[winathome]

If you shoot someone point blank, while they're beating your head into the ground, you should be covered in blood.

Second, if I was walking down the street minding my own business, and some self appointed whatever started harassing me, I would be pretty offended and probably react too.

Hope I didn't say too much to politicize the thread.

[matt15f]

Football?, on Apr 11 2012 09:21 PM, said:

This whole case can be trimmed down to one question:

Did Zimmerman follow Martin to the point of initiating interaction?

Any answer other than a vehement YES, should exonerate Zimmerman.

No it can't.

Following someone is not a crime. Not listening to a 911 operator's advice is not a crime.

I think what this case will come down to is if the prosecution can show zimmerman shot him at range and not up close. If there is physical evidence that the shot was made at close range, then it is likely self defense.

If the evidence shows that the shot was fired at range (not up close) then zimmerman is done.

[winathome]

matt15f, on Apr 11 2012 09:26 PM, said:

No it can't.

Following someone is not a crime. Not listening to a 911 operator's advice is not a crime.

I think what this case will come down to is if the prosecution can show zimmerman shot him at range and not up close. If there is physical evidence that the shot was made at close range, then it is likely self defense.

If the evidence shows that the shot was fired at range (not up close) then zimmerman is done.

That's how I feel too. about the point blank stuff. otherwise, harassing a citizen for simply walking down the street is pretty obnoxious behavior, and if your carrying a firearm pretty stupid behavior.

This post has been edited by winathome: Apr 11 2012 09:30 PM

[Football?]

matt15f, on Apr 11 2012 09:26 PM, said:

No it can't.

Following someone is not a crime. Not listening to a 911 operator's advice is not a crime.

I think what this case will come down to is if the prosecution can show zimmerman shot him at range and not up close. If there is physical evidence that the shot was made at close range, then it is likely self defense.

If the evidence shows that the shot was fired at range (not up close) then zimmerman is done.

There are witnesses saying there is a scuffle between the two, with one on on top of the other. So, of course it was point blank. Now, who was the one on top, and who was on the bottom screaming for help? You can believe that Zimmerman was on top of Martin, but that requires you to believe Zimmerman is a cold-blooded murderer with no regard for human life. Beating up a kid, AND shooting him? All this AFTER calling the cops? Makes no sense. If Zimmerman was that evil, he would've just shot Martin dead from afar.

Of course, this is just from the detail released from the media. Corey must have some damning evidence that isn't public yet, to have enough confidence to slap a 2nd Degree murder charge on Zimmerman. If she doesn't, I don't know if there's enough there to find Zimmerman guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

[winathome]

Football?, on Apr 11 2012 09:44 PM, said:

There are witnesses saying there is a scuffle between the two, with one on on top of the other. So, of course it was point blank. Now, who was the one on top, and who was on the bottom screaming for help? You can believe that Zimmerman was on top of Martin, but that requires you to believe Zimmerman is a cold-blooded murderer with no regard for human life. Beating up a kid, AND shooting him? All this AFTER calling the cops? Makes no sense. If Zimmerman was that evil, he would've just shot Martin dead from afar.

Of course, this is just from the detail released from the media. Corey must have some damning evidence that isn't public yet, to have enough confidence to slap a 2nd Degree murder charge on Zimmerman. If she doesn't, I don't know if there's enough there to find Zimmerman guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

And if Zimmerman shot someone point blank on top of him, he would be covered in blood. Unfortunately, it will probably play out like Casey Anthony, just no evidence.

[JagNGeorgia]

GingerJag, on Apr 11 2012 07:34 PM, said:

Zimmerman had a concealed weapons permit, though, and they do tell you not to instigate or follow someone to start a confrontation, that a concealed weapon permit is only to be used for self defense as a last resort. You would have a hard time convincing me that he didn't have any other options when he chose to follow a scrawny 17 year old kid and start a confrontation. Additionally, you would have a hard time convincing me that the aforementioned scrawny 17 year old kid was actually beating the crap out of a grown man while he was helpless to stop it. He had time to grab his gun and shoot Trayvon, if he was indeed getting his head slammed into the concrete repeatedly, how would he have time to do this? It just doesn't add up.

NH3, on Apr 11 2012 09:25 PM, said:

This is the exact reason for him being charged. Was Treyvon being provoked? Zimmerman should've/could've been able to fight off an sixteen/seventeen year old young man that he outweighed by what, almost a hundred pounds? Repeated defiance to not follow him plus some officers didn't buy his self defense story.

The only way that you can kill someone in self defense is if they're threatening to take your or someone elses life and having tea and Skittles doesn't qualify. Even if Zimmerman wore him out, he should still have to answer for his actions due to his actions...

NH3...

Have you two ever been in a fight? There is always going to be someone smaller than the other. I've seen so many of this "scrawny" kids beat the living hell out full grown adults. The fact that you think size is an automatic reason to assume Zimmerman wouldn't need a higher use of force is absurd. Not to mention, Trayvon wasn't small. He was 6'3''. He's 17-years-old... he's an adult in most states.

For example, I saw a 16-year-old beat a 45-year-old senseless. The 16-year-old was about 5'6'' and 140 lbs; the 45-year-old was about 6'3'' and 250 lbs. The old man had a completely swollen eye, busted lip, more than three welts on different places on his head. And, he was transported to the hospital. The only injury to the kid was a broken wrist that he suffered beating the mess out of the bigger man. This isn't an odd occurrence.

"The only way that you can kill someone in self defense is if they're threatening to take your or someone elses life and having tea and Skittles doesn't qualify. Even if Zimmerman wore him out, he should still have to answer for his actions due to his actions..."

That's you're problem. You see tea and skittles and refuse to accept anything else. You've already made up your mind. Somehow, you've determined that tea and Skittles are evidence of innocence.

If Trayvon began fighting Zimmerman and the fight got to the point where Zimmerman was unable to defend himself, lose consciousness, or would subsequently die as a result of the injuries, then he would be completely justified in shooting Trayvon. Even while defending yourself, you can't escalate the situation beyond what is necessary for self defense. If Zimmerman punched Trayvon, Trayvon can't turn around and beat the mess out of Zimmerman.

I'm willing to admit that I don't know if Zimmerman is guilty or innocent. It would appear that you think he's guilty. Do you?

GingerJag, on Apr 11 2012 07:19 PM, said:

If that's all found to be true he should be convicted. He was explicitly told not to follow him, yet he did anyway, and with a gun no less. Don't want any trouble? Don't go looking for it. Simple. Of course, that's just my $.02 and since I will not be a member of the jury, it means about as much as everyone else's on this board.

He wasn't "explicitly" told to do anything. Besides, the instructions of the dispatcher ARE NOT law. You don't have to follow them.

[method29]

JagNGeorgia, on Apr 11 2012 11:00 PM, said:

Have you two ever been in a fight? There is always going to be someone smaller than the other. I've seen so many of this "scrawny" kids beat the living hell out full grown adults. The fact that you think size is an automatic reason to assume Zimmerman wouldn't need a higher use of force is absurd. Not to mention, Trayvon wasn't small. He was 6'3''. He's 17-years-old... he's an adult in most states.

For example, I saw a 16-year-old beat a 45-year-old senseless. The 16-year-old was about 5'6'' and 140 lbs; the 45-year-old was about 6'3'' and 250 lbs. The old man had a completely swollen eye, busted lip, more than three welts on different places on his head. And, he was transported to the hospital. The only injury to the kid was a broken wrist that he suffered beating the mess out of the bigger man. This isn't an odd occurrence.

"The only way that you can kill someone in self defense is if they're threatening to take your or someone elses life and having tea and Skittles doesn't qualify. Even if Zimmerman wore him out, he should still have to answer for his actions due to his actions..."

That's you're problem. You see tea and skittles and refuse to accept anything else. You've already made up your mind. Somehow, you've determined that tea and Skittles are evidence of innocence.

If Trayvon began fighting Zimmerman and the fight got to the point where Zimmerman was unable to defend himself, lose consciousness, or would subsequently die as a result of the injuries, then he would be completely justified in shooting Trayvon. Even while defending yourself, you can't escalate the situation beyond what is necessary for self defense. If Zimmerman punched Trayvon, Trayvon can't turn around and beat the mess out of Zimmerman.

I'm willing to admit that I don't know if Zimmerman is guilty or innocent. It would appear that you think he's guilty. Do you?



He wasn't "explicitly" told to do anything. Besides, the instructions of the dispatcher ARE NOT law. You don't have to follow them.

I agree with most of what you said. As for the underlined, I might be misunderstanding you, but if Zimmerman was to that point, why were his injuries very minor? Again, I don't disagree with you, I'm just not sure if I agree either.

[JagNGeorgia]

method29, on Apr 11 2012 11:21 PM, said:

I agree with most of what you said. As for the underlined, I might be misunderstanding you, but if Zimmerman was to that point, why were his injuries very minor? Again, I don't disagree with you, I'm just not sure if I agree either.

The assumption that major injuries must be apparent to justify Trayvon exceeding what was necessary isn't always wise. You can knock someone out and only have a slight red tint to their face. Besides, are we sure that the paramedics didn't clean him off before he arrived at the police department. I'm sure photographs were taken before that, so if he was messed up then I'm sure they have the proof.

[Football?]

method29, on Apr 11 2012 11:21 PM, said:

I agree with most of what you said. As for the underlined, I might be misunderstanding you, but if Zimmerman was to that point, why were his injuries very minor? Again, I don't disagree with you, I'm just not sure if I agree either.

Do we even know the extent of the injuries? Supposedly there are medical reports that will be shared during the trial. You can't just look at a grainy video that a network puts up and fully assess what damage was done to Zimmerman.

And even then, you can bang your head against concrete and not have a pool of blood, like you see in the movies. Also, if Trayvon wasn't successful in bloodying up Zimmerman, should Zimmerman have to wait until he's battered before he pulls out a gun? If an assailant is undoubtedly trying to disfigure you, why should you have to restrain yourself from defending yourself until the assailant accomplishes his mission?

[Yo Boy]

JagNGeorgia, on Apr 11 2012 11:00 PM, said:

He wasn't "explicitly" told to do anything. Besides, the instructions of the dispatcher ARE NOT law. You don't have to follow them.

So are you saying police don't have to listen to dispatchers?? If they don't then why do we have dispatchers?

This post has been edited by Yo Boy: Apr 12 2012 07:05 AM

[Hard_Eight]

All I know is if I'm Zimmerman, and I get off....I'M GONNA GET PAID!!!

I'd sue NBC, for editing 911 calls to make me appear guilty.
I'd sue Al Sharpton, Jessie Jackson, and The New Black Panther Party for Slander and any other violations that I'm sure a bevy of lawyers would sign up to look for.
I'd DEMAND prosecution for the person(s) that levied a bounty against me.

But, first I'd be calling Jose Biaz or whatever Casey Anthony's lawyer's name is. Maybe she can come for a conjugal visit.

[Hard_Eight]

KM91, on Apr 11 2012 08:37 PM, said:

Yay! Another media circus that will set back race relations by 30 years! There will be no winner at the end of the day. Just two ruined lives and two mourning families.

This is the worst part...I REALLY hope this goes down in Orlando, not in Jacksonville.

[Hard_Eight]

Yo Boy, on Apr 12 2012 06:58 AM, said:

So are you saying police don't have to listen to dispatchers?? If they don't then why do we have dispatchers?

Exactly that. They have no authority. If you called Comcast and they told you not to chase someone, you don't have to listen to them either.

They are an operator that sends the police.

This post has been edited by Hard_Eight: Apr 12 2012 08:19 AM

[superfan32]

I think I'll stay out of this one. See, I'm not as dumb as you guys think I am.

[Hard_Eight]

You are but, I agree.

[ytraM]

We would be wise to take a lesson from the Duke Lacrosse case. Most people jumped to a conclusion that was not borne out by the facts.

Nevertheless, if person A appoints himself police officer, and arms himself, and follows person B, who is innocent of any wrongdoing, and person A winds up shooting to death person B, it seems like person A has some culpability, regardless of how it happened.

[superfan32]

ytraM, on Apr 12 2012 09:04 AM, said:

We would be wise to take a lesson from the Duke Lacrosse case. Most people jumped to a conclusion that was not borne out by the facts.

Nevertheless, if person A appoints himself police officer, and arms himself, and follows person B, who is innocent of any wrongdoing, and person A winds up shooting to death person B, it seems like person A has some culpability, regardless of how it happened.

But person C (who wasn't there)...doesn't really have a clue how this whole thing went down.

[ytraM]

superfan32, on Apr 12 2012 09:08 AM, said:

But person C (who wasn't there)...doesn't really have a clue how this whole thing went down.

I'm saying regardless of how it went down, a person who arms himself and follows someone else, and winds up shooting an unarmed person, should have to bear the consequences.

How about this example- you are having a nice day in the park with your wife and daughter. I have a concealed weapon permit, and I am carrying a gun in my pocket. I walk up to you, I insult your wife, I insult your daughter, and eventually you stand up and punch me. At which point, I pull my gun and shoot you. I claim self defense. Should I get off? You threw the first punch. I was standing my ground.

[superfan32]

ytraM, on Apr 12 2012 09:12 AM, said:

I'm saying regardless of how it went down, a person who arms himself and follows someone else, and winds up shooting an unarmed person, should have to bear the consequences.

How about this example- you are having a nice day in the park with your wife and daughter. I have a concealed weapon permit, and I am carrying a gun in my pocket. I walk up to you, I insult your wife, I insult your daughter, and eventually you stand up and punch me. At which point, I pull my gun and shoot you. I claim self defense. Should I get off? You threw the first punch. I was standing my ground.

I've already said too much. I'm staying out of this until facts are presented.

Nice story though. Especially the part about me punching you.

[Gabe]

I predict he'll be convicted of manslaughter, not 2nd degree murder (as he's being charged right now).

Though, that's like me predicting who the Jags will take with their first pick of the darft. Until the evidence is presented and witness accounts are taken into consideration, there's no point really getting all that worked up about it.

I am interested in seeing what evidence they've got on Zimmerman (at least what the general public hasn't been presented) in order to charge him for 2nd Degree.

[ytraM]

JagNGeorgia, on Apr 11 2012 11:00 PM, said:

Have you two ever been in a fight? There is always going to be someone smaller than the other. I've seen so many of this "scrawny" kids beat the living hell out full grown adults. The fact that you think size is an automatic reason to assume Zimmerman wouldn't need a higher use of force is absurd. Not to mention, Trayvon wasn't small. He was 6'3''. He's 17-years-old... he's an adult in most states.

For example, I saw a 16-year-old beat a 45-year-old senseless. The 16-year-old was about 5'6'' and 140 lbs; the 45-year-old was about 6'3'' and 250 lbs. The old man had a completely swollen eye, busted lip, more than three welts on different places on his head. And, he was transported to the hospital. The only injury to the kid was a broken wrist that he suffered beating the mess out of the bigger man. This isn't an odd occurrence.

"The only way that you can kill someone in self defense is if they're threatening to take your or someone elses life and having tea and Skittles doesn't qualify. Even if Zimmerman wore him out, he should still have to answer for his actions due to his actions..."

That's you're problem. You see tea and skittles and refuse to accept anything else. You've already made up your mind. Somehow, you've determined that tea and Skittles are evidence of innocence.

If Trayvon began fighting Zimmerman and the fight got to the point where Zimmerman was unable to defend himself, lose consciousness, or would subsequently die as a result of the injuries, then he would be completely justified in shooting Trayvon. Even while defending yourself, you can't escalate the situation beyond what is necessary for self defense. If Zimmerman punched Trayvon, Trayvon can't turn around and beat the mess out of Zimmerman.

I'm willing to admit that I don't know if Zimmerman is guilty or innocent. It would appear that you think he's guilty. Do you?



He wasn't "explicitly" told to do anything. Besides, the instructions of the dispatcher ARE NOT law. You don't have to follow them.

If you pick up a gun and follow someone, and it winds up in a confrontation, and you find yourself on the losing end of things, do you have the right at that point to pull your gun and shoot the other guy?

Can I go out and get in a fight, knowing that if I am losing the fight, I have the ultimate trump card in my pocket? Is that okay for me to do that?

Zimmerman picked up up his gun and followed Trayvon, wound up in a fight, and shot him. His excuse was that he was losing the fight. Should he bear no responsibility for what happened?

[pirkster]

Thank goodness it's going to be played out in court instead of by the angry mob.

But unfortunately, I suppose until there's a verdict that's still up in the air, too.

Hopefully intellect and not emotion will guide to the proper outcome... one that everyone can accept with closure.

[pirkster]

Gabe, on Apr 12 2012 09:24 AM, said:

I predict he'll be convicted of manslaughter, not 2nd degree murder (as he's being charged right now).

Though, that's like me predicting who the Jags will take with their first pick of the darft. Until the evidence is presented and witness accounts are taken into consideration, there's no point really getting all that worked up about it.

I am interested in seeing what evidence they've got on Zimmerman (at least what the general public hasn't been presented) in order to charge him for 2nd Degree.

Agree... that would be an easier charge to prove.

At least he's being charged properly. OJ was not, and it's why he walked. He was improperly charged with the "home run" charge that could not be proven in a way that would meet the high standards of that charge.

[Football?]

ytraM, on Apr 12 2012 09:50 AM, said:

If you pick up a gun and follow someone, and it winds up in a confrontation, and you find yourself on the losing end of things, do you have the right at that point to pull your gun and shoot the other guy?

Can I go out and get in a fight, knowing that if I am losing the fight, I have the ultimate trump card in my pocket? Is that okay for me to do that?

Zimmerman picked up up his gun and followed Trayvon, wound up in a fight, and shot him. His excuse was that he was losing the fight. Should he bear no responsibility for what happened?

You're assuming Zimmerman actually caught up to Martin...

There's no evidence that Zimmerman continued to follow Trayvon after he said "OK" to the dispatcher. Possibility exists that at that point he turned around and gave up his 'aggressor' title. Which is why I say the outcome of this case can be determined with one question: Did Zimmerman catch up to Martin?

[Mjohnston]

ytraM, on Apr 12 2012 09:04 AM, said:

We would be wise to take a lesson from the Duke Lacrosse case. Most people jumped to a conclusion that was not borne out by the facts.

Nevertheless, if person A appoints himself police officer, and arms himself, and follows person B, who is innocent of any wrongdoing, and person A winds up shooting to death person B, it seems like person A has some culpability, regardless of how it happened.

This is pretty much my thoughts exactly. I don't know all the details and I'm happy to wait for the evidence to come out. But I don't know when we decided that the job of "neighborhood watch" was to start tracking down people out just walking, and with our loaded weapons.

I try to put myself in that situation. I leave my house to follow someone not actually breaking any laws, with my loaded firearm. Immediately, I'm thinking that's not a good start for my case.