zimmerman in the face breaking his nose and then proceeding to to knock him down and strike his head to the pavement (aggravated assault and battery has occured) at which time Zimmerman defended himself the only way he could with his gun.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    No, the crime started when Zimmerman started chasing Martin - the crime is called 'menacing' and any accidental death that results is by definition 'manslaughter'.

     

     

    If Martin was frustrated and turned to confront Zimmerman, than Zimmerman's version of events are a lie.  According to Zimmerman, he returned to his vehicle after the 911 call and then went to look at a street sign where Martin was waiting to ambush him.  Come on.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    The only reference to menacing in FL law has to do with dogs.  Some state's have menacing laws tied to brandishing guns in a menacing way, but that happened late in the interaction.

     

        Title XLV
    TORTS Chapter 767 
    DAMAGE BY DOGS View Entire Chapter 767.11  Definitions. As used in this act, unless the context clearly requires otherwise: (1)  “Dangerous dog” means any dog that according to the records of the appropriate authority: (a)  Has aggressively bitten, attacked, or endangered or has inflicted severe injury on a human being on public or private property; (b)  Has more than once severely injured or killed a domestic animal while off the owner’s property; or (c)  Has, when unprovoked, chased or approached a person upon the streets, sidewalks, or any public grounds in a menacing fashion or apparent attitude of attack, provided that such actions are attested to in a sworn statement by one or more persons and dutifully investigated by the appropriate authority.[/QUOTE]


    In Florida, it's called "aggravated stalking" - the manslaughter charge is called "aggravated manslaughter" and there is even a special statute that applies to minors under the age of 18.

     

    A person who causes the death of any person under the age of 18 by culpable negligence under s. 827.03(2)(b) commits aggravated manslaughter of a child, a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

     

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: My 2 Cents on the Zimmerman case

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:

    skeeter Zimmerman assualted a police officer while under the influence of alcohol



    OK.  Was not aware of that. 

    Relevance to this case?  Was it entered as evidence?

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: My 2 Cents on the Zimmerman case

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:

     

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

     

     

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

    Zimmerman a murderer? LOL, Good one.

     

     

     



    So you can see through Martin's eyes and clearly tell that to Martin, Zimmerman was not a potential attacker following him....he was clearly just a nice guy trying to do someone else's job?

     

     

     

     

     




    Zimmerman was a predator who was delusional

     

     

     



    Interesting opnion.

     

    But, alas, it is just that, an opinion.  You don't know Zimmerman.  I don't see anything in the thread of evidence that makes this anything other than your opinion.  

    So, your point or reason for offering your unsubstantiated opinion?

     

    You need to read this:

     

    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2013/07/trayvon_martin_verdict_racism_hate_crimes_prosecution_and_other_overreactions.html?utm_source=tw&utm_medium=sm&utm_campaign=button_toolbar

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: My 2 Cents on the Zimmerman case

    In response to tvoter's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:



    No, the crime started when Zimmerman started chasing Martin - the crime is called 'menacing' and any accidental death that results is by definition 'manslaughter'.

    If Martin was frustrated and turned to confront Zimmerman, than Zimmerman's version of events are a lie.  According to Zimmerman, he returned to his vehicle after the 911 call and then went to look at a street sign where Martin was waiting to ambush him.  Come on.

     [/QUOTE]

    Wow do=id even read about the actual trial of evidence?

    Chased and menacing was never even mentioned!

     

    I like EVERY OTHER PERSON OTHER THAN TRAYVON AND ZIMMERMAN do not KNOW what happened.


    The prosecution had a witness that lied under oath and was not believable.

    The defense had Zimmermans testimony that was backed up by the police who responded; the re-inactment by the trained detectives through the investigative process and the closest eye witness.

    The projection of the bullet wound was consistent with the way the defense portrayed it aka Martin on top.

    Martin has grass stains on his knees; zimmerman on his back.

    Every one involved under oath stated that zimmerman never made any racial overtones or appeared concerned with race; regardless of what the media said.

    MOST IMPORTANT:

    Zimmerman stated and it was collaborated that he saw Treyvon and reported it; the dispatcher said "we dont need you to follow him or exit your vehicle".

    Zimmerman stopped following him because Martin disappeared between house where following wasnt feasible.

    Minutes later, zimmerman exited his vehicle (hindsights shows it was a mistake but, not criminal) walks through the court yard presumably to try and locate police (who knows but, not criminal). As he is walking back he passes an opening between building and then Martin comes behind him and says "what's you problem" Zimmerman say's "I have no problem" Martins says "you do now" and attacks him by punching him in the face' knocking him down and starts hitting him repeatedly while stating "you are going to die". As they are on the ground Zimmermans jacket comes up revealing his firearm and Treyvon reaches for it, they struggle and Zimmerman gains control of the weapon and shoots Treyvon one time in the chest.

    I do not know what happened but, the defense sold this and the prosecution had nothing criminal on zimmerman! Every one wishes he would have stayed in the car.

    The defense showed that concrete can be a lethal weapon.

    For all anyone KNOWS it happened exactly as zimmerman states and he would have been killed if, he was carryinmg a fireamr; or it happened completely different but, the trial convinced 6 human beings that zimmerman was not proven to have committed this crime!!

    People need to stop stipulating their theories and focus on what we know.

    [/QUOTE]

    Menacing wasn't relevant to a Murder 2 charge, which was the wrong charge.  We can all agree to that.  But listen to the 911 call - Zimmerman is obviously running when the dispatcher says "are you following him".  It's obvious from the background noise, and was obvious to the dispatcher.  So running and following = chasing.  And chasing a 17-year-old through a dark alley on a rainy night is at the very least negligence.

    There's no doubt Zimmerman was guilty of aggravated manslaughter - if that had been the charge, deliberations would have lasted 12 seconds.

     

     

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from macnh1. Show macnh1's posts

    Re: My 2 Cents on the Zimmerman case


    if you attack and try to kill a stranger at night in the dark don't be upset if he shoots and kills you in self defense......

    it's fun watching the protesters looting and burning down their own neighborhoods in an effort to memorialize Trayvon Martin...how fitting.....

     

     

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: My 2 Cents on the Zimmerman case

    skeeter I read the Slate Article and at the end the article stated that everything that Zimmerman did during this sad event was stupid and dangerous ...... sounds like to me that he is suffering from a personality disorder

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: My 2 Cents on the Zimmerman case

    In response to GregoryFromMeffa's comment:

    Pick one:

    1.  Shty prosecution

    2.  Great defense

    3.  Jury nullifies

    4.  Jury unamimous racists



    1.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: My 2 Cents on the Zimmerman case

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to macnh1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    grabbed his head and repeatedly smashed it against the cement. 



    Oh right. 

    Repeatedly smashed his head against cement. And yet he wasn't killed, wasn't unconscious, was not concussed, and did not so much as call his doctor about it.

    Please.

    The evidence showed that at most he suffered a few very minor scrapes to the back of his head.

    [/QUOTE]

    The medical report stated that he experienced nausea and dizziness days later which is consistent with a concussion.

    Its harder to bang someone who is resisting heads against the ground but, eventually the head banger will win!

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: My 2 Cents on the Zimmerman case

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    Zimmerman a murderer? LOL, Good one.

     



    So you can see through Martin's eyes and clearly tell that to Martin, Zimmerman was not a potential attacker following him....he was clearly just a nice guy trying to do someone else's job?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Are you making some kind of stand your ground case for Martin?

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: My 2 Cents on the Zimmerman case

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

     

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

     

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

     

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:

     

     

     

     

    [QUOTE]a social narrative that says WE SHOULD NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO DEFEND OURSELVES WITH A GUN.



    The social narrative and the law sayous you do not have that right unless you reasonably believe your life is in danger.

     

     

     

     

     

    I'd make one exception and go over to the gun rights side on the question of home invasion: I think your life should be more or less forfeit if you break into someone's house and they happen to have a gun......

    .....at least, as long as you aren't lying face down surrendering to them. I don't believe in sadistic killings. My point is that the homeowner shouldn't have the burden of making careful calculations in the dark about whether the burglar might have a knife, gun, etc.

     

     

    However, I see something wrong with the concept that people can initiate a confrontation/fight, and then shoot the other person dead upon developing a fear that they might lose the fight they started.

     

     

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    So do you feel that Zimmerman initiated the confrontation/fight?

     

     

     

     

    Just becuase he didn't stay put doesn't mean he initiated the confrontation/fight.

    Yes he followed and Martin didn't like it as can be ascertained from his phone with Jeantel when he stated that there is a "crazy a33 cracker" following him, choice of words does give a glimpse of his state of mind.

    The actual start of the confrontation after that point is a little gray.  It could be that Martin was frustrated had enough turned and directly confronted Zimmerman or he intercepted immerman who had turned around and was heading to his vehicle.  How it started reaaly doesn't matter.  The crime started with Martin striking Zimmerman in the face breaking his nose and then proceeding to to knock him down and strike his head to the pavement (aggravated assault and battery has occured) at which time Zimmerman defended himself the only way he could with his gun.

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    No, the crime started when Zimmerman started chasing Martin - the crime is called 'menacing' and any accidental death that results is by definition 'manslaughter'.

     

     

     

    If Martin was frustrated and turned to confront Zimmerman, than Zimmerman's version of events are a lie.  According to Zimmerman, he returned to his vehicle after the 911 call and then went to look at a street sign where Martin was waiting to ambush him.  Come on.

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    The only reference to menacing in FL law has to do with dogs.  Some state's have menacing laws tied to brandishing guns in a menacing way, but that happened late in the interaction.

     

     

        Title XLV
    TORTS Chapter 767 
    DAMAGE BY DOGS View Entire Chapter 767.11  Definitions. As used in this act, unless the context clearly requires otherwise: (1)  “Dangerous dog” means any dog that according to the records of the appropriate authority: (a)  Has aggressively bitten, attacked, or endangered or has inflicted severe injury on a human being on public or private property; (b)  Has more than once severely injured or killed a domestic animal while off the owner’s property; or (c)  Has, when unprovoked, chased or approached a person upon the streets, sidewalks, or any public grounds in a menacing fashion or apparent attitude of attack, provided that such actions are attested to in a sworn statement by one or more persons and dutifully investigated by the appropriate authority.

    [/QUOTE]

     


    In Florida, it's called "aggravated stalking" - the manslaughter charge is called "aggravated manslaughter" and there is even a special statute that applies to minors under the age of 18.

     

    A person who causes the death of any person under the age of 18 by culpable negligence under s. 827.03(2)(b) commits aggravated manslaughter of a child, a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Apparently the prosecution didn't see it that way.

     

Share