Quote :

"I think you're being dishonest. One point you're claiming that the police did investigate, and the next point you're saying that there's no way to really know if they investigated until the trial. "

Not at all. The default assumption would be that the cops investigated, after all, it's what they're paid to do. Then there was the nation wide narrative that the cops didn't even bring Zimmerman in for questioning at all, which would throw the entire idea that they did their job out the window. Now it turns out that narrative was a lie, that the police did indeed bring him in for questioning. Given that such an easily verifiable fact was simply made up, it's a perfectly reasonable position to assume that the police did indeed do their job, and to disbelieve any assertions to the contrary until actual evidence is provided.

Quote :

"People get killed by accident all the time. "

Which has nothing at all to do with the assertion that if this entire event had played out identically except for someone deciding to get hands on, that Trayvon would be alive today. You can't change the situation, and then tell me that I'm wrong when I never claimed that for any given set of circumstances he would be alive.

Quote :

"no official neighborhood watch training"

This has been a fascinating sentiment to come out of this whole ordeal. The idea that you need some sort of special training that one needs to go through in order to observe their own neighborhood and identify things which seem out of place, and to observe those things until the police arrive. Are you so sheltered in your home that you seriously don't think you could identify which people are regulars in your neighborhood and which people are out of place? If so, might I suggest you spend some time getting outdoors and getting to know your neighbors a bit better.

Quote :

"That's not a good/safe scenario right there, and there are any number of ways that somebody could end up hurt."

There's also any number of ways that it could end without anyone getting hurt at all. But the key trick to your scenario is that the only way it can end with someone getting hurt is if someone makes the decision to escalate from observation to an actual attack.

Quote :

"trayvon wasn't doing anything illegal during the night of his murder."

Neither was Zimmerman. But one of them did decide to get physical, and that is illegal.

Quote :

"zimmerman isn't a cop and had no reason to follow the kid."

See above, you don't need to be a cop to observe things which are out of place in your neighborhood.

Quote :

"if trayvon reacted, in any way, to being followed, he was standing his ground. "

Stand your ground removes a duty to retreat from an attack. Following someone is not attacking them.

Quote :

"Who determines where 'the point' is?"

Legally, harrasing and stalking usually require an element of repetition. Threatening usually requires some action or statement which implies imminent bodily harm.

Quote :

"Based on Martin's conversation with his girlfriend and the fact he ran, it seems obvious Martin felt harassed and threatened."

And then apparently got away, and then decided to confront Zimmerman.

4/14/2012 9:38:22 AM

Quote :

"This has been a fascinating sentiment to come out of this whole ordeal."

There's nothing fascinating about the fact that normal neighborhood watch people do not carry guns, do not ignore the advice of 911 dispatchers, and do not chase after random people in their neighborhood.

He's out of breath, running after a kid with a loaded gun in the dark, saying that "these people always get away." That is obviously not a good neighborhood watch. So how is it fascinating to you that people would disapprove of that? The whole point of the neighborhood watch rules is so that stupid crap like this doesn't happen.

Really though...it can't possibly be fascinating to you, and that's why I repeat my assertion that you're being dishonest. You're trying to dismiss all the facts of the case except the one we don't actually know (who physically aggressed against who first). Basically, you're decontextualizing the entire situation until it just looks like two guys randomly met up in the dark, and one of them happened to have a gun, and hey, you know how stuff happens...people get violent over "stupid shit" and what are you gonna do?

4/14/2012 1:41:16 PM

Quote :

"And then apparently got away, and then decided to confront Zimmerman."

...says the guy claiming self-defense.

It's ridiculous to ignore Zimmerman's aggressive and threatening behavior as having no bearing on his claim of self-defense.

4/14/2012 2:12:31 PM

Quote :

"normal neighborhood watch people do not carry guns"

Normal people carry guns all the time. The sensationalist media paints it like Zimmerman chased after this boy waving his pistol and honestly I think that is pretty far from the truth (opinion). Personally, I do not think Zimmerman exited his vehicle with the intent to get in a fight or draw his weapon. (of course that is now up to the judge and jury to decide)

[Edited on April 14, 2012 at 3:33 PM. Reason : ]

4/14/2012 3:32:45 PM

Looks like the Trayvon Martin case has been co-opted by several different progressive groups for their own advancement. You got your African American lobby, your gun-control lobby, and now the 1%ers are getting involved. As the media spotlight shifts to the controversial Stand Your Ground law we are now able to trace that legislation back to its creator, the corporate shadow organization known as ALEC.

And while the AA lobby and the gun-control lobby have to yet to see any positive change come out of this high profile case and the public outrage fueling it, us 1%ers and proponents of corporate responsibility have already seen 6 multi-national corporations drop out of ALEC in the last week due to the visibility of this most unfortunate incident. This is the true power of making information known and paired with transparency, the power returns back to the people.

Anyways, I already posted this in the ALEC thread but It's a good read.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/04/exposing-alec-how-conservative-backed-state-laws-are-all-connected/255869/

4/14/2012 3:41:48 PM

Has anyone yet even tried to offer an explanation as to why they were behind the house when Zimmerman claims that all he did was get out of the truck to look at a street sign and the kid jumped him?

4/14/2012 4:00:55 PM

Quote :

"Normal people carry guns all the time."

Seriously. I think a lot of people seriously lack any concept of how many people they are surrounded by who are carrying as they go about their daily business.

I mean, my doorbell rang 3 times yesterday evening. Once by a neighborhood kid who'd accidentally hit a ball into my backyard and was just giving me a heads up that he was walking around to get it, and twice by a neighbor who need a hand unloading/loading an aerator from the back of a truck. In all 3 cases, I grabbed a pistol and slipped it into my pocket before answering the door. Sure, the chance of needing it is very, very small, but that's beside the point.

4/14/2012 5:29:50 PM

Quote :

"normal neighborhood watch people do not carry guns"

[Citation Needed]. Normal people carry guns, normal people are part of neighborhood watches, therefore it stands to reason that normal neighborhood watch people might indeed carry guns. Unless you are arguing that the segment of the populace which chooses to carry guns has no intersection at all with the segment of the population that believe in policing their own neighborhoods.

Quote :

"Really though...it can't possibly be fascinating to you, and that's why I repeat my assertion that you're being dishonest."

The only person being dishonest here is you. This is the second time you have quoted me, and then gone off on a tangent arguing against something I didn't say. I'd appreciate it if you would stop. I mean the things I say, not the things you imagine me to say.

Quote :

"You're trying to dismiss all the facts of the case except the one we don't actually know (who physically aggressed against who first)."

That's because legally, that fact is the only one that matters. That Zimmerman had a gun, that he had no sooper sekrit neighborhood watchman training, that Martin was suspended from school, that the 911 dispatcher advised a citizen to take the course of action which would put the citizen in the least amount of danger, that Zimmerman was or wasn't a racist, all of these facts have zero impact on whether or not the shooting was legal self defense because none of those facts establish who initiated the attack.

Quote :

"It's ridiculous to ignore Zimmerman's aggressive and threatening behavior as having no bearing on his claim of self-defense."

They certainly contributed to the situation, but legally, someone following you isn't an excuse to attack them, which is why who attacked first is the relevant question. It's also worth noting that while you and Bridget both seem to think I'm ignoring what responsibility Zimmerman had in all of this, I already stated way back on page 7:

Quote :

"Honestly, I think the guy is guilty of horribly shitty judgement, and may even be guilty of some lesser manslaughter charge (not sure about the available charges in FL) but I think there's a sufficient amount of reasonable doubt that prosecuting without something to point to and say "that there shows Zimmerman was the aggressor and has no claim to self defense" could end up in at the minimum a mistrial and possibly an acquital, which might just be worse than not arresting him at all. ... And this, is the weakest part of Zimmerman's defense. He would really need to come up with some very convincing articulation of why and what crime he believed Tayvon had or would commit. Without that, even with the self defense claim, you could probably prosecute something like involuntary manslaughter by demonstrating that the voluntary and reckless actions taken resulted in the situation where Zimmerman was forced to defend himself, and that such an outcome could have been foreseen and avoided. But even if the prosecution has a chance of making such a case, given the shit storm this has become, does anyone think that a misdemeanor conviction would be satisfactory? "

4/14/2012 5:50:47 PM

^ Quite right. There is no doubt Zimmerman should feel terrible about all this for the rest of his life. He might even deserve to go to hell for it. But the subject of this thread is legal culpability.

If the Jury believes Zimmerman shot Martin because he was angry, either in retaliation for himself being attacked or to stop Martin from escaping, that is 2nd degree murder.
If the Jury believes Zimmerman honestly but unreasonably believed Martin might kill him, that is manslaughter.
If the Jury believes Martin was indeed a threat to Zimmerman's life at the time of the shooting, then he walks free. Racists and Idiots are allowed to defend themselves too.

4/14/2012 9:28:36 PM

^ Exactly, except with the added caveat in the 3rd case that if he believed him to be a serious threat to his safety (not just an imminent fear of being actually killed), then that is also a case where he goes free (legally).

4/14/2012 9:37:17 PM

the problem with this whole case is that only one side is alive to tell their story. i wouldnt take zimmerman's word for anything, his incentive is to save his ass...

hopefully, other witnesses testify and do so honestly.

4/14/2012 10:04:39 PM

People like me are open to all the options...not necessarily trusting Zimmerman, but not being spring-loaded to disbelieve anything he says. I've said from the beginning that we just don't know enough to make a judgment on this.

You, however, (and a bunch of other people) just know that he's a cold-blooded murderer, and are viewing things through that lens, and furthermore go the extra step to attack anyone who is saying "Wait a minute, I haven't seen anything to date that convinces me that this guy even did anything illegal, let alone 2nd-degree murder."

4/14/2012 10:58:42 PM

Quote :

"I mean, my doorbell rang 3 times yesterday evening. Once by a neighborhood kid who'd accidentally hit a ball into my backyard and was just giving me a heads up that he was walking around to get it, and twice by a neighbor who need a hand unloading/loading an aerator from the back of a truck. In all 3 cases, I grabbed a pistol and slipped it into my pocket before answering the door. Sure, the chance of needing it is very, very small, but that's beside the point."

I didn't realize we lived in Syria/post-apocalyptic dystopia/South Compton. Do you seriously feel the need to do that? What prompted that? I've never felt threatened by anyone at my door, ever. And if I did, it would have been because I saw through peep hole and didn't open it (which has never ever occurred).

EDIT: For 2011, there were 5.1 murders per 100000 people. That's 99.9949% of citizens not being murdered. I think I'd be more likely to shoot myself instead of be murdered in Cary.


[Edited on April 14, 2012 at 11:10 PM. Reason : ]

4/14/2012 11:05:49 PM

Fine, then. Don't carry a gun. I certainly don't give a shit.

Also, murder isn't the only bad thing that can happen to you, and tha, t is an annualized rate. If you add up the rates of all violent crimes (murder, robbery, kidnapping, sexual assaults, assaults, etc), the numbers would look much worse. Then you multiply those yearly rates over a lifetime, and the odds that something will happen to you over the course of a lifetime become--while not what I would call probable--certainly considerable.

Let's say the odds of being the victim of a violent crime over the course of a lifetime are 10%, just to throw out a rough number. It's certainly no reason to live your life in fear, but it should be something that causes you to think and use your head to not unnecessarily increase your odds...and I don't think that being armed constitutes paranoia.



[Edited on April 14, 2012 at 11:31 PM. Reason : ]

4/14/2012 11:17:57 PM

On the point of "normal people" carrying guns...everyone in this thread should be aware that people carry guns because many of you have told us so about a billion times over the past 5 years or however long we've been on this site. My point about the neighborhood watch is that people on neighborhood watch are specifically NOT supposed to carry guns while patrolling their neighborhood...in order to avoid precisely what happened in this situation.

Furthermore, some of you are insisting that the only thing that matters here is the physical altercation and that the sole point of this thread is to determine legal culpability (WTF, LoneSnark?). If that's the way you feel, then you can quit posting now. There's no way to know who started or escalated or was winning the altercation until the trial, and even then, there's a huge chance we'll never know. Of course, the absence of your posts doesn't mean that everybody else is going to stop talking about everything that actually happened that night.

4/14/2012 11:39:45 PM

^^ Just saying that it seems like out of a movie, where the gangster gets woken up by a knock on the door, puts his 45 in his waistband and slowly creeps up to the keyhole. I mean, really?

4/14/2012 11:46:54 PM

Quote :

"people on neighborhood watch are specifically NOT supposed to carry guns while patrolling their neighborhood"

Says who? It's certainly not illegal, and I'm not really aware of any rules for keeping an eye on the neighborhood.

Quote :

"...in order to avoid precisely what happened in this situation."

So...what precisely happened in this situation? I'll give you a hint: we don't know. What would have happened had Zimmerman not been armed? I'll give you another hint: we don't know.

Your statement just smacks of "just know that he's a cold-blooded murderer, and are viewing things through that lens, and furthermore go the extra step to attack anyone who is saying "Wait a minute, I haven't seen anything to date that convinces me that this guy even did anything illegal, let alone 2nd-degree murder."


____

and yeah, as far as I'm concerned, the details of the physical altercation and who started it are hugely important. Now, don't misread me--I would not necessarily attribute the fault to Martin even if he did throw the first punch, depending on the details of Zimmerman's "following". "Following" is a pretty wide spectrum of actions. Wide enough to make a significant difference in this case, anyway.


^ I mean, yeah, the odds of anything happening aren't high. I said as much. That said, you can't predict when it might happen, so within reason, I find it prudent to be prepared. There have been plenty of instances of robberies by people posing as someone needing help, or as door-to-door salesmen, etc.

[Edited on April 14, 2012 at 11:51 PM. Reason : ]

4/14/2012 11:48:05 PM

We do know what happened in the altercation, at least we know what has been lied about.

"He was bashing my head into the concrete and broke my nose" yet he did not go to the hospital and was seen 30 minutes later without severe injuries on video. And no photos of the injuries, and no medical report.

When someone's story begins falling apart due to lies, you have to suspect their motives.

4/14/2012 11:51:24 PM

How badly he was hurt makes no difference whatsoever, and at any rate, there was evidence of minor injury (abrasions/bruises on the back of his head).

I mean, he may very well be lying through his teeth, but you can't say "Well, he wasn't all fucked up...sounds like he's full of shit and/or wasn't getting hurt badly enough to warrant shooting the guy."

[Edited on April 14, 2012 at 11:54 PM. Reason : ]

4/14/2012 11:52:13 PM

It goes to his credibility. He claimed his life was in danger and he felt threatened and that's why he had to shoot.

And it's all to common that in situations where Black men are found shot to death, either by police officers or White citizens, that the "he's coming right for us! he's the unstoppable black male killing machine!" (see my thread in chit-chat regarding a 68 year old black man who apparently threatened 5 police officers so much they had to kill him)

It plays into the public's same fears and racial bias about that situation.

And yet despite his claims we've seen no evidence that those are actually true. So, he was lying about that. It's pretty obvious he was lying about that. Which lends to his credibility. Why was he lying about those injuries? And, if he did not have his life threatened, then maybe he wasn't in any danger at all...

4/14/2012 11:54:48 PM

Quote :

"And yet despite his claims we've seen no evidence that those are actually true. So, he was lying about that. It's pretty obvious he was lying about tha"

What? You don't see any evidence, aside from the injuries at least to the back of his head, that his claims are true?

Well shit, that's good enough for me. Send him to the chair.



and that other case looks bad to me...really bad. I saw it on the news a few days ago. I kinda have this feeling that there's another side to that story--why in the hell would they be arriving in riot gear for a lifealert call? still, it has a strong smell of "put 'em on paid leave, conduct an in-house investigation where we sweep it under the rug, and sooner or later, everyone will forgot about it."

4/15/2012 12:05:55 AM

Quote :

"theDuke866: Says who? It's certainly not illegal, and I'm not really aware of any rules for keeping an eye on the neighborhood."

Typically, neighborhood watch programs are sponsored by the police. Both the police and the national organizations recommend not carrying firearms. And if you're involved in an incident with a firearm on neighborhood watch, you can lose your sponsorship. For instance, one neighborhood in Salt Lake City used to have a police-sponsored neighborhood watch until it was terminated following a neighborhood watch chase/shooting ten years ago. People got together and created their own neighborhood watch without the police, and then there was another shooting... The police had to come out again and recommend neighborhood watchers not carry their guns on patrol.

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=7259059
http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=148&sid=7252008

And if you are officially trained in neighborhood watch, you know not to carry a gun. 1337 b4k4 thinks it's "fascinating" that people believe official training is a good thing. Of course, the number one reason why I think it's good not to carry a gun on neighborhood watch is because you don't want to be mistaken as the threat; if you do carry a gun on patrol, you really ought to wear something that identifies you as neighborhood watch...so that your own neighbors know you're not a strange man walking around the neighborhood with a gun. Do you see how ridiculous this can get?

Quote :

"theDuke866: So...what precisely happened in this situation? I'll give you a hint: we don't know. What would have happened had Zimmerman not been armed? I'll give you another hint: we don't know."

George Zimmerman got out of his car with a gun, ignored the advice of the 911 dispatcher, and chased after Trayvon Martin in the dark because he didn't want him to "get away" for some reason.

Something else happened after that, of course, but he still shouldn't have been chasing people around his neighborhood with a gun. That's not a good neighborhood watch.

Quote :

"theDuke866: Your statement just smacks of "just know that he's a cold-blooded murderer, and are viewing things through that lens, and furthermore go the extra step to attack anyone who is saying "Wait a minute, I haven't seen anything to date that convinces me that this guy even did anything illegal, let alone 2nd-degree murder.""

4/15/2012 12:37:05 AM

Quote :

"What? You don't see any evidence, aside from the injuries at least to the back of his head, that his claims are true? Well shit, that's good enough for me. Send him to the chair. "

No one is saying to send him to the chair. I don't see how anything that I said indicated that I'm interested in acting as judge, jury, and executioner. I find it amusing how people say, "Well, I just think it's weird that he hasn't been charged" and the response is "WHAT THE FUCK SO YOU JUST WANT TO DRAW, QUARTER, AND HANG HIM DONT YOU?!!?!? "


Duke, I know you are a smart man. Would you agree that "bashing your head against the concrete" would cause significant trauma to someone's skull? And would you agree that it would probably call for a hospital visit to rule out the possibility of a concussion? And would you agree that a broken nose, an actual broken nose would look .. well... broken? And would you agree that head trauma would cause a significant amount of blood to pour from a wound? And would you agree that we'd at least see a little bit of trauma on a video shot a mere 30 minutes after the injuries took place? Maybe even a bandage or two? Even just one tiny band-aid? And would you agree that the police, when investigating a possible murder, would at least take photos of the injuries sustained by the person if the person was claiming the injuries caused them to fear for their life and shoot the other person?

None of these things happened. Don't you find that the least bit suspicious?

4/15/2012 12:55:52 AM

I am saying that all of those things are matters of degrees, and in any case, how badly he was hurt is irrelevant in terms of his right to defend himself with deadly force.

I have a friend who shot 2 guys who attacked him in a home invasion. He wasn't hurt in any significant way...I don't think he had any visible injuries whatsoever. He called 911, the ambulance came and hauled the 2 guys away, and the cops pretty much just said "Nice shooting. That sucks you're gonna have to clean all that up." He was legally and ethically totally in the clear, in my opinion--like I said, if I'm attacked and in a dangerous situation, I feel no need to wait until things REALLY REALLY take a bad turn and I'm about to get killed or totally mangled.

Quote :

"And would you agree that the police, when investigating a possible murder, would at least take photos of the injuries sustained by the person if the person was claiming the injuries caused them to fear for their life and shoot the other person? None of these things happened. Don't you find that the least bit suspicious? "

Yes, they absolutely should have done that.

Now, that said, playing devil's advocate, if they felt that everything was on the up & up and had no intention of pursuing any case, I guess I can kinda see how they didn't take pictures. If there was no crime to investigate, there was no evidence to gather and record, you know? Still, with anything that might even possibly turn out not to be super clear cut, they should have at least gathered that sort of evidence and kept it for a while.

[Edited on April 15, 2012 at 1:09 AM. Reason : ]

4/15/2012 1:06:32 AM

Quote :

"Now, that said, playing devil's advocate, if they felt that everything was on the up & up and had no intention of pursuing any case, I guess I can kinda see how they didn't take pictures."

This is where part of the initial anger came from and where systemic bias would come into play. What if Trayvon were a female or white male, would the legal system still have reacted the same way?

We know statistically it possibly wouldn't have, and is harsher on black males. why should it be easier to kill a black person and get away with it because the cops may not have done their due diligence as a result? I wonder if they even recovered martins Bluetooth headset, because it's location could help corroborate or doubt Zs story.

4/15/2012 2:48:21 AM

So, let us look at it that way. The police on the scene decided there was no use making a case, because they would lose in court, so they didn't bother collecting evidence. Were they wrong? To admit that juries are racist and would acquit, so the police don't bother charging the Hispanic man, does that make the police racist or do they simply know their job well?

Of course, there is also the other alternative. Maybe the police were not worried about racist juries but simply knew they would never be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt Zimmerman committed a crime. After-all, there have been shootings in Florida where black individuals shot and killed someone in self defense and were not arrested or charged. Even when the police knew the shoot-out was related to the drug trade. Even gang enforcers have a right to defend themselves.

4/15/2012 8:58:02 AM

The police shouldn't be gaming it like that. Nobody should, in the former case. In the latter case, that's a call for the DA, not the cops (who don't have that authority and that isn't their role, and also don't have the legal training and experience to make that judgment. From traffic violations to murder cases, cops are not lawyers and often know just enough to be dangerous.)

The only reason for them not to collect evidence is if they're pretty confident no crime has been committed.

[Edited on April 15, 2012 at 9:16 AM. Reason : ]

4/15/2012 9:14:59 AM

Quote :

"And would you agree that a broken nose, an actual broken nose would look .. well... broken? And would you agree that head trauma would cause a significant amount of blood to pour from a wound? And would you agree that we'd at least see a little bit of trauma on a video shot a mere 30 minutes after the injuries took place? Maybe even a bandage or two? Even just one tiny band-aid?"

Honestly, this all depends. I had my nose broken when I was younger, and it didn't look broken, it just bled a whole lot. In fact it only now looks like it was broken as it's grown more out of place over the years. Went to the hospital at the time, and they basically told me there was nothing to do for it other than ice it and let it heal. If the same thing happened today, I probably wouldn't go to the hospital, no point in wasting money on what I already know.

As for head injuries, it's true they bleed like crazy, but a half hour is plenty of time for the wound to clot if it isn't a huge gash. Again, when I was younger, I got my head kicked open (should have blocked instead of ducking) and it was bad enough to require stitches, but it was a half an hour before my parents showed up to take me to the ER, which at that point it had already stopped bleeding. So, I suppose you might expect more blood, but a half hour is plenty of time for such injuries to clot up and stop bleeding.

4/15/2012 9:40:55 AM

So which is it? Is it a call for the DA or can they decide not to collect evidence because "they're pretty confident no crime has been committed"?

4/15/2012 9:43:11 AM

Quote :

"I am saying that all of those things are matters of degrees, and in any case, how badly he was hurt is irrelevant in terms of his right to defend himself with deadly force. "

Yes this is true but the part you are missing is that his story is FULL OF FUCKING HOLES. Broken nose, bashed head on concrete-> no significant injuries maybe an abrasion on the back of his head.
"got out of truck to look at street sign and was jumped"-> Shot some kid behind someones house.
His story seems bogus and doesn't seem to fit in with the details that we are aware of. This speaks as to his credibility and he has all the incentive in the world to lie about these events to avoid prosecution.

4/15/2012 10:16:21 AM

Quote :

"So, let us look at it that way. The police on the scene decided there was no use making a case, because they would lose in court, so they didn't bother collecting evidence. Were they wrong? To admit that juries are racist and would acquit, so the police don't bother charging the Hispanic man, does that make the police racist or do they simply know their job well? "

Yes, it's wrong to propagate systemic racism. And I not even men racist juries, the cops bias plays a role too.

Quote :

"Of course, there is also the other alternative. Maybe the police were not worried about racist juries but simply knew they would never be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt Zimmerman committed a crime. After-all, there have been shootings in Florida where black individuals shot and killed someone in self defense and were not arrested or charged. Even when the police knew the shoot-out was related to the drug trade. Even gang enforcers have a right to defend themselves. "

Lol, yeah in the case where a "gang" member in the drug trade was shot, I wouldn't want them wasting their time with looking for too much evidence. Presumably in cases like this, the cops recognize self defense because they find drugs, weapons on someone or the shooter says they were a gang member.

But do you realize your post here completely validates the claim that Trayvon being black worked against him? You're saying because gang members and drug dealers can be shot and not cause an investigation, then it makes sense that Trayvon be shot without investigation. But Trayvon wasn't a gang member, had no weapons on him, wasn't committing a property violation, wasn't even alleged to be a gang member by Z. There no reason to believe he should have been shot in self defense , except the word of the killer.

Congratulations LoneSnark you're an agent of systemic racism.

It's been reported that the lead investigator believed Z committed a crime though, it was the da that didn't want to charge.

Quote :

"The only reason for them not to collect evidence is if they're pretty confident no crime has been committed."

Someone can be confident and wrong, and someone's confidence can be based on incorrect biases.

[Edited on April 15, 2012 at 12:19 PM. Reason : ]

4/15/2012 12:15:45 PM

I don't understand moron. You suggest Zim was only let go because he wasn't black. Then, when I point out even black gang-members are in-fact let go after shooting someone to death, you suggest this too is evidence of racism? Or are you suggesting the cops don't care who the shooter is and will let them go as long as the victim was black?

4/15/2012 12:38:59 PM

Quote :

"Someone can be confident and wrong, and someone's confidence can be based on incorrect biases."

On the other hand, we're not going to go down the road of arresting everyone who defends themselves, treating them guilty until proven innocent.

Quote :

"So which is it? Is it a call for the DA or can they decide not to collect evidence because "they're pretty confident no crime has been committed"?"

No, no, you weren't talking about "no crime being committed"--you were talking about not being able to gather enough evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt, and thus saying "fuck it", or worse yet, saying "Fuck it, the jury is probably not going to buy this anyway due to possible racial biases."

4/15/2012 5:02:45 PM

Dude looks mexican

4/15/2012 6:03:37 PM

^Perhaps why the judge didn't even recognize him when he came into court.

http://www.ksdk.com/video/1559306579001/1/RAW-VIDEO-Zimmerman-Appears-in-Court

4/15/2012 8:15:37 PM

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

4/15/2012 9:04:38 PM

Quote :

"And yet despite his claims we've seen no evidence that those are actually true. So, he was lying about that."

Lack of evidence = fact now?

Quote :

"Would you agree that "bashing your head against the concrete" would cause significant trauma to someone's skull? "

That depends largely on how well that person was defending himself. Sure, if someone lets their whole upper body go limp there's going to be significant trauma, but his natural instinct in that situation is going to be to prevent and lessen every single blow. He's going to use his neck, core, and hands to prevent the full power of the blow as long as possible. Protecting ones self is natural.

Quote :

"And would you agree that a broken nose, an actual broken nose would look .. well... broken? "

Unless it's crooked, which isn't the case the vast majority of the time, a broken nose looks the same as a regular nose. Just like any fracture, it can be nearly impossible to tell without an x-ray. A person with a broken nose can usually hear a little grinding when they move it back and forth, but that's about it in the case of a clean break where everything is still aligned. They don't even always bleed.

Quote :

"in any case, how badly he was hurt is irrelevant in terms of his right to defend himself with deadly force. "

Yep. The law is intentionally written so that you don't have to wait until your brains are spilling out the back of your head before you defend yourself. I don't see why rational people would have a problem with this.

4/15/2012 9:51:22 PM

Quote :

""in any case, how badly he was hurt is irrelevant in terms of his right to defend himself with deadly force. ""

However as you dumbfucks keep ignoring. The fact that he was mostly (or possibly totally) unhurt certainly doesn't agree with his story that he was getting his ass beat. His story seems suspicious at best and that is why people are doubting it. Not hidden racist agendas but simply the FACT that his version of events smells very fishy.

4/16/2012 7:27:40 AM

I thought the "enhanced video" from the police station showed injury, his neighbor corroborated that he had a swollen nose and bruising, and the EMTs on site said that he had injuries; just not injuries that required hospital treatment.

How have we collectively written off those pieces of evidence again?

[Edited on April 16, 2012 at 11:02 AM. Reason : s]

4/16/2012 11:01:40 AM

cause we are all forensic experts and medical experts, duh

4/16/2012 11:51:28 AM

Quote :

"the EMTs on site said that he had injuries; just not injuries that required hospital treatment. "

I would think a broken nose and a head repeatedly bashed against the pavement would require at least a few minutes in the ER.

Also, have you written off the coroner's remarks that Martin's hands and knuckles showed no signs of any such struggle?

[Edited on April 16, 2012 at 1:28 PM. Reason : .]

4/16/2012 1:28:08 PM

Quote :

"I would think a broken nose and a head repeatedly bashed against the pavement would require at least a few minutes in the ER."

I wouldn't even think about going to the ER for those types of injuries unless my head was split to the point that it had to be stitched or I was looking to document my injuries for the purposes of a lawsuit. Swelling goes down. Cuts and abrasions heal. The ER isn't going to do anything but clean the cuts, prescribe some heavy duty Advil, and charge you $1500. This "I feel fine, but I need to go to the doctor to get checked out" stuff is part of the reason healthcare costs have gone through the roof.

Quote :

"Also, have you written off the coroner's remarks that Martin's hands and knuckles showed no signs of any such struggle?"

I did read that and found it very disturbing. You're making the mistake of thinking I'm siding with Zimmerman when I'm not. The amount of intentional ignorance by people who are calling for Zimmerman's head is sickening to me though. By "intentional ignorance" I'm referring to all of the people who ignore the facts that don't fit their side of the story. People who blindly believe the sensationalized story that is being passed around without taking the time to objectively look at any of the facts. People who want to cast judgment without spending the time to learn about the laws that affect the case. The people who want so badly to believe Martin was an innocent angel who was gunned down in cold blood that they refuse to even consider the other possibilities or look at the very real evidence surrounding the case.

I know we'll probably never know exactly what happened and, unlike most people, I accept that fact. Martin is dead and even if he were alive there are always three sides to every story. I look forward to seeing all of the evidence as it is presented at the trial. It would, however, be a black mark on our judicial system to put a man in prison for life if the evidence isn't conclusive for murder.

4/16/2012 1:48:20 PM

Well if the prosecution wants the second degree murder charge to stick without any evidence maybe they should move the case to a Wake county courtroom. Heck, they might even be able to get a murder 1 charge to stick.

4/16/2012 1:52:18 PM

^^ Enjoy that coma you're going to go into after you get an undiagnosed concussion. Don't fuck around with head trauma.

[Edited on April 16, 2012 at 2:31 PM. Reason : ]

4/16/2012 2:31:04 PM

The treatment for most concussions is for someone to check on you every few hours for 24 hours.

There is no magic cure an ER doc can give a person who is coherent, not dizzy, not vomiting, not seizing, and who has a full recollection of events. I'm sure the EMTs checked for these things during their assessment. Had they seen signs of a concussion they would have firmly demanded that he go to the ER.

The doc could do a CT scan, but that's an expensive test that they're not going to do if the other tests show no signs of brain injury. For the most part it's just observation to make sure no signs of severe trauma show up within the first 24 hours.

You or your insurance company can have fun with the $5000 ER bill if you ever go there for a minor scrape and start demanding expensive tests to make sure everything is ok.

[Edited on April 16, 2012 at 2:58 PM. Reason : s]

4/16/2012 2:52:12 PM

Quote :

"I wouldn't even think about going to the ER for those types of injuries unless my head was split to the point that it had to be stitched"

I would think one or two "slams" on the pavement would be sufficient for that.

Quote :

" or I was looking to document my injuries for the purposes of a lawsuit."

Such as you might want to if you just killed a person under the guise of self defense?

Quote :

"By "intentional ignorance" I'm referring to all of the people who ignore the facts that don't fit their side of the story. People who blindly believe the sensationalized story that is being passed around without taking the time to objectively look at any of the facts."

Wow, you sound exactly like Sean Hannity.

*Lectures about waiting for all the facts*

*Strictly lists facts that make Zimmerman look in the right*

*Smug self-satisfaction*

*Repeat*

Not to mention the "calling for his head" sensationalism. Sorry, but the NBPP is and never has been a remotely relevant or formidable organization. It's a small group of actual BPP rejects with big mouths who don't do jack shit. It's literally only the talk radio right who believes they're at all dangerous or a serious threat to anyone. I've never seen Hannity up in arms about the many, many death threats made to Obama by white supremacist groups, and calls for his death by Tea Partiers, over the years. Whenever THAT happens, it's just a bad apple or two, not worth mentioning. But when an NBPP reject says something he likely doesn't even have the cash to back up, Hannity takes it upon himself to mention it every 2 minutes, and use it to paint in broad strokes everybody who isn't going out of their way to defend the good honor of Zimmerman.

[Edited on April 16, 2012 at 4:41 PM. Reason : .]

4/16/2012 4:14:37 PM

So you spend a paragraph ranting about how dangerous the radical right is, then chastise the media right for ranting about how dangerous the radical left is?

[Edited on April 16, 2012 at 5:17 PM. Reason : .,.]

4/16/2012 5:13:59 PM

Quote :

"I would think one or two "slams" on the pavement would be sufficient for that. "

I've already said that a person in this situation is going to do his best to lessen the blows and prevent them as much as possible. Your neck muscles, core muscles, hands, and arms are going to do everything in their power to protect the head. It doesn't mean Zimmerman had a way out or that he would have lasted indefinitely in that situation.

Quote :

"Such as you might want to if you just killed a person under the guise of self defense?"

If he didn't feel he needed to go to the ER, the EMTs cleared him, and the police didn't tell him he needed to go to the hospital to document his injuries; why do you think he would go to the ER to document his injuries? I'm sure there were a million things going on in his head after the shooting, after EMTs checked him out, after police took him in for questioning, etc. Does it really seem that strange for a person who has been through all that to want to go home and get some rest rather than sitting in an ER waiting room all night just to be told he's fine?

The last two times I took someone to the ER we sat in the waiting room for 4 hours on one occasion and 3.5 hours on the other before being seen. The floors are hard and the chairs are uncomfortable. Long story short, if you're hurt bad enough to have to go to the ER you can expect it to be a long night. They don't coddle you, they don't give you meds in the triage, and they don't give you a comfy place to relax while you wait for treatment. You go sit in those chairs from 2:00 a.m. until 6:00 a.m. sometime and tell me if it's an experience you want to repeat. As for me, I'll always choose my comfy bed, some Advil, and a trip to the Urgent Care in the a.m. if I'm not severely injured.

Quote :

"Wow, you sound exactly like Sean Hannity. *Lectures about waiting for all the facts* *Strictly lists facts that make Zimmerman look in the right* *Smug self-satisfaction* *Repeat*"

I already said I don't think we'll ever know all the facts. I also said I found the coroner's report that showed no signs Martin was involved in a fight disturbing. You'll have to forgive me for not being able to blatantly ignore evidence that contradicts your feelings on the case. When did being rational and objective become wrong in our society?

Quote :

"Not to mention the "calling for his head" sensationalism. Sorry, but the NBPP is and never has been a remotely relevant or formidable organization. It's a small group of actual BPP rejects with big mouths who don't do jack shit."

"Calling for his head" was a metaphor and had nothing to do with the NBPP or decapitation for that matter.

[Edited on April 16, 2012 at 6:49 PM. Reason : l]

4/16/2012 6:38:41 PM

Forget arguments over self-defense or race -- Bill Cosby says guns did the deed in the Trayvon Martin case.

4/16/2012 7:37:08 PM

Quote :

"Typically, neighborhood watch programs are sponsored by the police. Both the police and the national organizations recommend not carrying firearms. And if you're involved in an incident with a firearm on neighborhood watch, you can lose your sponsorship. For instance, one neighborhood in Salt Lake City used to have a police-sponsored neighborhood watch until it was terminated following a neighborhood watch chase/shooting ten years ago. People got together and created their own neighborhood watch without the police, and then there was another shooting... The police had to come out again and recommend neighborhood watchers not carry their guns on patrol. "

You basically just proved what some of us are trying to get you to understand.

Legally, it doesn't matter that Zimmerman had a gun.

The police "recommended" that the neighborhood watch you are talking about, not carry guns.

RECOMMENDED.

Want to know why they did that? and didn't PROHIBIT?

Because as long as you are not a felon, you are LEGALLY allowed to carry a gun as long as your local or state laws allow it.

To many of you people are thinking that a lot of things in this case are illegal just because you think it's wrong, or you don't agree with the way certain things were done.

You are basically a nightmare scenario if you managed to somehow get selected to be on a jury.

You're judging guilt based on what you think is wrong.

Not by what is legally wrong.

Quote :

"George Zimmerman got out of his car with a gun, ignored the advice of the 911 dispatcher, and chased after Trayvon Martin in the dark because he didn't want him to "get away" for some reason. Something else happened after that, of course, but he still shouldn't have been chasing people around his neighborhood with a gun. That's not a good neighborhood watch. "

Not illegal, doesn't matter.

[Edited on April 16, 2012 at 9:07 PM. Reason : .]

4/16/2012 9:05:28 PM