Remnant_OBrien posted:

---

That poor innocent waif was a SAINT! He was actually going around planting skittle trees to feed the poor! Saint Trayvon Skittleseed!

---

Ptilk posted:

---

It's amazing how lock step the "conservatives" are about such an issue. Every single one of them is making up all kinds of crap, and believing all kinds of crap made up by other people.....in order to justify the killing of a kid.

I don't know what the hell it's based upon. This isn't a story about a guy defending his home, or a story about a guy defending his possessions, it's a story about a guy chasing down a kid for no god damn reason, against the advice of law enforcement, then shooting him to death.

Somehow, that has been twisted into some weird test of justice in their brains, somehow this guy had a right to kill someone he chased down and confronted.....

I have no clue what the hell goes on in those "conservative" skulls....but it sure as hell isn't logic or reason.

If you chase down someone, confront them, for no reason....you don't have the right to shoot them even if they do kick your ass for being an idiot. You have the right to run away or get your ass kicked.

---

Sacrifice. Savior.

the_great_intex posted:

---

Perhaps Zimmerman needed to kill Trayvon. Perhaps Trayvon was one going to invent a deadly virus that wipes out most of humanity and Zimmerman was sent back in time to stop him and stop the event from happening. He can't tell us that though because it would mess with other events possibly as well

Sacrifice. Savior.

---

Remnant_OBrien posted:

---

I bet a lot of people here will be embarrassed for smearing a 17 year old boy, and for jumping to rule out a crime without any investigation.

---

the_great_intex posted:

---

How do we even know Zimmerman was the real assassin? Perhaps there was a second shooter

---

Remnant_OBrien posted:

---

I bet a lot of people here will be embarrassed for smearing a 17 year old boy, and for jumping to rule out a crime without any investigation.

---

Tych2 posted:

---

Remnant_OBrien posted:

---

I bet a lot of people here will be embarrassed for smearing a 17 year old boy, and for jumping to rule out a crime without any investigation.

---

I bet they won't be embarrassed. They probably should be, but they won't be.

Also I didn't realize this was a partisan issue. What makes it a R verses D thing?

---

Tych2 posted:

---

Remnant_OBrien posted:

---

I bet a lot of people here will be embarrassed for smearing a 17 year old boy, and for jumping to rule out a crime without any investigation.

---

I bet they won't be embarrassed. They probably should be, but they won't be.

Also I didn't realize this was a partisan issue. What makes it a R verses D thing?

---

Remnant_OBrien posted:

---

A lot of people seem to have decided that Zimmerman needs to be defended.

---

Z-Elder posted:

---

Tych2 posted:

---

Remnant_OBrien posted:

---

I bet a lot of people here will be embarrassed for smearing a 17 year old boy, and for jumping to rule out a crime without any investigation.

---

I bet they won't be embarrassed. They probably should be, but they won't be.

Also I didn't realize this was a partisan issue. What makes it a R verses D thing?

---

Well you are way right of me and I know he is Not Quilty so far...

---

Aerlinthian posted:

---

Remnant_OBrien posted:

---

A lot of people seem to have decided that Zimmerman needs to be defended.

---

OMG, what dirty anti-American scum!

---

Remnant_OBrien posted:

---

innocent until proven guilty doesn't prevent the police from investigating.

---

Bowlartz posted:

---

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/01/10963191-trayvon-martin-case-911-call-screams-not-george-zimmermans-2-experts-say

"I've run it against 300 voices and it was better than 99 percent in all cases," he told MSNBC when asked about its accuracy.

"Owen told the newspaper that the software compared the screams to Zimmerman's voice and returned a 48 percent match."
He said he would expect a match of higher than 90 percent, considering the quality of the audio.
"As a result of that, you can say with reasonable scientific certainty that it's not Zimmerman," Owen told the Sentinel.

---

cabbyman posted:

---

When you have eyewitness testimony that Martin was on top of Zimmerman beating him up that's all Zimmerman needs for a self defense claim.

---

Remnant_OBrien posted:

---

Bowlartz posted:

---

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/01/10963191-trayvon-martin-case-911-call-screams-not-george-zimmermans-2-experts-say

"I've run it against 300 voices and it was better than 99 percent in all cases," he told MSNBC when asked about its accuracy.

"Owen told the newspaper that the software compared the screams to Zimmerman's voice and returned a 48 percent match."
He said he would expect a match of higher than 90 percent, considering the quality of the audio.
"As a result of that, you can say with reasonable scientific certainty that it's not Zimmerman," Owen told the Sentinel.

---

Your failure to understand what the article says points to your failure not mine. Also omitting the direct preceding and following lines that give vital context points to finding evidence to meet your conclusions.

a 48 match% != 50/50 chance of it being Zimmerman.

---

the_great_intex posted:

---

I hope the police remembered to check the area of the shooting for semen samples. I've watched enough CSI to know that no matter what semen is absolutely everywhere

---

cabbyman posted:

---

The big question is that if it is found that Martin struck the first blow and initiated physical violence will the left here concede that Zimmerman was within his rights to defend himself as he did?

---

__Bonk__ posted:

---

I say we execute him immediately in order to prevent blacks from rioting. I would vote to convict!

---

Friarspam posted:

---

so ptilk, how long/many blows should Zimmerman counted before shooting? Should he have been required to cary and hook a portable EKG or something to monitor his condition and only fired after 1/2 of the lines went flat?

---

Bowlartz posted:

---

"He had no right to stop the kid, no right to confront him, no right to precipitate whatever actually happened. It was all his fault..."


What evidence do you have that any of this happened? There is no evidence he stopped the kid. There is no evidence he confronted him.

The only thing we have is a neighborhood watch person who called police and who was going to attempt to keep his eye on the suspicious person until police arrived...from a distance. Zimmerman lost him and headed back to his car to meet police...when Trayvon confronted him and then attacked him after words from both parties.

Is there one shred of evidence to counter this story? Because I can guarantee that if there was...he would be in jail right now.

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

cabbyman posted:

---

When you have eyewitness testimony that Martin was on top of Zimmerman beating him up that's all Zimmerman needs for a self defense claim.

---

Yes and no. What really matters is who started the fight.

There's never been any doubt they were involved in a fight on the ground. The question is who started the fight (in a legal sense, not who created the situation).

---

Bowlartz posted:

---

What evidence do you have that any of this happened? There is no evidence he stopped the kid. There is no evidence he confronted him.

---

Ardenwolfe posted:

---

Bowlartz posted:

---

What evidence do you have that any of this happened? There is no evidence he stopped the kid. There is no evidence he confronted him.

---

Um . . . Zimmerman standing over Martin's dead body, smoking gun literally in Zimmerman's hand, when the police arrived isn't proof enough that he stopped and confronted Martin?

. . .

Really?

---

Ardenwolfe posted:

---

Bowlartz posted:

---

What evidence do you have that any of this happened? There is no evidence he stopped the kid. There is no evidence he confronted him.

---

Um . . . Zimmerman standing over Martin's dead body, smoking gun literally in Zimmerman's hand, when the police arrived isn't proof enough that he stopped and confronted Martin?

. . .

Really?

---

Bowlartz posted:

---

We don't arrest people and put them on trial if there is insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. So far, two prosecutors have both said they could not get a conviction with the current evidence.

---

__Bonk__ posted:

---

The government knows if it doesnt convict him of something major there will be violence and riots from blacks in American

This is a fact

---

__Bonk__ posted:

---

Just because someone is following you doesnt give you the right to attack them.

Seriously.

Call the cops.

---

Bowlartz posted:

---

But without evidence to the contrary it is a moot point. We don't arrest people and put them on trial if there is insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

---

theredkay1 posted:

---

Bowlartz posted:

---

But without evidence to the contrary it is a moot point. We don't arrest people and put them on trial if there is insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

---

This happens all the time.

---

DemonicXH posted:

---

theredkay1 posted:

---

Bowlartz posted:

---

But without evidence to the contrary it is a moot point. We don't arrest people and put them on trial if there is insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

---

This happens all the time.

---

There is a law against arresting people who claim self defense in Florida.

---

Remnant_OBrien posted:

---

I don't think there is. Find it in the statutes?

---

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—

(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.

(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).

Remnant_OBrien posted:

---

fyi here's the link to the cleaned up video.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/george-zimmerman-enhanced-video-shows-injury-trayvon-martin-16053206

It does appear he had scalp injuries.

No that doesn't prove he didn't commit a crime.

---

Remnant_OBrien posted:

---

The DA showed up at the Sanford police station in the middle of the night to end the investigation. His actions are pretty suspect.

---

Remnant_OBrien posted:

---

The DA showed up at the Sanford police station in the middle of the night to end the investigation. His actions are pretty suspect.

---

Vydor posted:

---

Remnant_OBrien posted:

---

The DA showed up at the Sanford police station in the middle of the night to end the investigation. His actions are pretty suspect.

---

What makes that suspect? I'm not saying it is or isn't but I just don't know if there can be anything conclusive draw from that action. So, what to you makes it suspect?

---

DemonicXH posted:

---

Remnant_OBrien posted:

---

I don't think there is. Find it in the statutes?

---

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—

(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.

(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).

---

Remnant_OBrien posted:

---

Vydor posted:

---

Remnant_OBrien posted:

---

The DA showed up at the Sanford police station in the middle of the night to end the investigation. His actions are pretty suspect.

---

What makes that suspect? I'm not saying it is or isn't but I just don't know if there can be anything conclusive draw from that action. So, what to you makes it suspect?

---

It's not the DA's job to wake up for everyone who was arrested late at night and make sure they don't have to spend a night in jail unless they have to. It reeks of special treatment, and if he was getting special treatment in that way... well why not other ways.

---

DemonicXH posted:

---

Remnant_OBrien posted:

---

I don't think there is. Find it in the statutes?

---

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—

(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.


(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).

---

eodoll posted:

---

That makes no sense - if you created the situation then you started the fight.

Thats likesaying hitler wasnt responible for the holocaust because he didnt actuallydo the killing, he just put the suff into motion but he was completely not responsible for it.

As i said, it makes no sense and is groundless.

---

Remnant_OBrien posted:

---

Well that statute is broad and provides incentive for not arresting. But they still arrested him.

---

vn_nnanji posted:

---

If Martin had shot Zimmerman would be be walking around free? Of course not.

---

ineenia posted:

---

as pointed out in the past they have the authority to detain him for up to 72hr WITH-OUT charges,so that part of the law is really meaningless,and the responding officer determined there was probable cause and was overruled by the DA...

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

The law doesn't operate under the assumption that one bad act justifies another bad act. I'm sorry you're too stupid to understand that.

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

Uh no one's saying there was no confrontation.

---

Bowlartz posted:

---

What evidence do you have that any of this happened? There is no evidence he stopped the kid. There is no evidence he confronted him.

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

Maybe you just can't read english.

"Zimmerman confronted Martin" has a specific meaning that Zimmerman initiated the confrontation. Bowlartz was saying there is no evidence of that, not that there was no evidence that the two ever got involved in a fight.

FWIW I don't agree with Bowlartz in general and Bowlartz has been the biggest Zimmerman apologist on these boards. Or maybe that's Bonzo. I always get them confused. But you're still stupid for not being able to read.

---

Ardenwolfe posted:

---

Uh huh. It's English, by the way. Nice attempt at damage control.

---

Ptilk posted:

---

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, a guy chased a man down, and stabbed him to death in the back...and a judge ruled that he was justified under "stand your ground" and dismissed the charges of manslaughter against him. In what kind of world do we live where you can chase a guy and stab them in the back....and get away with it? The guy did nothing to you, you just thought he was trying to rob your neighbor. Now he is dead, and you get to tell all your buddies how you "shanked that bitch".

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

I accept your apology and admission I was right.

---

Ardenwolfe posted:

---

Are you serious? Are you brain damaged or something? I said, repeatedly, that I agree with you on that point. My argument isn't that the Neighborhood Watch rules override the state of Florida's law. My point is that if he was truly Neighborhood Watch, he shouldn't have carried a gun on his persons according to their rules.

Don't know how many more times I have to repeat that until it sinks into your short-term memory. Jesus, I didn't think this level of stupid existed in human beings. . . .

---

cabbyman posted:

---

So white people should just stay indoors.

Gotcha.

---

vn_nnanji posted:

---

cabbyman posted:

---

So white people should just stay indoors.

Gotcha.

---

If they are both stupid and armed then yes, they should stay indoors. Then again most of us go out daily and you know what Cabby?

Nobody gets shot.

---

Friarspam posted:

---

Maybe if the idiot kid hadn't got all testosterone and tried to live up to some bs fantasy tough-guy image he wouldn't have gotten shot either.

---

vn_nnanji posted:

---

He should face a trial no matter how ridiculous Florida law is. There is no proof to date that he was fighting for his life. None whatsoever.

---

vn_nnanji posted:

---

He should face a trial no matter how ridiculous Florida law is.

---

vn_nnanji posted:

---

cabbyman posted:

---

So white people should just stay indoors.

Gotcha.

---

If they are both stupid and armed then yes, they should stay indoors. Then again most of us go out daily and you know what Cabby?

Nobody gets shot.

---

vn_nnanji posted:

---

Friarspam posted:

---

Maybe if the idiot kid hadn't got all testosterone and tried to live up to some bs fantasy tough-guy image he wouldn't have gotten shot either.

---

You mean Zimmerman of course.

Here's where you and yours miss the bus. We have proof of one person doing the above. News flash...it's not the dead kid.

---

cabbyman posted:

---

vn_nnanji posted:

---

cabbyman posted:

---

So white people should just stay indoors.

Gotcha.

---

If they are both stupid and armed then yes, they should stay indoors. Then again most of us go out daily and you know what Cabby?

Nobody gets shot.

---

Most of us don't get our heads viciously slammed into the pavement either.

---

cabbyman posted:

---

vn_nnanji posted:

---

cabbyman posted:

---

So white people should just stay indoors.

Gotcha.

---

If they are both stupid and armed then yes, they should stay indoors. Then again most of us go out daily and you know what Cabby?

Nobody gets shot.

---

Most of us don't get our heads viciously slammed into the pavement either.

---

Friarspam posted:

---

vn_nnanji posted:

---

Friarspam posted:

---

Maybe if the idiot kid hadn't got all testosterone and tried to live up to some bs fantasy tough-guy image he wouldn't have gotten shot either.

---

You mean Zimmerman of course.

Here's where you and yours miss the bus. We have proof of one person doing the above. News flash...it's not the dead kid.

---

I'm sorry, I forgot that you were actually there. So, did you see immerman beat his own skull on the ground before his skittle lust made him kill for their fruity goodness.

When do you think you'll be called to testify?

---

cabbyman posted:

---

So eyewitnesses don't matter.

Video doesn't matter.

The DA not pressing charges doesn't matter.

Now, picture Zimmerman as a black dude.

Do they matter now?

Racist.

---

cabbyman posted:

---

Most of us don't get our heads viciously slammed into the pavement either.

---

Friarspam posted:

---

There have been no "facts" of thw sort which you claim.

---

Z-Elder posted:

---

While Martin is viciously knocking Our community watchmens head on the edge of the sidewalk his rage clears enough for him to see Zimmerman finally, with great reluctance, pull his gun. Martin starts to stand and Pop! With the force he staggers back a couple steps away from the sidewalk and Zimmerman where he falls. Zimmerman rose and went to check him out. Now both men are away from the sidewalk. Zimmerman barely escapes with his life while saving the neighborhood from another unknown intruder. Not Guilty.

---

Groucho48 posted:

---

Z-Elder posted:

---

While Martin is viciously knocking Our community watchmens head on the edge of the sidewalk his rage clears enough for him to see Zimmerman finally, with great reluctance, pull his gun. Martin starts to stand and Pop! With the force he staggers back a couple steps away from the sidewalk and Zimmerman where he falls. Zimmerman rose and went to check him out. Now both men are away from the sidewalk. Zimmerman barely escapes with his life while saving the neighborhood from another unknown intruder. Not Guilty.

---

So, he's shot in the chest, staggers back and then falls forward? Does he clutch his chest and exclaim "Mother of mercy. Is this the end of Tray?

---

vn_nnanji posted:

---

cabbyman posted:

---

Most of us don't get our heads viciously slammed into the pavement either.

---

VICIOUSLY!

Cabby as drama queen.

Please provide proof that his head was viciously slammed into the pavement. Perhaps the grass stains they reported on his back will help.

Everything I claim as fact is in fact fact. Everything you yahoos base your claims on are not facts.

And you know what? That is yet another fact. Maybe you should pay attention....you being so fact challenged and all.

---

Tych2 posted:

---

Everyone else is so entrenched in their position it's virtually impossible to move on this.

---

Friarspam posted:

---

There is ....falsified audio by the media.

---

Vydor posted:

---

Zimmerman can claim Trayvon went for his gun, or that as he saw something in his hand earlier the believed Trayvon was armed..etc.

Right or wrong, the onus on the state to prove otherwise is going to be a huge hurdle for them.

---

theredkay1 posted:

---

Vydor posted:

---

Zimmerman can claim Trayvon went for his gun, or that as he saw something in his hand earlier the believed Trayvon was armed..etc.

Right or wrong, the onus on the state to prove otherwise is going to be a huge hurdle for them.

---

I dont think the state has to disprove every scenario that Zimmerman is able to make up.

And I dont think Zimmermans incorrect assumptions provide any real defense, do they?

---

Vydor posted:

---

The severity of the ass-whoppin Zimmerman took really isn't an issue in the case as far as the law is concerned. If he believed his life in danger, he could defend himself. Seems like there is wide latitude on this part of the law. Zimmerman can claim Trayvon went for his gun, or that as he saw something in his hand earlier the believed Trayvon was armed..etc.

Right or wrong, the onus on the state to prove otherwise is going to be a huge hurdle for them.

---

Ashmaele posted:

---

If you believe that TM attacked GZ from behind, then you pretty much have to 100% discount the testimony of TM's girlfriend, with whom he was talking on the phone when the altercation occurred. There is simply no way that both GZ and that chick can be telling the truth.

If you 100% believe GZ and 100% discount the statement given by TM's girlfriend, then you're probably a partisan who has already made up his mind about this case and your opinion should probably be ignored completely.

---

Vydor posted:

---

Ashmaele posted:

---

If you believe that TM attacked GZ from behind, then you pretty much have to 100% discount the testimony of TM's girlfriend, with whom he was talking on the phone when the altercation occurred. There is simply no way that both GZ and that chick can be telling the truth.

If you 100% believe GZ and 100% discount the statement given by TM's girlfriend, then you're probably a partisan who has already made up his mind about this case and your opinion should probably be ignored completely.

---

Wait, why is that? I think the main differences are just in the verbiage...in which case it's a he said/she said...that happens all the time. But both testimonies point to an encounter between the two.

---

“He said this man was watching him, so he put his hoodie on. He said he lost the man. I asked Trayvon to run, and he said he was going to walk fast. I told him to run but he said he was not going to run.”

Ashmaele posted:

---

Her statement:

“He said this man was watching him, so he put his hoodie on. He said he lost the man. I asked Trayvon to run, and he said he was going to walk fast. I told him to run but he said he was not going to run.”

It's pretty clear from this statement that she is saying TM was trying to get away from GZ. If this is true, then it directly contradicts GZ's statement that he stopped following TM and walked back to his truck. It also further illustrates how illogical the notion is that in a matter of seconds TM went from terrified kid being followed by scary neighborhood watch guy to aggressive thug chasing down innocent well-meaning neighborhood watch guy. It just does not add up.

Apply Occum's razor, figure out who has more of a reason to lie (GZ or TM's girlfriend) and it's really a simple conclusion...

---

Ashmaele posted:

---

Apply Occum's razor, figure out who has more of a reason to lie (GZ or TM's girlfriend) and it's really a simple conclusion...

---

DemonicXH posted:

---

I just checked Wikipedia and there is no mention that the girlfriend has given any official statements to the police. Just that her family has retained an attorney and released those statements anonymously.


I wonder why that is.

---

theredkay1 posted:

---

Ashmaele posted:

---

Apply Occum's razor, figure out who has more of a reason to lie (GZ or TM's girlfriend) and it's really a simple conclusion...

---

Seems like both have a strong incentive to stretch the truth.

If some f*cker killed my wife b/c she was wearing a hoodie, I would have a strong incentive to remember events in a light most damning to the accused.

---

Groucho48 posted:

---

40 Acres and a Mule!

---

Groucho48 posted:

---

Of course it's possible the girl is lying or distorting the conversation. Just as it is possible that Zimmerman is lying or distorting waht happened.

Too bad there isn't some mechanism where advocates for each side get to present their best case and a neutral group decides which side is believable.

---

Z-Elder posted:

---

Not Guilty!

and like the DA still waiting for proof of guilt.

---

cabbyman posted:

---

vn_nnanji posted:

---

cabbyman posted:

---

Most of us don't get our heads viciously slammed into the pavement either.

---

VICIOUSLY!

Cabby as drama queen.

Please provide proof that his head was viciously slammed into the pavement. Perhaps the grass stains they reported on his back will help.

Everything I claim as fact is in fact fact. Everything you yahoos base your claims on are not facts.

And you know what? That is yet another fact. Maybe you should pay attention....you being so fact challenged and all.

---

So you're saying his head was gently slammed into the pavement?

The video at the police station clearly shows damage to his head.

Eyewitnesses state plainly that they saw him bloodied at the scene.

I get it that you want this to be different. I really do. But it's not. It is what it is.

Color only matters to one of our stories.

---

Vydor posted:

---

There must need be proof of a crime,

---