Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Medical Evidence Martin Case Supports Zimmerman  
User currently offlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21562 posts, RR: 59
Posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 5946 times:

There's a reason charges weren't filed right away, it would seem, and it took a political backlash for someone un-involved in the case to file poorly backed charges. It was a rush to judgment by politicians while the proper investigators had not completed their own investigation, (or had, and had determined that the evidence supported the initial account).

Coroner's report shows, other than the gunshot wound which ended the encounter, Martin had no defensive injuries nor injuries consistent with being assaulted. Only scraped knuckles, injuries consistent with striking someone.

Zimmerman's medical records from the following morning show clear signs that he was assaulted for a period of time by someone of great strength, including a broken nose, two black eyes, and cuts on the back of his head.

Any wonder the press and president and others have stopped paying attention? They got their "issue" for the election year in a swing state and then moved on once the facts were more clear. What was once front page news before the facts were more clear is now way down the page on CNN, because now a motorist colliding with a moose, the facebook IPO news of the day, and google search being more human are more important.

Whether or not one believes Z had the right to shoot M as a result of getting beat down, the story he told of M doubling back and jumping him and beating the crap out of him seems to be far more likely today. And certainly there was no reason for M to be crying out for help as non-witnesses claim considering the autopsy findings. He wasn't being injured, subdued, held down, beaten, etc. No bruising, lacerations or contusions to support any of that.

Now the question is whether Zimmerman did or didn't continue to follow Martin and attack him (causing no injury), or if he stopped following him as directed and was then jumped, as he claims. But ultimately, the initial planted picture we were given of a smiling, defenseless 13 year old kid isn't what Zimmerman encountered that day. Martin was not defenseless, and seemed strong enough to not sustain any defensive wounds or injuries from the alleged assault he suffered, and was plenty strong to beat up a grown man.

Then the question also becomes, is this self-defense, manslaughter, or the original charge of 2nd degree murder, meaning he intended to assault him so badly that death was a real possibility. Medical evidence doesn't seem to support 2nd degree murder, unless Zimmerman started charging Martin with a gun intent on killing him and telling him he had a gun, and Martin somehow jumped Zimmerman before that happened, beat the crap out of him, and then was still shot (wouldn't more than one shot be fired in that situation?). And what in Zimmerman's history indicates he would be out to shoot someone for sport? Why was a teen unable to outrun a middle-aged man? Who turns around to face a man with a gun when he's not at hand-to-hand distance? And who goes after a man's face if he has a gun out rather than trying to get rid of the gun? M was aware he was being followed. Z didn't have the element of surprise. The family story that M only beat the crap out of Z because he feared for his life doesn't make sense if Z was holding a gun, unless M was on something or out of control.

Manslaughter seems much more likely if it is determined that Z continued to follow M before M turned around and engaged the confrontation, as non-witnesses claim. Self-defense if it is determined M doubled back to find Z after Z stopped following as directed by 911, as he claimed, M threatened to kill Z (not other way around), and Z pulled out a weapon to try to keep him away.

And sadly (not as sad as someone losing a life), at this point, if it is found Z is not the hitler he was made out to be and not convicted, or even if he is able to plead down to some form of manslaughter to make it all go away, there will be riots and innocent people will be harmed, all because irresponsible "leaders" jumped the gun, making a martyr out of someone who maybe wasn't so martyr-worthy.

If only the national leaders and main-stream press would care as much about people shot or beaten to death by police for little or no reason. Occasionally, it is elevated to the Rodney King level (despite him being another non-martyr-worthy fellow), but then here in LA over the last year, we have police beating to death a white homeless man (Kelly Martin) known to them while he begs for his life because he didn't cooperate with the commands given after he was suspected of looking in cars to find somewhere to sleep ("I'm going to F you up" were those commands given, BTW, on tape), shooting a white drunk man to death in broad daylight without warning because he was holding a garden hose nozzle sitting on his front steps, and here in my local city next door to LA, our intrepid police shooting an un-armed black alleged petty thief's lookout on the street because he "reached" for something.

"Reaching for something" or "having something that might have been confused for a weapon by an untrained near-sighted person but certainly not a swarm of cops" seems to the the valid excuse for killing anyone when it comes to the cops (killing a black costumed actor through the window of a Halloween party because he had a toy "weapon" as part of his costume for example), so much so that most of the national press and politicians just move on the next day if they get involved at all, but having your face pummeled on a dark and rainy night isn't good enough for a private citizen to defend himself, or at least to wait for the facts to come out, before everyone with power goes ape poop.

Anyway, rant over. Hope everyone who contributed to the other thread denying all of Z's claims and buying all of the family's claims (despite not being on the scene) takes a minute to think about your own contribution in a rush to judgment. Or you can just claim what M's family is claiming, that the doctor is a liar, falsifying medical reports, and that the truthful and honest family gave that "13 year" picture to the press because it was the only one they could find. Weeks after the event. Couldn't find one recent picture of their completely gentle young child. Or you could believe a doctor who can lose his license and be prosecuted for falsifying records in a criminal proceeding...


Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
187 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2749 posts, RR: 8
Reply 1, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 5936 times:

Quoting ikramerica (Thread starter):
Any wonder the press and president and others have stopped paying attention? They got their "issue" for the election year in a swing state and then moved on once the facts were more clear

You forgot that the FBI just announced that Zimmerman is being investigated for a hate crime. To bad they will not investigate Fast and Furious. What a joke.

http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/...george-zimmerman-hate-crime/nN5pR/

Quoting ikramerica (Thread starter):
all because irresponsible "leaders" jumped the gun, making a martyr out of someone who maybe wasn't so martyr-worthy.

Yep.

Quoting ikramerica (Thread starter):
Anyway, rant over. Hope everyone who contributed to the other thread

Thanks for the great post.



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20245 posts, RR: 59
Reply 2, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 5913 times:

This, folks, is why there is something called a "trial."

User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4751 posts, RR: 18
Reply 3, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 5899 times:

Interesting these medical 'reports' indicate he had a broken nose, there is no mention of X-rays. If indeed he had a broken nose and two black eyes why are there no pictures of these injuries.



Even if these injuries are substantiated it did not give Z the right to shoot and kill an UNARMED man.



He should have followed Police instructions and left T alone.



Just being a Wannabe Cop does not give you the authority of a real one.



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineQFA380 From Australia, joined Jul 2005, 2081 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 5875 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 3):

Even if these injuries are substantiated it did not give Z the right to shoot and kill an UNARMED man.


Assume Zimmerman isn't lying for a second and then think what you would do in that exact situation. You're a neighbourhood watch, carrying a gun as is completely legal for you. See someone strange walking around at night, tag along behind him, call the cops, the cops tell you not to follow him. You say ok and head back to your truck, while walking the guy you were following jumps you and starts beating you, threatening to kill you. All the while there is no one around to help you, and you both know you have a gun, a gun that if you let the beating continue he could take and shoot you or others. He is standing over you so you draw your gun and shoot him in the largest target area, his chest. having undergone a course to get his concealed carry permit you probably know that a person is unlikely to die from a single bullet to the chest and that if you intended to kill him, a few more would have been required.

Plenty of reasonable people would conclude that assuming Zimmerman was not lying and was obeying relevant laws then it was reasonable for him to shoot. And now this medical evidence is just showing that Zimmerman most likely wasn't lying.

You and I both know that he won't get convicted though, I'm hoping that his trial ends a few weeks before the election, exploding in Obama's face for his flagrant race baiting.


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21801 posts, RR: 55
Reply 5, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 5861 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 2):
This, folks, is why there is something called a "trial."

   If you shoot an unarmed person, you should go on trial. If they find out that it was justified, then you're either found not guilty or the charges are dropped, and that's the end of it.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineCompensateMe From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 1281 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 5855 times:

Quoting ikramerica (Thread starter):
Any wonder the press and president and others have stopped paying attention? They got their "issue" for the election year in a swing state and then moved on once the facts were more clear. What was once front page news before the facts were more clear is now way down the page on CNN, because now a motorist colliding with a moose, the facebook IPO news of the day, and google search being more human are more important.

I love conspiracy theories  .

Do you know why this is no longer front page news? Because public interest has waned. Zimmerman & Martin was yesterday's news. If the public craved more of this story, CNN would have no problem dedicating oodles of resources to it (after all, they've slipped behind their own HLN at times as the fourth rated news channel). But people have moved on.

[Edited 2012-05-16 18:00:23]


Gordo:like this streaming video,Sky magazine,meals for sale at mealtime-make customer satisfaction rank so high at UA
User currently offlinePSA53 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3089 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 5807 times:

Quoting CompensateMe (Reply 6):

Do you know why this is no longer front page news? Because public interest has waned.

Explanation is very simple.The media wants to bury this story as fast as possible of all the political bias it sided with and not to admit any edited and condensing both video and audio tapes that ABC and NBC did. This case will never go away of the ugliness that it portrayed in the first few days of the case.The media couldn't even get a proper race ID right on Zimmerman.

The media will never admit to guilt.It is too arrogant to admit fault.It's being sweep under the carpet.Even Obama is guilty for that stupid "son" comment.

Only people like and you and I need to remind the media,"We want the truth,to whole truth and nothing but the truth!"

And finally in IMHO,in any other circles,people would be lose their jobs,reputation ruined and be charged with obstruction of justice of the what the media did.



Tuesday's Off! Do not disturb.
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11766 posts, RR: 15
Reply 8, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 5800 times:

Quoting ikramerica (Thread starter):
from the following morning

So, there was no way at all that he could have gotten into any altercation after he left police custody? Interesting...

Quoting windy95 (Reply 1):
Fast and Furious.

That was begun under GWB.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4751 posts, RR: 18
Reply 9, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 5760 times:

Quoting QFA380 (Reply 4):

Assume Zimmerman isn't lying for a second

Why ?

Quoting QFA380 (Reply 4):
what you would do in that exact situation

I do not carry, or have a gun I would not have been in that situation.

Quoting QFA380 (Reply 4):
You're a neighbourhood watch, carrying a gun as is completely legal for you

It may be legal but neighborhood watch specifically prohibits guns. He was looking for trouble.

Quoting QFA380 (Reply 4):
See someone strange walking around at night, tag along behind him, call the cops, the cops tell you not to follow him

Go home, game over.

Quoting QFA380 (Reply 4):
You say ok and head back to your truck, while walking the guy you were following

You were told not to follow him.

Quoting QFA380 (Reply 4):
guy you were following jumps you and starts beating you, threatening to kill you.

Pure speculation on your part.

Quoting QFA380 (Reply 4):
All the while there is no one around to help you, and you both know you have a gun, a gun that if you let the beating continue he could take and shoot you or others. He is standing over you so you draw your gun and shoot him in the largest target area, his chest. having undergone a course to get his concealed carry permit you probably know that a person is unlikely to die from a single bullet to the chest and that if you intended to kill him, a few more would have been required.

You directly contributed to and created this situation. If this is under the guise of neighborhood watch then why carry a gun ? It is only going to bring the possibilty of a shooting as happened.




This ridiculous 'stand your ground' law gives the armed gun nut more rights than the unarmed citizen.




Z was a wannabe Cop looking for trouble, he made numerous calls to 911 before this tragedy, constantly bothering Police, thinking this would somehow make up for his failed attempt at becoming a real one.



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5716 posts, RR: 6
Reply 10, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 5717 times:

Quoting ikramerica (Thread starter):
Martin had no defensive injuries

Which does not mean he wasn't threatened.

Quoting ikramerica (Thread starter):
great strength, including a broken nose, two black eyes, and cuts on the back of his head.

No offense, but it doesn't take "great strength" to cause any of those injuries. A toddler can give you a black eye if they smack you just right.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 3):
UNARMED

Does not mean "not deadly"

Quoting Max Q (Reply 3):
He should have followed Police instructions and left T alone.

Police gave him no such instruction. A dispatcher said they don't need him to follow Martin. The dispatcher's instruction carries no weight in a criminal trial.

Quoting Mir (Reply 5):
you should go on trial.

When that happens:

Quoting Mir (Reply 5):
the charges are dropped

That can't. You are either found guilty or not guilty. It is up to the prosecution to drop the charges, a power you want to strip away.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 9):
neighborhood watch specifically prohibits guns.

Source?

Quoting Max Q (Reply 9):

Pure speculation on your part.

Says the guy who says:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 3):
Just being a Wannabe Cop

...

Quoting Max Q (Reply 9):
You directly contributed to and created this situation.

A meaningless statement. What is relevant is whether a) Zimmerman directly provoked Martin into attacking him or b) the use of deadly force was justified.

Under Florida law, if (a) is found to be not true, than the injuries suffered by Zimmerman and the non-injuries suffered by Martin makes (b) true.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 9):
constantly bothering Police,

Because he reported a suspicious person in an area with recent burglaries? Sounds to me like the police weren't too bothered, considering they never filed any charges.



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4751 posts, RR: 18
Reply 11, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 5701 times:

The very act of carrying a gun into a volatile situation guarantees a tragic outcome.



Z was looking for trouble and got what he was looking for.



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3402 posts, RR: 9
Reply 12, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 5699 times:

Quoting ikramerica (Thread starter):
Zimmerman's medical records from the following morning show clear signs that he was assaulted for a period of time by someone of great strength, including a broken nose, two black eyes, and cuts on the back of his head.

I want to know what the numbers on this kid were (height and weight) I will accept that the media used old photos, but to imply great strength would imply that this kid was of the physique of football player (ex. 6'2, 250lbs).

The last I heard he was 6'0 150-170 lbs. which is pretty skinny. Although great strength may not be determined by simply looking at someone.

What actually might hurt Zimmerman here is that there are no attack or defence wounds on Martin meaning the struggle was entirely one-sided.

Now wouldn't there be an attempt by Zimmerman to fight back before feeling the need to shoot Martin. Zimmerman doesn't look like someone who is a shrimp and he could have fought back to get free and if successful then draw his gun to attempt to neutralize the situation. Also if he couldn't break free how could he get to his gun??

Quoting ikramerica (Thread starter):
Then the question also becomes, is this self-defense, manslaughter, or the original charge of 2nd degree murder, meaning he intended to assault him so badly that death was a real possibility.

Look I'm happy the case is seeing a courtroom if he gets off then so be it. If I had to guess the best the DA could get is involuntary manslaughter and if they can prove self-defense then Zimmerman doesn't get any time.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 2):

This, folks, is why there is something called a "trial."

  

Let justice be done.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 9):
It may be legal but neighborhood watch specifically prohibits guns. He was looking for trouble.

He was a "Self Appointed" member of the neighbourhood watch and not the head of any community registered neighbourhood watch program. I bet if you asked people in Sanford some might say Zimmerman may have been somewhat of a nuisance.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 10):
No offense, but it doesn't take "great strength" to cause any of those injuries. A toddler can give you a black eye if they smack you just right.

If that was on a coroner's report then it is pretty unprofessional.



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8971 posts, RR: 39
Reply 13, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 5587 times:

Assuming Zimmerman is innocent. . .

Quoting Max Q (Reply 3):
Even if these injuries are substantiated it did not give Z the right to shoot and kill an UNARMED man.

The fact that Martin was unarmed is completely meaningless. He attacked, and therefore Zimmerman had the right to defend himself.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 3):
He should have followed Police instructions and left T alone.

Indeed.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 3):
Just being a Wannabe Cop does not give you the authority of a real one.

Any human being should have the right to defend oneself and their property.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 11):
The very act of carrying a gun into a volatile situation guarantees a tragic outcome.

Z was looking for trouble and got what he was looking for.

This is like saying a cop gets into a shooting, therefore he was looking for trouble and got what he was looking for.

[Edited 2012-05-17 05:46:55]


"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8971 posts, RR: 39
Reply 14, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 5583 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 9):
I do not carry, or have a gun I would not have been in that situation.

If Martin knew Zimmerman had a gun, I highly doubt he would have attacked Zimmerman.



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2749 posts, RR: 8
Reply 15, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 5572 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 3):
Even if these injuries are substantiated it did not give Z the right to shoot and kill an UNARMED man.

Yes it does. And being unarmed does not make it any less a dangerous situation for Zimmerman. It just takes one wrong smach of the head against the ground to kill or leave you brain damaged for the rest of your life.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 3):
He should have followed Police instructions and left T alone.

He did.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 8):
Quoting windy95 (Reply 1):Fast and Furious.
That was begun under GWB.

Nope.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 9):
I do not carry, or have a gun I would not have been in that situation

Most people do not get to pick and choose these situations. You carry for the reason that it may come your way one day.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 9):
It may be legal but neighborhood watch specifically prohibits guns. He was looking for trouble.

Source

Quoting Max Q (Reply 9):
You were told not to follow him.

And he said OK and stopped. He had already lost Trayvon by that time.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 9):
Pure speculation on your part.

Not really. it fit's with what Zimmerman said and what yo hear on the 911 call

Quoting Max Q (Reply 9):
If this is under the guise of neighborhood watch then why carry a gun ?

To protect yourself.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 9):
This ridiculous 'stand your ground' law gives the armed gun nut more rights than the unarmed citizen.

No it gives every citizen the right to defend themselves.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 11):
The very act of carrying a gun into a volatile situation guarantees a tragic outcome

It helps ensure that you are not that tragic outcome.



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1909 posts, RR: 10
Reply 16, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 5545 times:

Quoting ikramerica (Thread starter):
And what in Zimmerman's history indicates he would be out to shoot someone for sport?

History is the best indicator for future behaviour, but history has to start somewhere. I'm not saying that because I think he's guilty, but it goes for just about anything. I'm gnoring the "for sport" part because that is just a ridiculous thing to say.

Quoting ikramerica (Thread starter):
think about your own contribution in a rush to judgment

Anything said in this thread before the trial starts is a rush to judgment, including your rant. I'm going to wait until the trial starts before deciding who I believe. Right now it's a bit of a toss-up.

Quoting QFA380 (Reply 4):
You say ok and head back to your truck, while walking the guy you were following jumps you and starts beating you, threatening to kill you.

That's incredibly speculative.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 13):
This is like saying a cop gets into a shooting, therefore he was looking for trouble and got what he was looking for

Umm...isn't it a cop's job to look for trouble? I'm pretty sure they're paid to confront suspicious persons and chase criminals.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 15):
Quoting Max Q (Reply 3):
He should have followed Police instructions and left T alone.

He did.
Quoting windy95 (Reply 15):
Quoting Max Q (Reply 9):
You were told not to follow him.

And he said OK and stopped. He had already lost Trayvon by that time.

More speculation. I don't think we've seen proof for this.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 15):
Quoting Max Q (Reply 11):
The very act of carrying a gun into a volatile situation guarantees a tragic outcome

It helps ensure that you are not that tragic outcome.

This is what bugs (scares) me. In the US there's this "better him than me" mentality, even if one's life isn't really threatened, that results in disproportionately high gun deaths compared to other Western countries. It seems in certain parts of the country that people will reach for their gun before their common sense.



Flying refined.
User currently offlinejbirdav8r From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 4491 posts, RR: 21
Reply 17, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 5543 times:

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 16):
This is what bugs (scares) me. In the US there's this "better him than me" mentality, even if one's life isn't really threatened, that results in disproportionately high gun deaths compared to other Western countries. It seems in certain parts of the country that people will reach for their gun before their common sense.

Isn't that incredibly speculative?   



I got my head checked--by a jumbo jet
User currently onlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8921 posts, RR: 24
Reply 18, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 5541 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 3):
Even if these injuries are substantiated it did not give Z the right to shoot and kill an UNARMED man.

I am pretty sure that Martin had arms.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 8):
That was begun under GWB.

That was another, similar operation - the difference was that in that operation, they actually kept track of the guns and made arrests.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 16):
Umm...isn't it a cop's job to look for trouble? I'm pretty sure they're paid to confront suspicious persons and chase criminals.

That's like saying that if it's not your job, don't do anything. If you see a bad car accident, don't help - firefighters and EMTs are paid for that - just wait for them.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11500 posts, RR: 52
Reply 19, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 5527 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 2):
This, folks, is why there is something called a "trial."

      

Quoting ikramerica (Thread starter):
Zimmerman's medical records from the following morning show clear signs that he was assaulted for a period of time

Not true. I believe this is your conjecture. Because as Maverick points out:

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 10):
Quoting ikramerica (Thread starter):
great strength, including a broken nose, two black eyes, and cuts on the back of his head.

No offense, but it doesn't take "great strength" to cause any of those injuries. A toddler can give you a black eye if they smack you just right.

Furthermore, the fact that Zimmerman was injured does not prove in the slightest that Zimmerman was not the aggressor. Remember, Zimmerman was the guy wielding the gun. If someone points a gun at you, and you don't have one to point back, you're either going to run like bloody hell, or stand your ground (which you are allowed to do in Florida) and do your best to beat the guy senseless.

For the life of me, I cannot understand why people think an injury is proof that the guy was not the instigator.

Quoting ikramerica (Thread starter):
Coroner's report shows, other than the gunshot wound which ended the encounter, Martin had no defensive injuries nor injuries consistent with being assaulted. Only scraped knuckles, injuries consistent with striking someone.

Something HUGE you are forgetting to report about the Coroner's Report: Martin was not shot at close range. He was shot at intermediate range. What does that mean? That means that Martin was outside the range to throw a punch when Zimmerman shot him dead. You can gloss over that, but that is a huge piece of evidence, if true.

Quoting ikramerica (Thread starter):
Anyway, rant over. Hope everyone who contributed to the other thread denying all of Z's claims and buying all of the family's claims (despite not being on the scene) takes a minute to think about your own contribution in a rush to judgment.

Are you kidding me? The protests and the people on the now closed thread were clamoring for a trial! An unarmed kid is dead at the hands of a gun -- there should be a trial.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 8):
Quoting windy95 (Reply 1):
Fast and Furious.

That was begun under GWB.

Both of you: STOP. Your constantly making things political is what's going to get this thread killed.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 10):
Quoting Max Q (Reply 9):
neighborhood watch specifically prohibits guns.

Source?

Unfortunately, the Community Safety Institute and the National Sheriff's Association for some strange reason don't give this information out for free, but there is plenty of evidence that guns are a no-no on the Neighborhood Watch:

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/...-community-ties-neighborhood-watch
"Zimmerman carried a handgun. Police departments and sheriff's offices that train volunteers advise them never to carry weapons — though Zimmerman broke no laws by doing so because he has a concealed-weapons permit."

http://www.huliq.com/3257/national-n...ns-actions-trayvon-martin-shooting
"In addition, although Zimmerman broke no laws because he has a concealed weapons permit, it's something that Neighborhood Watch strongly discourages. "There's no reason to carry a gun," Tutko said. "You do not carry a weapon during neighborhood watch. If you carry a weapon, you're going to pull it.""

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=7259059
"Neighborhood watch is a valuable program, but deputies say weapons have no place in it.

Salt Lake County Sheriff's Office Crime Prevention Deputy Levi Hughes said, "We recommend you do not. As a matter of fact, we tell you, you should not carry firearms.""

http://www.sacsheriff.com/crime_prev...ocuments/neighborhood_watch_04.cfm
"Make sure your citizen patrol:
...
- Never carries weapons of any kind — e.g. guns, black jack, mace, baseball bat, or knives;"

http://www.eddystoneboro.com/comubb.htm
"Neighborhood Watch members are restricted to performing eyes and ear surveillance ONLY, reporting their observations immediately to the police. NO weapons and NO direct involvement with a crime situation are permitted. Neighborhood Watch members are NOT authorized to perform in a law enforcement capacity."



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8971 posts, RR: 39
Reply 20, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 5522 times:

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 16):
Umm...isn't it a cop's job to look for trouble? I'm pretty sure they're paid to confront suspicious persons and chase criminals.

Depends on how you read the term "looking for trouble". The way it was used above, it goes beyond a literal reading - it implies Mr. Zimmerman was aching to get into trouble, i.e., even if he had to create trouble.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 16):
This is what bugs (scares) me. In the US there's this "better him than me" mentality, even if one's life isn't really threatened, that results in disproportionately high gun deaths compared to other Western countries. It seems in certain parts of the country that people will reach for their gun before their common sense.

US gun deaths are largely related to belligerent US drug policies.



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1909 posts, RR: 10
Reply 21, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 5507 times:

Quoting jbirdav8r (Reply 17):
Isn't that incredibly speculative?

I was waiting for someone to turn that line on me  

But it's not speculative when there's data to support it.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 18):
That's like saying that if it's not your job, don't do anything. If you see a bad car accident, don't help - firefighters and EMTs are paid for that - just wait for them.

That's not what I'm saying at all. I was pointing out that PPVRA used a poor comparison for his point.

Quoting D L X (Reply 19):
If someone points a gun at you

I don't think it has been shown whether the gun came out before or after the first punch.

Quoting D L X (Reply 19):
Your constantly making things political is what's going to get this thread killed

  

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 20):
Depends on how you read the term "looking for trouble". The way it was used above, it goes beyond a literal reading - it implies Mr. Zimmerman was aching to get into trouble, i.e., even if he had to create trouble

I understand that. I just didn't think it was a great comparison for the point you were trying to make. There is a big legal difference between a neighbourhood "watchman" and a man with a badge.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 20):
US gun deaths are largely related to belligerent US drug policies

Sorry for going off-topic, but how are they more belligerent than in Canada?



Flying refined.
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11766 posts, RR: 15
Reply 22, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 5502 times:

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 21):
I don't think it has been shown whether the gun came out before or after the first punch.

Only two people know when this happened. One of them can no longer give his side of the story because he is dead. Zimmerman will, without a doubt, come out of this a hero and be the poster boy for the NRA about how guns are just the greatest ever and Trayvon will be painted as a thug and will forever have his reputation and memory tarneshed. Simply becuase he was shot to death in the name of some insane law.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8971 posts, RR: 39
Reply 23, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 5494 times:

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 21):
There is a big legal difference between a neighbourhood "watchman" and a man with a badge.

But there is no moral difference. And the law should reflect this.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 21):
Sorry for going off-topic, but how are they more belligerent than in Canada?

I am not too familiar with Canada's War on Drugs, though Americans do often say Canada has more lax laws. Not sure to what extent this is true, though.



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11500 posts, RR: 52
Reply 24, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 5490 times:

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 21):
Quoting D L X (Reply 19):
If someone points a gun at you

I don't think it has been shown whether the gun came out before or after the first punch.

Completely agree. All I'm saying is that there is no evidence other than Zimmerman's own statement concerning who started the altercation. Zimmerman's injuries do not prove that he was the innocent victim of crime.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1909 posts, RR: 10
Reply 25, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 5533 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 23):
But there is no moral difference. And the law should reflect this.

But that's the thing about morals, just because one is acting with good or just intentions, it does not make it the right thing to do.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 23):
I am not too familiar with Canada's War on Drugs, though Americans do often say Canada has more lax laws. Not sure to what extent this is true, though.

We aren't as strict on marijuana up here, but all the chemical drugs and prescription meds are just as controlled as in the States. I almost never hear about anybody getting shot over a drug deal gone wrong though. But when I'm in the US I hear it on the local news all the time. I don't do drugs, but it still scares the hell out of me when I hear about it.



Flying refined.
User currently offlinesbworcs From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2005, 851 posts, RR: 5
Reply 26, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 5506 times:

All I see from both sides of the arguments here are people speculating about what happened and reporting it as fact. The only person that is able to know exactly what went on is Zimmerman and he is obviously going to say things to make his case stronger.

Unfortunately the other person that would be able to throw light onto this is dead and unable to do so.

Hopefully the evidence of either guilt or innocence is compelling enough to dispel conspiracy theories from whichever side "loses" the outcome.

Some evidence out so far supports guilty and some appears to support not guilty and people should not only jump on the one that supports their pre conceived ideas of what happened.



The best way forwards is upwards!
User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2749 posts, RR: 8
Reply 27, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 5519 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 19):
Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 10):Quoting Max Q (Reply 9):
neighborhood watch specifically prohibits guns.

Source?
Unfortunately, the Community Safety Institute and the National Sheriff's Association for some strange reason don't give this information out for free, but there is plenty of evidence that guns are a no-no on the Neighborhood Watch:

Was there a point to these? Can you show me where Zimmerman was prohibited from carrying a weapon as a neighborhood watch person?

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 16):
Quoting windy95 (Reply 15):Quoting Max Q (Reply 9):
You were told not to follow him.

And he said OK and stopped. He had already lost Trayvon by that time.
More speculation. I don't think we've seen proof for this.

It is not specualtion. It is on the 911 tape.

Quoting D L X (Reply 19):
An unarmed kid is dead at the hands of a gun -- there should be a trial.

Not if it was self defense.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 16):
It seems in certain parts of the country that people will reach for their gun before their common sense.

Can you show us some proof of that? At what point when you are on the ground getting pummeled is common sense supposed to kick in?



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1909 posts, RR: 10
Reply 28, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 5504 times:

Quoting windy95 (Reply 27):
Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 16):
Quoting windy95 (Reply 15):Quoting Max Q (Reply 9):
You were told not to follow him.

And he said OK and stopped. He had already lost Trayvon by that time.
More speculation. I don't think we've seen proof for this.

It is not specualtion. It is on the 911 tape.

"He lost Trayvon by that time." is most certainly speculation. How does the 911 tape tell you otherwise?

Quoting windy95 (Reply 27):
Can you show us some proof of that? At what point when you are on the ground getting pummeled is common sense supposed to kick in?

What do you want proof for? I was commenting on my view of gun usage in the US compared to the places I've lived, I wasn't talking about the case directly.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 27):
Quoting D L X (Reply 19):
An unarmed kid is dead at the hands of a gun -- there should be a trial.

Not if it was self defense

Why not? Isn't a trial the most accurate way to prove one's innocence?

Regardless of the crime, whether it's petty theft or 1st degree murder, if there is any doubt in one's innocence, there should be a fair trial so that it can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that they are either innocent or guilty as charged.



Flying refined.
User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2749 posts, RR: 8
Reply 29, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 5489 times:

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 28):
"He lost Trayvon by that time." is most certainly speculation. How does the 911 tape tell you otherwise?

Because Z tells the 911 dispatcher that he lost him. The the Dispatcher says he should not follow him and Z answers OK.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 28):
What do you want proof for? I was commenting on my view of gun usage in the US compared to the places I've lived, I wasn't talking about the case directly.

Fair enough. Just thought it was a pretty broad statement. The odds of getting shot by a criminal or someone with an illegal weapon far outweigh that being killed a law abiding citizen who is defending themselves though.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 28):
Why not? Isn't a trial the most accurate way to prove one's innocence?

How can you go to trial if there is no charge to be tried on? If you are found by the statute to have used self defense by the Police and DA then there no charge to be tried with.

Quoting D L X (Reply 19):
Unfortunately, the Community Safety Institute and the National Sheriff's Association for some strange reason don't give this information out for free, but there is plenty of evidence that guns are a no-no on the Neighborhood Watch:

First of all, he wasn't on any "official" rounds or walking the neighborhood. He happened to be out running errands.So even if their policy is not to be armed while on patrol, he wasn't on patrol.

Sanford neighborhood watch handbook.

1. Neighbors join together to provide information about their households to one another.
2. Participants receive training in techniques and recognition
3. Upon seeing a suspicious activity or a crime, Participants immediately report their observation to the police department

http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigati...amHandbook.pdf

Sounds like Z followed the handbook.



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11500 posts, RR: 52
Reply 30, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 5468 times:

Quoting windy95 (Reply 27):
Quoting D L X (Reply 19):
An unarmed kid is dead at the hands of a gun -- there should be a trial.

Not if it was self defense.

Wait.

You don't even think there should be a trial when the shooter alleges self-defense?

I just want to make sure we're clear.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 27):
Quoting D L X (Reply 19):
Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 10):Quoting Max Q (Reply 9):
neighborhood watch specifically prohibits guns.

Source?
Unfortunately, the Community Safety Institute and the National Sheriff's Association for some strange reason don't give this information out for free, but there is plenty of evidence that guns are a no-no on the Neighborhood Watch:

Was there a point to these?

Read Maverick's post. My response answers his question which asks for a source that Neighborhood Watches forbid guns.

I can't help but note you do not provide any source that suggests that Neighborhood Watch programs encourage or even allow guns.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineflyingclrs727 From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 733 posts, RR: 0
Reply 31, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 5466 times:

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 28):
Why not? Isn't a trial the most accurate way to prove one's innocence?

In my state, a case can't go to trial without a grand jury indictment. For some reason Florida allows some indlctments without going through a grand jury.


User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2749 posts, RR: 8
Reply 32, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 5435 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 30):
Wait.

You don't even think there should be a trial when the shooter alleges self-defense?

I just want to make sure we're clear.

Did I say just when the shooter alleges self-defense?

Quoting windy95 (Reply 29):
If you are found by the statute to have used self defense by the Police and DA then there no charges to be tried with.

I was pretty clear. It happens all the time.

Quoting D L X (Reply 30):
can't help but note you do not provide any source that suggests that Neighborhood Watch programs encourage or even allow guns.

I did provide the source above that shows the Sanford Police Dept. makes no mention of weapons in it watch program training.

Quoting D L X (Reply 30):
Read Maverick's post. My response answers his question which asks for a source that Neighborhood Watches forbid guns.

No MaxQ said that Neighborhood watches specifically prohibits guns. Your response in no way answers the point. You provided a few recommendations and one subdivision in PA, but no laws that stop them from carrying anything.



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2749 posts, RR: 8
Reply 33, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 5435 times:

Breaking: Autopsy Reveals Trayvon Martin Had Drugs in System

Quote:
ABC News reports that Trayvon Martin, the black teenager who was shot and killed by George Zimmerman on Feb. 26, had drugs in his body on the night of his death:


The autopsy report shows traces of the drug THC, which is found in marijuana, in Martin's blood and urine.

The autopsy also shows that Zimmerman shot Martin from a distance of between 1 inch and 18 inches away, bolstering Zimmerman's claim that he shot Martin during a struggle that landed Zimmerman on his back, Martin straddling him and banging Zimmerman's head on the ground.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...Trayvon-Martin-Had-Drugs-in-System



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3402 posts, RR: 9
Reply 34, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 5410 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 18):
That's like saying that if it's not your job, don't do anything. If you see a bad car accident, don't help - firefighters and EMTs are paid for that - just wait for them.

Those are slightly different examples, but people trying to take the law into their own hands often create a bigger headache for law enforcement.

With Car accidents you can help but if someone is critical and you have no knowledge of dealing with traumatic injuries, then yes you can make it worse.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 33):
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...Trayvon-Martin-Had-Drugs-in-System

If you rail on liberals for using MSNBC, the Huff post, The Daily Kos etc. Pick a better source   .

I also think if he had smoked a bit of weed it really isn't relevant. Ever been high?? It actually reduces aggression



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlineflanker From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 1658 posts, RR: 2
Reply 35, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 5406 times:

All of this evidence does support Mr. Z, seems like everything he has stated so far is true based on the evidence coming out for his defense trial.

There are pictures out now from the police of Z's wounds that were taken at the station.

Travon had drugs in his system just like Z though on the phone.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 34):
I also think if he had smoked a bit of weed it really isn't relevant. Ever been high?? It actually reduces aggression

Right, because we know how much he smoked and also THC has the same effect in ALL people...   
It is highly relevant as it is a psychoactive drug.

[Edited 2012-05-17 17:09:32]


Calling an illegal alien an 'undocumented immigrant' is like calling a drug dealer an unlicensed pharmacist
User currently offlineDiamondFlyer From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 1600 posts, RR: 3
Reply 36, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 5375 times:

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 34):
I also think if he had smoked a bit of weed it really isn't relevant. Ever been high?? It actually reduces aggression

It is absolutely relevant. It shows that Martin is a criminal. Not the innocent little kid the media would have you believe he was, but clearly isn't

-DiamondFlyer


User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3402 posts, RR: 9
Reply 37, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 5357 times:

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 36):
It is absolutely relevant. It shows that Martin is a criminal. Not the innocent little kid the media would have you believe he was, but clearly isn't


Angel or not he is dead and the evidence of pot use has been suggested before it alone isn't relative to his death (the stuff should be legal but that is another discussion). But does the fact that he smoked a bit of weed probably didn't make him dangerous, from my experiences dealing with potheads it doesn't (possibly paranoia). Aggressive tendencies would have to be there already in his personality.

It does explain the skittles though  

Zimmerman had a rapsheet also, and IIRC he has previous assault charges, far more relevant to this case.

Quoting flanker (Reply 35):
Right, because we know how much he smoked and also THC has the same effect in ALL people...   
It is highly relevant as it is a psychoactive drug.

I'll give you that is might have caused paranoia.



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11500 posts, RR: 52
Reply 38, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 5364 times:

Quoting windy95 (Reply 33):

Breaking: Autopsy Reveals Trayvon Martin Had Drugs in System

He had THC in his system. THC is detectable in your system for weeks... so this proves he had some pot some time in the past few weeks, like many a suburban kid. That begs the question: What is your point?

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 36):
It shows that Martin is a criminal.

I guess your average college student is a "criminal" in your book as well, given all the underage drinking?

Should they all be shot?



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5716 posts, RR: 6
Reply 39, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 5352 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 19):
Unfortunately, the Community Safety Institute and the National Sheriff's Association for some strange reason don't give this information out for free, but there is plenty of evidence that guns are a no-no on the Neighborhood Watch:
Quoting D L X (Reply 30):

I can't help but note you do not provide any source that suggests that Neighborhood Watch programs encourage or even allow guns.

Discouraging is quite different from prohibiting. Each watch program is free to prohibit them, but the State cannot, and I seriously doubt any LEA would certify a program that encouraged the carrying of weapons, if not the least for liability reasons.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 22):
Trayvon will be painted as a thug and will forever have his reputation and memory tarneshed

Reputation? What reputation? There has been almost nothing spoken about what kind of person he was, other than being a jock.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 28):
Isn't a trial the most accurate way to prove one's innocence?

Innocent until proven guilty. This is part of the reason why Sanford PD got so much heat for not filing charges: people assume that you have to prove your innocence. Zimmerman did that thing right: you claim self-defense and make the State prove otherwise.

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 36):
It shows that Martin is a criminal. Not the innocent little kid the media would have you believe he was, but clearly isn't

It shows that he was not an innocent little kid, but it hardly proves he's a thug. Unless you think 40% of high school kids are criminal scum too.

Overall, it does help Zimmerman's case. Not because it paints Martin as a thug, but because it paints him as a normal person capable of anything a normal person can do.



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11500 posts, RR: 52
Reply 40, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 5342 times:

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 39):
Discouraging is quite different from prohibiting.

So, I'm not sure of your point, because it is quite clear that the Neighborhood Watch program does not want its members carrying weps.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 39):
This is part of the reason why Sanford PD got so much heat for not filing charges: people assume that you have to prove your innocence.

I don't think that's correct at all.

YES, you should be put on trial if you kill an unarmed person with a firearm. Innocent until proven guilty has nothing to do with whether you should be put on trial or not... except possibly in Florida under its poorly thought-out law.

With that said, Zimmerman IS guilty of killing Martin. He has admitted such. Now he has the burden to prove it was self defense. (A Florida lawyer can correct me if I'm wrong about this issue in Florida.)

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 39):
Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 36):
It shows that Martin is a criminal. Not the innocent little kid the media would have you believe he was, but clearly isn't

It shows that he was not an innocent little kid, but it hardly proves he's a thug. Unless you think 40% of high school kids are criminal scum too.

  

It makes me shake my head when windy proudly comes on this thread proclaiming that Martin had THC in his system, as if he had found the golden fleece.

It is another example of how people who have made up their minds will interpret the evidence they see as supporting them, unless it clearly doesn't, in which case they will pretend that evidence simply doesn't exist.



I'm still waiting for someone to comment on the fact that the coroner's report showed that Zimmerman shot Martin from intermediate range, not close range. It's hard to shoot someone unarmed in self-defense from intermediate range.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineflymia From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 7252 posts, RR: 6
Reply 41, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 5332 times:

Form what I have seen, and from what I know is neede for a jury to honestly come out with the verdict of guilty of murder no way does Zimmerman get convicted. Way too much doubt. Way too much. Remember has to be beyond a reasonable doubt. I think the case will go to trial but from what I have seen which is of course not everything I just do not see enough for a conviction. Really am curious to see what the EMT reports say.


"It was just four of us on the flight deck, trying to do our job" (Captain Al Haynes)
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11500 posts, RR: 52
Reply 42, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 5327 times:

Quoting flymia (Reply 41):
Way too much doubt. Way too much. Remember has to be beyond a reasonable doubt.

The state has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt only that Zimmerman killed Martin.

Done. There is zero doubt, since Zimmerman admitted it.


Now (unless Florida law is an outlier), ZIMMERMAN must prove self-defense, and not the state. Doubt is not enough -- Zimmerman needs to prove that he more likely than not acted in self-defense. Anything up to only 49%, and Zimmerman is guilty of murder.

That's why this medical evidence is important. Does it make it more likely than not that Zimmerman acted in self-defense?





BTW, here's the autopsy conclusions:

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/im...05/17/martin.autopsy.pdf?hpt=hp_t1

Entrance: left chest; intermediate range

Exit: None; . . .

[Edited 2012-05-17 19:55:56]


Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1909 posts, RR: 10
Reply 43, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 5315 times:

Quoting windy95 (Reply 29):
Because Z tells the 911 dispatcher that he lost him

I know he said that, but if Z's attorney tries to use his own statement as a defense in court, the prosecution will likely laugh them out of the room. Remember, the defendant's word is usually not held in very high regard.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 29):
The odds of getting shot by a criminal or someone with an illegal weapon far outweigh that being killed a law abiding citizen who is defending themselves though

I'm pretty sure you're entirely correct. My issue is that people use guns far too often, no matter what the reason.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 29):
How can you go to trial if there is no charge to be tried on? If you are found by the statute to have used self defense by the Police and DA then there no charge to be tried with.

As I mentioned immediately after: if there is ANY doubt as to the exact events, there should be a trial so that all the evidence can be formally presented to 12 of the defendant's peers. If the defendant (I'm talking about in general, not this case specifically) can prove beyond a reasonably doubt that they acted in self-defense as recognized by the law, then there's no harm done to the defendant.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 33):
Autopsy Reveals Trayvon Martin Had Drugs in System

Meh...it was only marijuana. If it had turned out that he had cocaine or some sort of amphetamine in his system, then this would be huge for Zimmerman.

For reference, I get drug tested frequently for football, and they always remind us that smoking marijuana just once is detectable in urine for up to a week, and detectable in our hair for several weeks (although testing hair is not as reliable they say). What this story proves is that he could have smoked up earlier that week and the test still would have come back positive. I have a feeling the prosecution will be sure to argue that if the defense brings up the drug test.

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 36):
It shows that Martin is a criminal

I tried weed once with some university friends. I guess I better turn myself into the police!  
Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 39):
Innocent until proven guilty.

You're right. Let me rephrase: Isn't a trial the most accurate way to confirm one's innocence?

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 39):
Unless you think 40% of high school kids are criminal scum too.

40%? I'm pretty sure 40% of my high school was in a gang, let alone smoking weed!



Flying refined.
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11766 posts, RR: 15
Reply 44, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 5308 times:

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 39):
There has been almost nothing spoken about what kind of person he was, other than being a jock.

Except when everyone kept saying "That picture is from 10 years ago! He was a thief! He was a tagger!"

Quoting windy95 (Reply 33):
The autopsy report shows traces of the drug THC, which is found in marijuana, in Martin's blood and urine.

Oh, gee... a teen who smokes pot. Color me shocked...

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 28):
"He lost Trayvon by that time."

So, there was only one person in a hoodie in the neighborhood that night?



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlinerandyh3253 From United States of America, joined Jan 2011, 67 posts, RR: 0
Reply 45, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 5307 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 19):
Something HUGE you are forgetting to report about the Coroner's Report: Martin was not shot at close range. He was shot at intermediate range. What does that mean? That means that Martin was outside the range to throw a punch when Zimmerman shot him dead. You can gloss over that, but that is a huge piece of evidence, if true.

As someone who lives here in Central Florida its been all over the news. I think your confused on what "intermediate range" means. I personally have a CWP so Im very familiar with gun terms and what not. That range means the gun was within 2 feet of Martin when he was shot. Im fact due to having gun residue on him, the medical examiner believed that he was shot within 2-4 inches from Mr. Zimmerman.

"Intermediate might sound like a considerable distance, but Sheaffer said it has a very specific forensic meaning when used by medical examiners.
“It means that the firearm was within 2 feet of Trayvon Martin but not touching Trayvon Martin when he was shot,” said Sheaffer."
http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/...as-inches-away-zimmerman-wh/nN8MZ/


User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11500 posts, RR: 52
Reply 46, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 5301 times:

Quoting randyh3253 (Reply 45):
"Intermediate might sound like a considerable distance, but Sheaffer said it has a very specific forensic meaning when used by medical examiners.
“It means that the firearm was within 2 feet of Trayvon Martin but not touching Trayvon Martin when he was shot,” said Sheaffer."

If that is true, then I stand corrected on this point. Thanks for the info.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineDiamondFlyer From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 1600 posts, RR: 3
Reply 47, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 5286 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 38):
I guess your average college student is a "criminal" in your book as well, given all the underage drinking?

Yes, yes they are. I'm sorry, but why write laws if you are going to blindly ignore select laws? The whole legal system is a joke, enforce the laws on the books or get rid of them. Picking and choosing which ones to ignore and which ones to enforce will be the demise of this country.

-DiamondFlyer


User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11500 posts, RR: 52
Reply 48, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 5265 times:

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 47):
Yes, yes they are. I'm sorry, but why write laws if you are going to blindly ignore select laws?

You are completely missing the point when you consider marijuana usage a mitigating factor in a case about a violent crime.

It's not about picking and choosing which ones to ignore. It's using your brains and realizing that not all infractions are created equal.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineitsjustme From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2795 posts, RR: 9
Reply 49, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 5272 times:

My prediction: Zimmerman will be found not guilty in criminal court but will have his ass handed to him in civil court when Martin's NOK file a wrongful death suit. If Zimmerman is smart (which, from what I have read and seen, he isn't), he'll start putting anything he owns of value in the name of someone else. And I wouldn't be surprised if the Feds get involved and investigate Zimmerman for civil right's violations. Right to carry law or not, it sure sounds like he hunted Martin down.

User currently offlinerandyh3253 From United States of America, joined Jan 2011, 67 posts, RR: 0
Reply 50, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks ago) and read 5224 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 46):
Quoting randyh3253 (Reply 45):
"Intermediate might sound like a considerable distance, but Sheaffer said it has a very specific forensic meaning when used by medical examiners.
“It means that the firearm was within 2 feet of Trayvon Martin but not touching Trayvon Martin when he was shot,” said Sheaffer."

If that is true, then I stand corrected on this point. Thanks for the info.

Understandable if your not familiar with the terminology it can be very confusing when you hear the term "intermediate" when you think it should be "close" or "point blank range."
It would be nice if the national media would report it like the local news down here, seems when just mentioning the term it gets everyone regardless of the side they are on all revved up and emotional again...leading to tensions on both sides. I personally see both sides of the story, and I know our justice system will prevail thanks to the legal system of this great country.


User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11500 posts, RR: 52
Reply 51, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks ago) and read 5224 times:

Quoting itsjustme (Reply 49):
itsjustme

Welcome back, itsjustme!

I look forward to your valuable insights on this issue.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2749 posts, RR: 8
Reply 52, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 5167 times:

Quoting itsjustme (Reply 49):
Right to carry law or not, it sure sounds like he hunted Martin down.
Quoting D L X (Reply 51):
Welcome back, itsjustme!

I look forward to your valuable insights on this issue.

Nothing valuable here. Another person who is spouting his opinion without looking at any facts.

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 47):
The whole legal system is a joke, enforce the laws on the books or get rid of them. Picking and choosing which ones to ignore and which ones to enforce will be the demise of this country.
Quoting D L X (Reply 46):
Quoting randyh3253 (Reply 45):"Intermediate might sound like a considerable distance, but Sheaffer said it has a very specific forensic meaning when used by medical examiners.
“It means that the firearm was within 2 feet of Trayvon Martin but not touching Trayvon Martin when he was shot,” said Sheaffer."
If that is true, then I stand corrected on this point. Thanks for the info.

Actually it is 1 to 18 inches.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 43):
can prove beyond a reasonably doubt that they acted in self-defense as recognized by the law, then there's no harm done to the defendant.

There is a huge cost to the defendant. The amount of money, time and emotion spent on the trial would be huge for this person. Especially in this case when the media and the race hustlers have all been out condemning Zimmerman. If the Police and the DA clear him then their will be no trial.

Quoting D L X (Reply 38):
He had THC in his system. THC is detectable in your system for weeks... so this proves he had some pot some time in the past few weeks, like many a suburban kid. That begs the question: What is your point?

I did not post a point. I just posted the actual headline from ABC news.  
Quoting D L X (Reply 40):
So, I'm not sure of your point, because it is quite clear that the Neighborhood Watch program does not want its members carrying weps.

It is not clear at all. Look at the Sanford Police Dept Neighborhood watch training that I posted above. Nothing about weapons in it. Second of all Neighborhood watch is not an active patrol and Z was not on any kind of duty that night patrolling the neighborhood. He was on his way to the store and carrying his conceal like every other citizen does. Neighborhood watch is exactly what it says it is. The community working together to watch their neighborhood. A watch Captain is just the person who sets up meetings to go over what is in the police training and to talk about what has been going on in the neighborhood. It is not an active patrol.

Quoting D L X (Reply 40):
With that said, Zimmerman IS guilty of killing Martin.

He is guilty of nothing. He took a man's life while defending himself.

Quoting D L X (Reply 40):
It makes me shake my head when windy proudly comes on this thread proclaiming that Martin had THC in his system, as if he had found the golden fleece.

What makes me shake my head is that you actually posted this. Once again all I did was post the actual headline form ABC news with nothing added or no embellishments from myself.

Quoting D L X (Reply 40):
It is another example of how people who have made up their minds will interpret the evidence they see as supporting them, unless it clearly doesn't, in which case they will pretend that evidence simply doesn't exist.

Look in the mirror please and say this to yourself.

Quoting D L X (Reply 40):
I'm still waiting for someone to comment on the fact that the coroner's report showed that Zimmerman shot Martin from intermediate range, not close range

1" to 18" is intermediate so all of your histrionics above about being outside of swing range where for nothing.



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2749 posts, RR: 8
Reply 53, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 5174 times:

Cops, Witnesses Back Up George Zimmerman's Version of Trayvon Martin Shooting

T

Quote:
he reports also note that two witness accounts appear to back up Zimmerman's version of what happened when they describe a man on his back with another person wearing a hoodie straddling him and throwing punches.


The police report states that Trayvon Martin's father told an investigator after listening to 911 tapes that captured a man's voice frantically callling for help that it was not his son calling for help.

"He witnesses a black male, wearing a dark colored 'hoodie' on top of a white or Hispanic male and throwing punches 'MMA (mixed martial arts) style,'" the police report of the witness said. "He then heard a pop. He stated that after hearing the pop, he observed the person he had previously observed on top of the other person (the male wearing the hoodie) laid out on the grass."

A second witness described a person on the ground with another straddling him and throwing punches. The man on the bottom was yelling for help, the witness told police.

The documents state that Zimmerman can be heard yelling for help 14 times on a 911 call recorded during the fight
http://abcnews.go.com/US/cops-witnes...mmermans-version/story?id=16371852

Quote:
The witness, who was looking out the sliding glass door at his home about 30 feet away, said he saw the black male throwing punches “MMA (mixed martial arts) style.”
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/why-...keep-george-zimmerman-out-of-jail/



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently onlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8921 posts, RR: 24
Reply 54, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 5137 times:

Quoting windy95 (Reply 53):

Quote:
he reports also note that two witness accounts appear to back up Zimmerman's version of what happened when they describe a man on his back with another person wearing a hoodie straddling him and throwing punches.

I wonder if we will ever see certain people on this thread admit that in such a situation, the person on the bottom would be justified in fearing for his life and pull his gun - which up to then was in his belt.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3402 posts, RR: 9
Reply 55, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 5118 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 54):
I wonder if we will ever see certain people on this thread admit that in such a situation, the person on the bottom would be justified in fearing for his life and pull his gun - which up to then was in his belt.

I will do that when a judge or a jury decides on it, I'm satisfied that it has reached a courtroom.

I am still really confused on how a kid who was 5'11 and 160 lbs (I saw that on the coroner's report) overpowered a guy like Zimmerman so easily. He should have been able to defend himself without drawing his gun. Had he done that there would have been wounds on Martin and outside of his hands there appear to be none.



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlinesbworcs From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2005, 851 posts, RR: 5
Reply 56, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 5080 times:

Quoting windy95 (Reply 52):
He took a man's life while defending himself.

Were you there? No? They you cannot be so certain.

I don't know whether ZImmerman shot in self defence or not but I will certainly not only look at the evidence that backs up my preconceived ideas of what happened.



The best way forwards is upwards!
User currently onlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8921 posts, RR: 24
Reply 57, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 5080 times:

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 55):
I am still really confused on how a kid who was 5'11 and 160 lbs (I saw that on the coroner's report) overpowered a guy like Zimmerman so easily.

Zimmerman is described as 5'8 and 185 lbs (a bit overweight). Martin was taller, and it would seem much more fit. I have little doubt that a guy Martin's size could wipe the pavement of an older, shorter guy who isn't in shape. Not to mention that his background suggests that he's a street kid, and probably has quite a few fights to his credit. I don't see it as unplausible at all.

Now if he had been 12, 5'2 and 110 lbs, that would have been a whole other story.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5716 posts, RR: 6
Reply 58, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 5081 times:

Quoting itsjustme (Reply 49):
but will have his ass handed to him in civil court

Nope. Under Florida law, one cannot be held civilly liable when invoking "Stand Your Ground".

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 55):
I am still really confused on how a kid who was 5'11 and 160 lbs (I saw that on the coroner's report) overpowered a guy like Zimmerman so easily.

You ever been sucker punched? By a football player?



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4751 posts, RR: 18
Reply 59, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 4996 times:

I believe that Z was looking for trouble and found it, but even if T attacked him (which seems very unlikely) fatally shooting him is inexcusable and unforgivable.



An armed individual has no more rights than an unarmed one, maybe that needs to be repeated for you gun lovers, an armed individual has NO more rights than an unarmed one.



Many of you gun nuts are looking for the opportunity to show how brave you think you are by shooting someone in a contrived self righteous situation which I suspect this is.


I say this to you, human life is more important than your love of guns and the senseless violence that goes with it.



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11766 posts, RR: 15
Reply 60, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 4982 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 57):
his background suggests that he's a street kid, and probably has quite a few fights to his credit.

Source??

Quoting D L X (Reply 48):
marijuana usage a mitigating factor in a case about a violent crime.

No. Just because someone has THC in their system does not make them prone to violence. When it does happen, there is also other drugs and/or alcohol involved. Or, they are being persued by someone with a gun.

Again I ask: could it be possible that, since Z lost sight of M, there was more than one person in a hoodie in the neighborhood that night? Beyond that: none had anything to do with any crime at all?



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3402 posts, RR: 9
Reply 61, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 4962 times:

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 58):
You ever been sucker punched? By a football player?

The last time anyone punched me I was 12 actually. I have about 80-90 lbs on Martin and am taller so people don't like to pick fights with me.

I could see Martin being able to hit him a couple of times but to hold down someone 25 lbs heavier I still find a little unrealistic. If this kid weighed say 210-220 the I would have a different opinion.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 58):
Nope. Under Florida law, one cannot be held civilly liable when invoking "Stand Your Ground".

If don't think that stand your ground will stand if Zimmerman gets off, it will have to be justified self-defense which is similar but non identical because he has been charged self defence presents reasonable doubt therefore he gets acquitted.

Therefore I think civil charges could still be made, but I don't see the point he isn't OJ and not loaded. Even if the Martin family takes every cent Zimmerman has it won't be a whole lot.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 60):
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 57):
his background suggests that he's a street kid, and probably has quite a few fights to his credit.

Source??

He had been suspended from school for having a bag of weed allegedly but I attribute that to being a teenager, however its still not right. There is evidence that M was looking at colleges and if he had been a bit of a punk before he was trying to better himself.

Zimmerman has a rap sheet for far more aggressive actions ie. prior assault charges.


Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 57):
Zimmerman is described as 5'8 and 185 lbs (a bit overweight). Martin was taller, and it would seem much more fit. I have little doubt that a guy Martin's size could wipe the pavement of an older, shorter guy who isn't in shape. Not to mention that his background suggests that he's a street kid, and probably has quite a few fights to his credit. I don't see it as unplausible at all.

True but you would think Zimmerman would have got a few hits against showing a much more even struggle him and that would have been seen in the autopsy. Perhaps I'm looking at this from my perspective and I am 6'1 and around 240.



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlineltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13170 posts, RR: 15
Reply 62, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 4948 times:

As I have said about this case here and elsewhere: There should be a tight gag order on everyone connected to this case one can be put on including Zimmerman, his family, Martin's family, all lawyers, the police, state prosecutors among them, to assure fairness for Zimmerman and Martin. We keep getting conflicting stories, too much information that is very private or probably not relevant as well as possibly violating medical privacy laws.

This case has become far too much about politics by people on both 'sides', race, questions about gun control, the unevenly used 'stand your ground' law and not about how an apparently unarmed person is killed by someone with a gun in an unfortunate set of circumstances.


User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11500 posts, RR: 52
Reply 63, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 4904 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 60):
Quoting D L X (Reply 48):
marijuana usage a mitigating factor in a case about a violent crime.

No. Just because someone has THC in their system does not make them prone to violence.

I think you have misinterpreted what I said.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 61):
If don't think that stand your ground will stand if Zimmerman gets off, it will have to be justified self-defense which is similar but non identical because he has been charged self defence presents reasonable doubt therefore he gets acquitted.

I agree. Stand Your Ground will get a very very serious second look. My guess is at least the immunity clause is toast.

Now all that needs to happen is for Al Sharpton to stay the f out of it. Because let's face it: the reason why certain people on this thread (for example) can't rally to defend the killing of an unarmed minor is because they see it as a political thing.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently onlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8921 posts, RR: 24
Reply 64, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 4871 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 63):

I agree. Stand Your Ground will get a very very serious second look. My guess is at least the immunity clause is toast.

Why? In spite of the media's bleating about "stand your ground", I don't see it as having anything to do with the case. I see it as a case of (most likely) someone who chose to dress in a way that tells people around him, "thug", who drew the attention of a member of the neighborhood watch, and instead of simply heading home, he doubled back, challenged and then attacked the guy following him. Unfortunately for him he chose to attack someone with a license to carry.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11766 posts, RR: 15
Reply 65, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 4861 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 64):
someone who chose to dress in a way that tells people around him, "thug",

Wearing a hoodie when it is cold and raining means "thug"? I have been a thug for a long LOOONG time!

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 64):
who drew the attention of a member of the neighborhood watch,

Because one man saw one person walking.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 64):
instead of simply heading home, he doubled back, challenged and then attacked the guy following him

I still assert there were at least two people out that night and when Z lost sight of the first person, Trayvon ended up the victim because "he was wearing a hoodie" just like the other guy.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8709 posts, RR: 3
Reply 66, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 4846 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 63):
Because let's face it: the reason why certain people on this thread (for example) can't rally to defend the killing of an unarmed minor is because they see it as a political thing.

To some extent, in our daily lives, we want to know what the law is. The law involves all of us.

This case is pretty confusing because it has 2 guys who did stuff wrong. The homicide was not justifiable really but also not unjustifiable. You don't have to lie down and let some guy kill you. Yet, stand your ground law (as I imagine it) allows any scuffle to progress into a legal, quick-draw homicide case. So I think Martin would have been pretty well justified in shooting Zimmerman, too (evidently, as Zimmerman is on trial for his homicide). So that's all very confusing to the public.


User currently offlinetype-rated From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 67, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 4838 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 60):
Quoting D L X (Reply 48):
marijuana usage a mitigating factor in a case about a violent crime.

No. Just because someone has THC in their system does not make them prone to violence.

No, but it could very well demonstrate impaired judgement, a contributing cause.


User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5716 posts, RR: 6
Reply 68, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 4811 times:

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 61):
The last time anyone punched me I was 12 actually.

Thank you.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 61):

I could see Martin being able to hit him a couple of times but to hold down someone 25 lbs heavier I still find a little unrealistic

Why? Cops do it every single day. I'm 180 pounds and I routinely move around 300+lb objects. It's not all about weight.

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 62):
as well as possibly violating medical privacy laws.

In a public trial, any evidence used must be a part of public record. I can see the case for a temporary gag order, but in order for a trial to be fair it must eventually open up to public scrutiny. It can suck, but it's necessary.



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2749 posts, RR: 8
Reply 69, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 4803 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 63):
Because let's face it: the reason why certain people on this thread (for example) can't rally to defend the killing of an unarmed minor is because they see it as a political thing.

There are plenty of "unarmed" minors who could kill me or seriously damage me. The reason why certain people on this thread (for example) can't rally to defend their fellow citizen for legally defending themselves because they see it as a racial/political/anti-gun thing.



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21801 posts, RR: 55
Reply 70, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 4788 times:

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 36):

It is absolutely relevant. It shows that Martin is a criminal.

Which means it's okay to shoot him? Whether he was on drugs or not has absolutely nothing to do with whether Zimmerman was justified in what he did. If Martin really was attacking Zimmerman in a manner that could be construed as life-threatening, then Zimmerman had justification for shooting him, whether Martin was on drugs or not. If Martin wasn't attacking Zimmerman, then Zimmerman didn't have justification, again whether Martin was on drugs or not.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 52):
There is a huge cost to the defendant. The amount of money, time and emotion spent on the trial would be huge for this person.

On the other hand, you can't just let people shoot other people, claim it was in self-defense, and then immunize them from prosecution. The whole point of the trial is to figure out whether it really was in self-defense.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2749 posts, RR: 8
Reply 71, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 4766 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 70):
On the other hand, you can't just let people shoot other people, claim it was in self-defense, and then immunize them from prosecution. The whole point of the trial is to figure out whether it really was in self-defense.

It is the job of the DA and the Police to determine if there is a trail. If they do not prosecute you because it is proven self defense then ther is no trial. You do not have a trial just for the hell of it if you did not break the law.



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlinebhmbaglock From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 2698 posts, RR: 5
Reply 72, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 4761 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 3):
He should have followed Police instructions and left T alone.

911 operator(not sworn Officer) suggestions are not "Police instructions". If a sworn officer was on the scene and based on his/her judgement of the situation as seen in person gave such an instruction then it would be a completely different matter.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 2):
This, folks, is why there is something called a "trial."

Yes, but there are two very good reasons why this should not go to trial; at least not at this time. First, there is no way in hell that there will be a conviction based on the evidence and this is so obvious that pursuing this case much farther at this time will build a better case of prosecutorial misconduct than murder. Second, let's assume that Martin is guilty as charged; it is possible after all. If so, then prosecuting the case now when acquittal is certain is irresponsible. Much better to patiently continue investigating and hope for breakthrough evidence that will make a conviction possible.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 11):
The very act of carrying a gun into a volatile situation guarantees a tragic outcome.

Absolutely not, potentially it can be a tool towards resolving such a situation and in fact this occurs regularly.

Quoting D L X (Reply 40):
With that said, Zimmerman IS guilty of killing Martin. He has admitted such. Now he has the burden to prove it was self defense. (A Florida lawyer can correct me if I'm wrong about this issue in Florida.)

As a defendant, he has no need to prove anything. The prosecution bears the burden of proving guilt.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 59):
An armed individual has no more rights than an unarmed one, maybe that needs to be repeated for you gun lovers, an armed individual has NO more rights than an unarmed one.

You seem to be forgetting that an armed individual has no LESS rights than an unarmed one as well. Shall I repeat or will you get it the first time?



Where are all of my respected members going?
User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7859 posts, RR: 19
Reply 73, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 4740 times:

Let me jump right in here, and let me tell you why sometimes living in this country makes me want to vomit.

1) the media OVERBLEW THIS ONE BIG TIME and Nobody at all should be surprised. The only one of the big media offices who reported on this originally was Fox, and they were livid that the other media sources didn't do anything about this. Independent news sites which I've read brought out about various media sources that what they reported was doctored and WAS ACTUALLY USED IN WHAT SHOULD BE A FAIR AND UNBIASED TRIAL.

2) The wounds Mr. Z suffered proved that he was in an altercation. A DNA test could possibly reveal traces of Mr. M in his wounds.

3) THE STAND YOUR GROUND ACT IS ULTIMATELY VALID HERE.

4) BECAUSE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S, PROSECUTOR'S, AND MEDIA'S ABUSE OF THE COVERAGE, this trial is not fair, and should be thrown out. In all seriousness, Zimmerman should be considered innocent based on the grounds of self defense.


I'm done ranting now. I'm gonna go book a ticket to japan.



我思うゆえに我あり。(Jap. 'I think, therefore I am.')
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11500 posts, RR: 52
Reply 74, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 4716 times:

Quoting bhmbaglock (Reply 72):
Quoting D L X (Reply 40):
With that said, Zimmerman IS guilty of killing Martin. He has admitted such. Now he has the burden to prove it was self defense. (A Florida lawyer can correct me if I'm wrong about this issue in Florida.)

As a defendant, he has no need to prove anything.

This is a common misbelief.

In an affirmative defense, such as self-defense, it is the defendant that has to prove that he is entitled to the defense.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1909 posts, RR: 10
Reply 75, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 4687 times:

Quoting randyh3253 (Reply 45):

The terminology they use is pretty misleading. I had made the same assumption as DLX. Thanks for the clarification.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 58):
You ever been sucker punched? By a football player?

Yup, several times, by guys bigger than Martin. I continue below...

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 61):
True but you would think Zimmerman would have got a few hits against showing a much more even struggle him and that would have been seen in the autopsy. Perhaps I'm looking at this from my perspective and I am 6'1 and around 240.

I'm looking at this as a guy closer to Zimmerman's size. I'm 5'9'' and 170lbs, albeit in much better shape than Z, but still similar in size. I've taken sucker punches to face many times, none of which have knocked me off my feet. I find it hard to believe that there's no way that he could have gotten a punch in on M. The way I picture it is that there was probably some shoving (which wouldn't cause any injuries), one had wrestled the other down to the ground (causing the scrapes on M's hands), M (likely being quicker than the overweight Z) got the upper hand and began punching Z. This scenario would make it extremely difficult to figure out who instigated the physical part of the altercation. This is how I imagine it anyway.



Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 64):
I see it as a case of (most likely) someone who chose to dress in a way that tells people around him, "thug"

I don't think that one's choice of dress has anything to do with the story. I wear a hoodie whenever I take my dog for a walk (everyday), should I be confronted because of it?

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 73):
BECAUSE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S, PROSECUTOR'S, AND MEDIA'S ABUSE OF THE COVERAGE, this trial is not fair, and should be thrown out. In all seriousness, Zimmerman should be considered innocent based on the grounds of self defense

Please, explain how the Attorney General and Prosecutor owe the public any degree of "coverage"? The only thing they need to make public is whether they choose to prosecute or not, everything else is done behind closed doors for a reason. Throwing out a case simply because the popular belief among the general public is self-defense would be a miscarriage of justice. Twelve of Mr. Zimmerman's peers will decide that based on the evidence presented to them in court. The judicial system exists for this very purpose. If they decide he's innocent, then he's innocent. If they decide he's guilty, then he's guilty.



Flying refined.
User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4751 posts, RR: 18
Reply 76, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 4685 times:

Quoting bhmbaglock (Reply 72):

Absolutely not, potentially it can be a tool towards resolving such a situation and in fact this occurs regularly.

Really, show me a situation like this one where the presence of a gun improved the outcome ?



You seem to be forgetting that an armed individual has no LESS rights than an unarmed one as well. Shall I repeat or will you get it the first time?[/quote]



No need to repeat it and you miss the point. The ludicrous 'stand your ground' law gives the gun lover / nut preapproved licence to shoot someone on the slimmest pretence of their feeling 'threatened' this has to change.



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11766 posts, RR: 15
Reply 77, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 4665 times:

Some people here are envoking "Stand Your Ground" as Zimmerman's defense. What about this scenario:

Zimmerman saw a man in a hoodie, persued him, and lost sight of him. He spotted Trayvon a minute later and pursued. A completely different person, but in Zimmerman's mind at the time, it was the only other person around and dressed the same as before. Trayvon felt threatened because he did not know what was going on. He was "Standing His Ground." Why is that not a possibility?



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11500 posts, RR: 52
Reply 78, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 4661 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 77):
Zimmerman saw a man in a hoodie, persued him, and lost sight of him. He spotted Trayvon a minute later and pursued. A completely different person

Seb, there really is just no evident at all that there were two people. Yes, it is possible. But just as we rail on Zimmerman supporters for their wild speculation, I have to call you out for doing the same. Work within the known facts.


With that said, other than your two people theory, I absolutely concur that Martin had just as much right to stand his ground as did Zimmerman, except that Martin was not told to leave Zimmerman alone for the cops to deal with it.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineitsjustme From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2795 posts, RR: 9
Reply 79, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 4648 times:

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 58):
Nope. Under Florida law, one cannot be held civilly liable when invoking "Stand Your Ground".

Admittedly, I am not an expert on FL criminal/civil law. However, I was under the impression Zimmerman is claiming self defense as his justification for shooting/killing Martin. If that is true, then regardless of the outcome in criminal court, I would think Martin's next of kin would have civil recourse. Or is the ruling of the criminal court binding on the civil side as well?


User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8435 posts, RR: 9
Reply 80, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 4637 times:

We might as well have some major judgements in this trial as "open carry" is the current plaything of the conservative politicians. (Oklahoma has a female governor who is all for open carry and I can see hot shots like Zimmerman strutting around with a gun in plain view. Maybe we can have an OK Corral for shootouts. Or maybe we will simply have them at the Mall.)

The Zimmerman case for me in now about a hot shot with a gun. And his testicles are larger than his brain. A guy with a gun shooting a guy without one.

Zimmerman probably won't go to prison, but he will spend the rest of his life knowing that there will be plenty of blacks out there who hate him. And maybe more than a few with a gun of their own.


User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2749 posts, RR: 8
Reply 81, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 4637 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 80):
and I can see hot shots like Zimmerman strutting around with a gun in plain view



How do you know he is a hot shot?

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 80):
The Zimmerman case for me in now about a hot shot with a gun



Once again how do you know this? You know nothing of the man.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 80):
And his testicles are larger than his brain



You really must of known him well to know this.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 80):
A guy with a gun shooting a guy without one.



So you are saying that people are not allowed to protect themselves. When it comes to self preservation you use any means of force at your disposal.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 80):
but he will spend the rest of his life knowing that there will be plenty of blacks out there who hate him



As usual the left making it about race. Can you please come up with something new.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 80):
And maybe more than a few with a gun of their own.



Here is hoping we have revenge killings across the country. Great job...

Quoting Max Q (Reply 76):
You seem to be forgetting that an armed individual has no LESS rights than an unarmed one as well.




And you should remember that all citizens have the right to defend themselves. Armed or unarmed. If a man breaks into Grandpas house and grandpa wastes the intruder with his .44 Super-mag does it matter if the intruder was armed? No.



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4751 posts, RR: 18
Reply 82, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 4616 times:

Quoting windy95 (Reply 81):


And you should remember that all citizens have the right to defend themselves. Armed or unarmed. If a man breaks into Grandpas house and grandpa wastes the intruder with his .44 Super-mag does it matter if the intruder was armed? No.

Not what happened here and irrelevant anyway.



Your obvious love of guns is a big part of this whole problem.



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently onlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8921 posts, RR: 24
Reply 83, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 4604 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 82):
Not what happened here and irrelevant anyway.

What is relevant is what might have happened to Zimmerman if he did not have a gun. He might be dead or brain damaged from getting his head pounded into the pavement, or otherwise seriously injured. I suppose you would have a problem with, right? If that had happened, you would want Martin in jail for assault and battery, right?



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5716 posts, RR: 6
Reply 84, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 4595 times:

Quoting itsjustme (Reply 79):
However, I was under the impression Zimmerman is claiming self defense as his justification for shooting/killing Martin.

He has specifically invoked the Stand-Your-Ground law. Whether the judge will allow an acquittal based on that remains to be seen.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 82):

Your obvious love of guns is a big part of this whole problem.

Cute. Let's completely slam a right that's been around since, well, there was such a concept (self-defense) and one that's been around since 1789 (2nd Amendment), and then call anyone who doesn't share your views a gun nut. It borders on flamebaiting.



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2749 posts, RR: 8
Reply 85, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 4596 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 82):
Your obvious love of guns is a big part of this whole problem.




Yes you have me here. I love my constitutional right to have and love my guns. Also love my right to defend my family and myself with whatever force is necessary to keep us from harm. Being unarmed does not mean someone cannot kill or maim with their bare hands. Whether the are armed or unarmed is irrelevant. It is their intent to do harm that is.

Also the Stand your ground law has nothing to say about how you defend yourself. Remeber when seconds count the police are only minutes away. You should not have to wait to see how much of a victim you're going to be.

Quoting itsjustme (Reply 79):
Or is the ruling of the criminal court binding on the civil side as well?




A person defending themselves with Florida's stand your ground statute is immune from both criminal and civil prosecution. Which is why some lawyers hate this. Loss of potential revenue.



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlinebhmbaglock From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 2698 posts, RR: 5
Reply 86, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 4560 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 74):
This is a common misbelief.

In an affirmative defense, such as self-defense, it is the defendant that has to prove that he is entitled to the defense.

You are victim of the common misbelief. The Florida law(and others) was deliberately written so that once the defense is asserted, the burden of proof falls on the prosecution. Otherwise it would be a hollow and worthless law.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 84):
He has specifically invoked the Stand-Your-Ground law. Whether the judge will allow an acquittal based on that remains to be seen.

You think the judge should be able to override a jury?

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 80):
We might as well have some major judgements in this trial as "open carry" is the current plaything of the conservative politicians. (Oklahoma has a female governor who is all for open carry and I can see hot shots like Zimmerman strutting around with a gun in plain view. Maybe we can have an OK Corral for shootouts. Or maybe we will simply have them at the Mall.)

What does open carry have to do with this case? btw, outside of the cities it was very common in parts of FL in the early 70s and there was also a lot less crime back then.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 76):
Really, show me a situation like this one where the presence of a gun improved the outcome ?

About 15 seconds with google turned up this link with a few examples:

http://www.wnd.com/2005/09/32103/

Some of the statistics seem a bit overly optimistic but it's still some good info particularly the specfic examples.

I'll give you another concrete one from my personal experience. In the late 90s I lived in Burlington County, NJ which is probably the most/only gun friendly county in the state. It's a very short distance to PHL, Camden, and Atlantic City - which all have major crime problems. The criminals know that most houses in Burlington have guns and guess what? They leave the place alone. We never locked our doors, no need whatsoever there. Criminals should be afraid of being shot when they violate our rights.



Where are all of my respected members going?
User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4751 posts, RR: 18
Reply 87, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 4535 times:

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 84):

Cute. Let's completely slam a right that's been around since, well, there was such a concept (self-defense) and one that's been around since 1789 (2nd Amendment)

It was never intended to be a right that allowed every Tom, Dick and Harry to have as many guns as they desired. Gun ownership was intended to be a part of a 'well regulated Militia'


If you think guns in this country are only used in justified self defense you are kidding yourself and simply parroting the nonsense of the NRA.


Thousands of fatal shootings every year prove you wrong without a doubt.



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5716 posts, RR: 6
Reply 88, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 4518 times:

Quoting bhmbaglock (Reply 86):

You think the judge should be able to override a jury?

A judge is generally allowed to specify to the jury which laws apply.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 87):

It was never intended

Well, if you have a reliable source for that claim, I'd believe you.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 87):

If you think guns in this country are only used in justified self defense

Please quote where I said that...



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2749 posts, RR: 8
Reply 89, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 4504 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 87):
It was never intended to be a right that allowed every Tom, Dick and Harry to have as many guns as they desired. Gun ownership was intended to be a part of a 'well regulated Militia'

Source?



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlinebhmbaglock From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 2698 posts, RR: 5
Reply 90, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 4490 times:

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 88):
Quoting bhmbaglock (Reply 86):
You think the judge should be able to override a jury?
A judge is generally allowed to specify to the jury which laws apply.

Correct, but it is the job of the jury to decide the facts. Any judge who tries to deliberately influence the jury to a particular conclusion is guilty of misconduct in the extreme.



Where are all of my respected members going?
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11500 posts, RR: 52
Reply 91, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 4486 times:

Quoting bhmbaglock (Reply 86):
The Florida law(and others) was deliberately written so that once the defense is asserted, the burden of proof falls on the prosecution.

That's not what Florida courts have said.
From Peterson v. State:

Quote:

The court further determined that a defendant raising the immunity would have the burden of establishing the factual prerequisites to the immunity claim by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. at 980. The court imposed the same burden of proof as it would in motions for postconviction relief or motions to suppress. Id.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...ur+ground+burden&hl=en&as_sdt=4,10

Quoting bhmbaglock (Reply 90):
Correct, but it is the job of the jury to decide the facts. Any judge who tries to deliberately influence the jury to a particular conclusion is guilty of misconduct in the extreme.

ACTUALLY... one of the jobs of the judge is to determine which facts the jury is allowed to even see. It's not about influencing the jury to reach a conclusion, it's about guiding the jury to reach the correct conclusion based on the correct facts, not being swayed by powerful, yet irrelevant, evidence.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2749 posts, RR: 8
Reply 92, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 4466 times:

Quoting bhmbaglock (Reply 86):
The Florida law(and others) was deliberately written so that once the defense is asserted, the burden of proof falls on the prosecution.

In 2010, the Florida Supreme Court held that in criminal cases, a judge, not a jury, should determine whether the defendant's conduct was justified under "Stand Your Ground," and the defendant has the burden of proving his entitlement to immunity by a preponderance of the evidence

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 84):
Quoting itsjustme (Reply 79):
However, I was under the impression Zimmerman is claiming self defense as his justification for shooting/killing Martin.

He has specifically invoked the Stand-Your-Ground law. Whether the judge will allow an acquittal based on that remains to be seen.

Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law does not just provide an affirmative defense it provides immunity. The person need only convince the judge by a "preponderance of the evidence".



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11500 posts, RR: 52
Reply 93, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 4463 times:

Quoting windy95 (Reply 92):
The person need only convince the judge by a "preponderance of the evidence".

Right. You correctly stated that it is the defendant's burden to prove this. For anyone wondering what a preponderance of the evidence is, it is "51%," or basically, "more likely than not." So, in this case, Zimmerman has to show that it was more likely than not that he acted in self defense, and did not start the altercation.

His medical evidence (being injured) certainly speaks to that. Does it rise to 51%? Maybe, maybe not, because the prosecution gets to knock down the evidence as much as it can.

There are a fair number of moving parts in this story. My tally so far is:
FOR Zimmerman:
Zimmerman suffered injuries (Martin suffered relatively few)
Witness alleges that Martin was on top and Zimmerman on bottom
Zimmerman's own statement that he was being attacked

AGAINST Zimmerman
Witness changing his story about who it was screaming for help*
Martin's girlfriend alleging that Martin complained that he was being followed
911 tapes


* This changing witness actually really sucks for Zimmerman as now he is directly open to a credibility challenge.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11766 posts, RR: 15
Reply 94, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 4459 times:

Quoting windy95 (Reply 89):
Quoting Max Q (Reply 87):It was never intended to be a right that allowed every Tom, Dick and Harry to have as many guns as they desired. Gun ownership was intended to be a part of a 'well regulated Militia'
Source?

Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineCompensateMe From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 1281 posts, RR: 0
Reply 95, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 4452 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 94):
Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Was the intention of the Second Amendment for every Tom, Dick, Harry, Louise, Jamel, Tayshaun, Rodriguez and Ruben walking the streets of Compton, Detroit, etc. to own assault weapons? When our country was founded, did we have problems with enormous factions who cared more about getting high than somebody else's life?

[Edited 2012-05-21 10:25:19]


Gordo:like this streaming video,Sky magazine,meals for sale at mealtime-make customer satisfaction rank so high at UA
User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2749 posts, RR: 8
Reply 96, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 4425 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 94):
Quoting windy95 (Reply 89):
Quoting Max Q (Reply 87):It was never intended to be a right that allowed every Tom, Dick and Harry to have as many guns as they desired. Gun ownership was intended to be a part of a 'well regulated Militia'
Source?

Second Amendment of the United States Constitution

Where in the second amendment does it say that it was never inteneded for every Tom, Dick and Harry to have as many guns as they desired. And what was the "Militia"?

Quoting D L X (Reply 93):
Right. You correctly stated that it is the defendant's burden to prove this. For anyone wondering what a preponderance of the evidence is, it is "51%," or basically, "more likely than not." So, in this case, Zimmerman has to show that it was more likely than not that he acted in self defense, and did not start the altercation

I am not sure if this standard across the country but from what I have read in Florida the preponderance of evidence is the lowest standard that they use.



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5716 posts, RR: 6
Reply 97, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 4421 times:

Quoting bhmbaglock (Reply 90):
Any judge who tries to deliberately influence the jury to a particular conclusion is guilty of misconduct in the extreme.

Well then I guarantee you over 90% of judges that have sat on a jury trial are guilty of such an offense.

Quoting CompensateMe (Reply 95):
Was the intention of the Second Amendment for every Tom, Dick, Harry, Louise, Jamel, Tayshaun, Rodriguez and Ruben walking the streets of Compton, Detroit, etc. to own assault weapons?

Irrelevant. "Assault" weapons were not around at the time.

Quoting CompensateMe (Reply 95):
When our country was founded, did we have problems with enormous factions who cared more about getting high than somebody else's life?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion

Really, what it comes down to is money.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 96):
And what was the "Militia"?

The closest thing we have to a 18th-century militia today is the National Guard, and it really isn't that close. Most people who try to discredit the 2nd Amendment with the "well-regulated militia" clause probably don't even know what was meant by that phrase.



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2749 posts, RR: 8
Reply 98, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 4416 times:

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 97):
Irrelevant. "Assault" weapons were not around at the time.

Here are the assualt rifles of that time.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/67/Harper%27s_Ferry_U.S._Model_1803_rifle.JPEG



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11500 posts, RR: 52
Reply 99, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 4406 times:

Quoting windy95 (Reply 96):
I am not sure if this standard across the country but from what I have read in Florida the preponderance of evidence is the lowest standard that they use.

There are basically 3 levels of proof required in every court in the nation

Low - Preponderance of the evidence (Person with burden needs to prove "more likely than not," or "51%")
Middle - Clear and convincing evidence (Person with burden needs to prove with evidence that is usually correct. A reasonable doubt will be ignored. Sometimes called "67%")
High - Beyond a reasonable doubt (Person with burden needs to prove that the facts happened his way, and no reasonable person could introduce a what-if that would negate it. It's true "99.99999%" of the time.)


A reasonable doubt could be something like "I'm not convinced that he saw a horse and not a deer." An unreasonable doubt could be something like "I'm not convinced that he saw a horse because it could have been a unicorn."



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineCompensateMe From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 1281 posts, RR: 0
Reply 100, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 4349 times:

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 97):
Irrelevant. "Assault" weapons were not around at the time.

It is relevant, and you're sharing my viewpoint. Assault weapons did not exist when the Constitution was drafted, thus it is reasonable to assume it's impossible to prove the intentions of the Second Amendment on such weapons.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 97):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion

Really, what it comes down to is money.

The Whiskey Rebellion does not compare to the cold, senseless, random violent acts that occur today. When I was 17, I felt the gun barrel placed against the back of my head. It's an experience that still affects me to this date.



Gordo:like this streaming video,Sky magazine,meals for sale at mealtime-make customer satisfaction rank so high at UA
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11500 posts, RR: 52
Reply 101, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 4328 times:

Can we get off of whether the Constitution's drafters imagined current day gun laws? I have my thoughts, but they really aren't appropriate for a thread about medical evidence in the Zimmerman case.


Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8709 posts, RR: 3
Reply 102, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 4361 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 87):
It was never intended to be a right that allowed every Tom, Dick and Harry to have as many guns as they desired. Gun ownership was intended to be a part of a 'well regulated Militia'

Exactly. Or if it were to protect against federal encroachment... that's even better... our government until recently had 40 kt warheads that could be deployed on a Howitzer and shot from a gun. That's double what Hirosmina got, and our govt had guns that would shoot those. Going to defend against the govt... Oh. Okay.


User currently onlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8921 posts, RR: 24
Reply 103, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 4335 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 105):
No, what is relevant is what would have happened if Zimmerman had done as he was told by 911 and not follow Martin.

What would have happened? Nothing.

You can't get away from the fact that Zimmerman created the

How might that convince a jury to hand down a “guilty” verdict to Murder Two charges? How does that “stay in your car” principle work? Do you have to stay in your car when you see anyone acting suspiciously in your neighborhood, or do the age, sex, and racial background of the subject matter? Does everyone have to stay in their cars, or only members of certain age, sex, and racial groups? Should getting out of your car be a misdemeanor or a felony?

There is not one shred of evidence to support contention that Zimmerman provoked the encounter. Neighborhood Watch patrols are legal. Getting out of your car is legal. There is no evidence that Zimmerman shouted any “fighting words” at Martin. Zimmerman certainly wouldn't have thrown the first punch - why allow yourself to get that close and to get into a fistfight when you have a gun? Zimmerman would have done everything he could to keep his distance.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 105):
I don't believe there is a chance in hell that a Judge would toss the case because of stand your ground.

He won't. There are plenty of other reasons to throw it out. "Stand your ground" does not factor into this case. If Zimmerman was on the ground getting beaten to a pulp, withdrawal from the encounter was physically impossible for him. A defendant loses his "stand your ground" defense if he provoked the encounter, but he retains traditional rights of self-defense if he reasonably believed his life was in danger and his only recourse was to employ deadly force.

It is more likely the judge to find that beating someone into the ground and administering an MMA-style thrashing is wrong, even if they looked at you funny.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 105):
Judging from his "injuries" I'd bet that Martin felt he was being followed for some illegal reason and addressed Zimmerman before he could find out where Martin lived.

That does not justify assaulting the person who may (or may not) have been following you. From the maps we have seen, when the fight occurred, Zimmerman had already broken off his tailing activities and was heading back to his car, and Martin had doubled back, probably knowing that he had lost his tail but wanted to get back at him.

We now learn that Martin was involved in some sort of underground Fight Club, so that fits to reports on how he was wailing on Zimmerman.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012...participating-in-local-fight-club/

The autopsy report shows that he had "1.5 ng/ML of THC, a drug commonly found in marijuana. There was about 7.3ng/mL of THC carboxy, the by-product of the body’s metabolism of THC". THC carboxy is the stuff that stays in your blood for days and weeks, so that's not telling of anything. But THC itself stays in the system only 4 hours at the most, so he was most likely high at the time. Personally I don't think the pot had anything to do with the case, (apart from explaining his need to go find some Skittles), but it does not speak well of a kid who plays within the rules.

http://tampa.cbslocal.com/2012/05/18...-thc-in-blood-at-time-of-shooting/



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8435 posts, RR: 9
Reply 104, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 4313 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 106):
How might that convince a jury to hand down a “guilty” verdict to Murder Two charges?

Let's be honest, what happens to Zimmerman in court probably won't make a lot of difference to the guy.

Where is he going to go? Who would hire him?

The guy goes to prison and makes sure he stays away from those who want to see him dead. He doesn't get convicted and he still will need to be afraid of every black he sees for the rest of his life. But, hey, he will have his gun, won't he?

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 106):
How does that “stay in your car” principle work?

You report the "situation" to 911 and do what they say. Obviously those manning the 911 lines have far more judgement behind them than Zimmerman has.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 106):
Should getting out of your car be a misdemeanor or a felony?

Getting out of the car isn't a crime, but it sure as hell will be right in front of any jury. And those juries will be talking about it in deliberations. Deliberations about Zimmerman's killing a young man when he should have stayed away and let the pros do their job.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 106):
Zimmerman certainly wouldn't have thrown the first punch - why allow yourself to get that close and to get into a fistfight when you have a gun?

He might have tried & failed. its of bad things can happen when you do dumb things, like following a kid who has every tight to walk where he's walking.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 106):
Zimmerman would have done everything he could to keep his distance.

If that was true he would have stayed in his car. It's really that simple.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 106):
There are plenty of other reasons to throw it out.

And there are reasons to go to trial - including one dead kid.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 106):
That does not justify assaulting the person who may (or may not) have been following you.

So it's fine for the vigilante to go out and go after kids in the neighborhood, but it's not OK to stop the bum following you?

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 106):
From the maps we have seen,

Maps? Who can really trust maps that try to justify the gunman's actions?

Zimmerman was wrong. His actions resulted in the death of a kid.

It is that simple.

So let's go to trial, unless Zimmerman cops a plea.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 106):
We now learn that Martin was involved in some sort of underground Fight Club

All that means is that Zimmerman is as unlucky as he is dumb. He goes after a kid that is capable of beating the crap out of him. Real Smart.

But, of course, he knew he had his gun and could "take care of the situation".

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 106):
The autopsy report shows that he had "1.5 ng/ML of THC, a drug commonly found in marijuana.

And how did the blood/urine tests on Zimmerman come out?


User currently offlineitsjustme From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2795 posts, RR: 9
Reply 105, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 4305 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 102):
Can we get off of whether the Constitution's drafters imagined current day gun laws

Agreed and I have suggested deletion of the irrelevant posts.

That being said, the prosecution has it's work cut out for them. There is no way a murder 2 conviction will be handed down. Hopefully, when this case gets to trial (and it will), the jury will have the ability to come back with a guilty verdict on a lesser charge. It's unfortunate that, looney tune whack job in possession of a firearm isn't against the law in FL.


User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11500 posts, RR: 52
Reply 106, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 4263 times:

New evidence supports Martin.


http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/...tnesses-change-shooting-fdle-agent

Lots of witnesses have changed their stories.

WITNESS TWO said there were two men running, now says just one man running.
If it were two men running, that suggests pursuit - bad for Zimmerman.
If it was one man running (given that Zimmerman had a car), that suggests that Martin was trying to escape (if it were Martin running) or that Zimmerman was trying to regain a visual on him (if it were Zimmerman running). Bad for Zimmerman.
The only way that is good for Zimmerman is if there were two men running, and Martin was chasing Zimmerman. Zimmerman has not said that was the case.
Zimmerman's defense: credibility + vision problem.

WITNESS TWELVE said one man was on top of the other, but she couldn't see who. Now she says having seen Zimmerman on TV, she can confirm that it was Zimmerman on top because she remembers his size.

Zimmerman's defense: credibility.

WITNESS SIX said Trayvon was beating Zimmerman up, "MMA-style" and that Zimmerman was screaming for help. Now he says that he is not sure that it was Zimmerman screaming, and is not sure that Trayvon was even throwing punches, but rather just trying to keep Zimmerman pinned down.

Zimmerman's defense: WITNESS SIX is certain that "the black guy was on top."
State's offense: credibility; Martin standing his ground; Martin self-defense

WITNESS THIRTEEN said he spoke with Zimmerman, who told him that Martin was beating him up, so he had to shoot him. Now he adds that Zimmerman's demeanor (which is evidence) was that to him, it was no big deal.

Zimmerman's defense: credibility; maybe hearsay.



It should be noted that there are at least THIRTEEN witnesses. The posters on this thread that have relied exclusively on WITNESS SIX need to consider that there are at least 12 other witnesses, and that Witness SIX has added more detail to his story, and expressed some doubt in his own story. If you don't think Zimmerman has a tough road to hoe, think again.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlinefalstaff From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 6159 posts, RR: 29
Reply 107, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 4258 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 61):
There is evidence that M was looking at colleges and if he had been a bit of a punk before he was trying to better himself.

That means nothing.... I work with teenagers everyday and there are some of them that are just trouble and will grow up to be more trouble. I have heard that "I'm turning my life around" bit too many times and most of the time it is just a line. In my 11 years of teaching I have seen a lot of troubled youth who are "looking at colleges" but will never get in or stay if they do. I rarely see a kid turn his life around in school once he hits 17 or 18, but a lot after they leave school. I do see a lot of 14-16 year olds that change for the better in high school

Some kids are just bad and that is the way it is. I had a student who broke into cars and was caught. According to his mother he turned his life around. Seven months later he was caught with a bag of E and he went to rehab and "got his life turned around" Five years later he brutally murdered a young woman and is now serving life in prison. His mother is also serving time for threatening jury members and witnesses, with death. I guess her son wasn't turning his life around after all.

I don't put a lot of stock in what family members say about their dead kids. It seems that with great regularity a young thug who is gunned down in the streets of Detroit (usually drug/gang related) has a mother who comes on TV and says how he was turning his life around and was planning to go to college. Likewise the mothers of murderers come on TV and say how their sons could never do such a thing and how they were honor students and really caring people.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 104):
He doesn't get convicted and he still will need to be afraid of every black he sees for the rest of his life

I doubt it. People have short memories. I bet in a few years people won't remember what he looks like. On the other hand I doubt a lot of people would forget his name. I feel bad for anyone else who is named George Zimmerman.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 12):
I want to know what the numbers on this kid were (height and weight) I will accept that the media used old photos, but to imply great strength would imply that this kid was of the physique of football player (ex. 6'2, 250lbs).

The last I heard he was 6'0 150-170 lbs. which is pretty skinny. Although great strength may not be determined by simply looking at someone.

There are a lot of 17 year olds that could kick my ass. I bet that any number of my students who are over 6 feet tall and weigh in 170 pounds could whip me in a fight. I may be bigger than they are, but they are faster and in better shape than me.



My mug slaketh over on Falstaff N503
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11500 posts, RR: 52
Reply 108, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 4255 times:

Quoting falstaff (Reply 107):
It seems that with great regularity a young thug who is gunned down in the streets of Detroit (usually drug/gang related) has a mother who comes on TV and says how he was turning his life around and was planning to go to college. Likewise the mothers of murderers come on TV and say how their sons could never do such a thing and how they were honor students and really caring people.

Both true, that's why I put ZERO weight on what Zimmerman and Martin's families say.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5716 posts, RR: 6
Reply 109, posted (2 years 6 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 4187 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 104):
You report the "situation" to 911 and do what they say.

That's not what the law says.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 104):
Obviously those manning the 911 lines have far more judgement behind them

Still carries no legal weight.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 104):
Getting out of the car isn't a crime, but it sure as hell will be

So it is, or it isn't? Juries aren't allowed to make up their own rules. Heck, why don't we just skip the trial and lynch Zimmerman?

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 104):
Deliberations about Zimmerman's killing a young man when he should have stayed away and let the pros do their job.

Except when the pesky little fact comes up that Martin attacked Zimmerman.

Quoting D L X (Reply 106):
Now he adds that Zimmerman's demeanor (which is evidence) was that to him, it was no big deal.

It's weak evidence. Ever been in shock? Ever seen anyone in shock? Ever seen anyone in shock while you're staring at a still-warm body that the person in shock just shot? Is there a certain demeanor one is required to have when they shoot someone?



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11500 posts, RR: 52
Reply 110, posted (2 years 6 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 4166 times:

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 109):
It's weak evidence.

Not necessarily. It will be interesting to see how that particular bit plays out.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 109):
Except when the pesky little fact comes up that Martin attacked Zimmerman.

The only witness currently saying that Martin attacked Zimmerman is Zimmerman himself. Discount all self-serving statements by Zimmerman, his family, or Martin's family. They are inherently self-serving.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5716 posts, RR: 6
Reply 111, posted (2 years 6 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 4103 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 110):
The only witness currently saying that Martin attacked Zimmerman is Zimmerman himself.

And nobody is saying that Zimmerman attacked Martin either. So, really the only evidence is injuries. Martin had non-defensive knuckle scrapes and a bullet hole; Zimmerman had a broken nose and head lacerations. Unless another witness comes forward in court, any speculation as to who threw the first punch is just that: speculation, and not nearly strong enough to escape reasonable doubt.



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlinekpitrrat From United States of America, joined Oct 2011, 194 posts, RR: 0
Reply 112, posted (2 years 6 months 4 days ago) and read 4093 times:

From what I understand about this mess, not a case a mess, we have at least 3 witnesses who have changed their story. Right there I would say they are unreliable as witnesses. So throw the witnesses out and what do you have? Physical evidence. The injuries to Zimmerman and a fatal gun wound. Now I can not believe they could even find a jury in cambodia that has not heard about this case. (Yes I may have exaggerated) but if you take a jury from Florida you are going to have to consider that they heard about the new witness testimony.

I say that he gets charges with some sort of Manslaughter and gets about 10-15 yrs.


User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11500 posts, RR: 52
Reply 113, posted (2 years 6 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 4063 times:

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 111):
And nobody is saying that Zimmerman attacked Martin either.

That is not the case. It is the default that Zimmerman attacked Martin, because he admits that he killed him.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 111):
Unless another witness comes forward in court, any speculation as to who threw the first punch is just that: speculation, and not nearly strong enough to escape reasonable doubt.

I have to had mentioned it at least 5 times already. Reasonable doubt only comes into play in the proof that the killing was committed and by whom. Reasonable doubt does NOT apply to the defense.

That's why you don't see people getting off because "maybe it was self-defense." No, the person claiming self-defense has to prove it.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5716 posts, RR: 6
Reply 114, posted (2 years 6 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 4028 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 113):
That is not the case. It is the default that Zimmerman attacked Martin, because he admits that he killed him.

It may be the "default", but that doesn't overrule any other facts that come out.

Quoting D L X (Reply 113):
That's why you don't see people getting off because "maybe it was self-defense." No, the person claiming self-defense has to prove it.

Under what standard of proof? You make it sound like there has to be multiple credible witnesses to an event to corroborate someone's story, which is simply not the case.

For example, say I'm walking home one night, all alone on a street with no CCTV cameras or anyone around, except for some guy that comes up behind me, presses on my back, and threatens to shoot me if I don't hand over my wallet. Let's say that I spin around on him and punch him in the face. He turns around and reaches for his waistband; I pull my gun and shoot him because I fear he's reaching for a weapon. Turns out he doesn't.

Using your standard, I should be convicted of 2nd Degree Murder, because I can't "prove" that's what happened, and you'd use the fact that I have no defensive injuries and he has no offensive injuries as "proof" that I was the one causing trouble and killing in cold blood.



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11500 posts, RR: 52
Reply 115, posted (2 years 6 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 4018 times:

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 114):
Quoting D L X (Reply 113):
That is not the case. It is the default that Zimmerman attacked Martin, because he admits that he killed him.

It may be the "default", but that doesn't overrule any other facts that come out.

I never said it did. What I did say was that in the absence of additional evidence (Z started it, M started it) the default is that Z does not get self-defense because it is his burden to prove it.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 114):
Quoting D L X (Reply 113):
That's why you don't see people getting off because "maybe it was self-defense." No, the person claiming self-defense has to prove it.

Under what standard of proof?

The standard of proof is "preponderance of the evidence." Under that standard, the party with the burden must prove that his case is more likely than not. So, unlike the reasonable doubt standard, where the defendant must only prove that it's possible, under the preponderance of the evidence standard, the defendant has to prove that it is more likely than not. That is a key distinction.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 114):
You make it sound like there has to be multiple credible witnesses to an event to corroborate someone's story, which is simply not the case.

No, that's not what I am saying. I am saying that Z has to prove his defense case. He can present evidence, and the state can present arguments to negate his evidence, if they have any. Similarly, the state can present counterevidence, and Z can present arguments to negate the state's evidence. We both know they will, so it's just a matter that at the end of the day, does the jury believe that it was more likely than not that Zimmerman acted in self-defense. That means he didn't start the altercation, didn't escalate the altercation, and didn't provoke the altercation.

With that said, (and I apologize for the length of the next part) if the only one who is saying the defendant did not start the fight is the defendant himself, that is usually very weak evidence. Get ready for character evidence to shoot down Z's character. He has a rap sheet. Some people have called him a racist. Some people have called him a hothead. One person has said that he didn't seem fazed that he killed someone. The police dispatcher on 911 told him not to follow, but he did. Zimmerman did not stay in his vehicle. All this ish is going to be put on the stand in an attempt to show that Z was itchin' for a fight, found one, and offed this kid -- or at least, given that there was a fight, Zimmerman most likely started it.

And then you're going to see evidence from Z's friends (especially his black friend) talk up about how he loved black people, how he wouldn't hurt a fly, etc. etc., to rehabilitate his credibility when he says he didn't start it. This is all about Z trying to prove that it is most likely that Zimmerman didn't start it.

You're also going to see Z's camp try to present evidence that MARTIN was a violent kid, prone to crime, carried around criminal paraphernalia, and was likely to jump someone he didn't like. IN response, you'll see evidence that Martin was an honor student, applying for college, never had any legal run-ins, never jumped someone, and all sorts of other fluff to bolster the position that it was UNLIKELY that Martin would start an altercation like this.

Then you'll have evidence presented discussing whether Zimmerman should have had a reasonable belief that he was gonna be killed or seriously hurt if he didn't kill Martin first. Things like Zimmerman weighed 50 pounds more than Martin, but Martin was a high school athlete in good shape. Then things like Martin was unarmed. The credibility of Witness Six is key for Zimmerman, in that he used to say that Martin was beating Zimmerman up MMA style, but has recanted this. (So you'll also get evidence of whether Martin knew any MMA moves.)

It all adds up to this - if the jury finds that it is more likely than not that Martin started the fight, Zimmerman will be found IMMUNE, and released. Otherwise, Z's going to be in jail for a long time.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 114):
For example, say I'm walking home one night, all alone on a street with no CCTV cameras or anyone around, except for some guy that comes up behind me, presses on my back, and threatens to shoot me if I don't hand over my wallet. Let's say that I spin around on him and punch him in the face. He turns around and reaches for his waistband; I pull my gun and shoot him because I fear he's reaching for a weapon. Turns out he doesn't.

Using your standard, I should be convicted of 2nd Degree Murder, because I can't "prove" that's what happened, and you'd use the fact that I have no defensive injuries and he has no offensive injuries as "proof" that I was the one causing trouble and killing in cold blood.

I think this is where you have me mistaken. All the evidence you can present should be admissible (other than hearsay). BUT (and I think this is where you mistook me), just because you present evidence does not mean you have passed the preponderance of the evidence standard. It doesn't mean that you have shown that it was more likely than not that your story is actually what happened.

Remember, it's not reasonable doubt. If it were, the person claiming self-defense would win every time, because "it's possible." Reasonable doubt only comes into play when the jury is not sure who actually did the act of killing the deceased.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 114):
Using your standard

It's not my standard. It's the standard in Florida.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5716 posts, RR: 6
Reply 116, posted (2 years 6 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 3998 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 115):
and I apologize for the length of the next part

Not at all. It was very informative.


I think where we got caught up was me using the common definition of "proof" being an absolute, as opposed to "preponderance of evidence", which is the standard used in Florida.



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlineATTart From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 117, posted (2 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3898 times:

Judge revokes Zimmerman's bond


http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/01/justic...teen-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t1



Remember: When someone talks behind your back, it only means you're two steps ahead of them!
User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7859 posts, RR: 19
Reply 118, posted (2 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3842 times:

Quoting ATTart (Reply 117):
Judge revokes Zimmerman's bond

So what does this mean? Are they not buying the medical evidence or what?



我思うゆえに我あり。(Jap. 'I think, therefore I am.')
User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5716 posts, RR: 6
Reply 119, posted (2 years 5 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 3780 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 118):
So what does this mean? Are they not buying the medical evidence or what?

He lied about how much money he had. He and his wife were claiming they were indigent (his wife under oath), but they wound up having over 100K in cash (probably from the website he had set up).



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlineTheCommodore From Australia, joined Dec 2007, 2934 posts, RR: 8
Reply 120, posted (2 years 5 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 3769 times:

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 119):
He lied about how much money he had.

And lets no forget the small matter over a second passport that he had hidden away in a safety deposit box.

He even talked about it with his wife, in conversations while he was in prison (taped conversations)

I find it amazing that people lie like this, as though they will never be found out. Just so dumb.

IMHO, this raises big questions about Zimmermans credibility in a future trail  Wow!



Flown 905,468 kms or 2.356 times to the moon, 1296 hrs, Longest flight 10,524 kms
User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3402 posts, RR: 9
Reply 121, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 3713 times:

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 120):
IMHO, this raises big questions about Zimmermans credibility in a future trail  

Absolutely, also raises issue of his wife in terms of credibility also if the defense plans to use her as a character witness.



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlineusflyer msp From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2162 posts, RR: 0
Reply 122, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 3710 times:

Zimmerman is so dumb. When you call someone from jail there is a recording that plays about every five minutes that tells you that you are being recorded and it can be used against you in court.

I think the passport issue is what is really going to damage him the most. He is eligible for Peruvian citizenship through his mother so he could flee the country and Peru could refuse to extradite him back. Thanks to his lying about the passport, I think he is now un-bondable.


User currently onlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8921 posts, RR: 24
Reply 123, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 3603 times:

Quoting usflyer msp (Reply 122):
I think the passport issue is what is really going to damage him the most. He is eligible for Peruvian citizenship through his mother so he could flee the country and Peru could refuse to extradite him back. Thanks to his lying about the passport, I think he is now un-bondable.

At the same time he twice had the opportunity to do exactly that, and has never indicated that he would 'do a bolter' if given the chance.

George Zimmerman is back in police custody; Twitter mob hopes for rape, death

http://twitchy.com/2012/06/03/george...mmerman-is-back-in-police-custody/



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineTheCommodore From Australia, joined Dec 2007, 2934 posts, RR: 8
Reply 124, posted (2 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 3578 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 123):
and has never indicated that he would 'do a bolter' if given the chance.

Um, how many people indicate their intentions they are going to "do a bolter"

He should have just been honest in the first place. Lying dose NOTHING to help his case one littler bit.



Flown 905,468 kms or 2.356 times to the moon, 1296 hrs, Longest flight 10,524 kms
User currently offlineATTart From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 125, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 3365 times:

George Zimmerman's Wife Arrested: Shellie Zimmerman Charged With Perjury


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D169256



Remember: When someone talks behind your back, it only means you're two steps ahead of them!
User currently offlineCALTECH From Poland, joined May 2007, 2305 posts, RR: 26
Reply 126, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 3261 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 19):
Something HUGE you are forgetting to report about the Coroner's Report: Martin was not shot at close range. He was shot at intermediate range. What does that mean? That means that Martin was outside the range to throw a punch when Zimmerman shot him dead. You can gloss over that, but that is a huge piece of evidence, if true.
Quoting D L X (Reply 19):
Both of you: STOP. Your constantly making things political is what's going to get this thread killed.

Stick to the facts then.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_16...-over/?tag=contentMain;contentBody

"Details from Trayvon Martin's autopsy show the bullet entered the left side of his chest, and shattered the ventrical, one of his heart's two large chambers but the round did not leave his body.
The reports also noted the fatal wound's surrounded by a two-by-two inch pattern called stippling, caused by gunpower burns. It suggests Zimmerman fired inches away from the teenager."



UNITED We Stand
User currently offlineCALTECH From Poland, joined May 2007, 2305 posts, RR: 26
Reply 127, posted (2 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 3280 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 110):
The only witness currently saying that Martin attacked Zimmerman is Zimmerman himself. Discount all self-serving statements by Zimmerman, his family, or Martin's family. They are inherently self-serving.


The facts say otherwise.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/repo...-martin-attacked-george-zimmerman/

"A new witness to the Trayvon Martin shooting has come forward, claiming the Florida teen did in fact attack neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman, according to media reports."



UNITED We Stand
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11500 posts, RR: 52
Reply 128, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 3181 times:

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 127):
The facts say otherwise.

It is now June 17.

On May 25, I posted a report saying that the witness that had claimed that Martin attacked Zimmerman has now recanted his story.

So, why do you post an article dated March 24 to support your claim that this witness says that Martin attacked Zimmerman? Do you not see that this is the same guy that has recanted his story?

The only point you make by posting outdated news is that you plan to ignore current, more relevant news because it doesn't fit your story.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlinekpitrrat From United States of America, joined Oct 2011, 194 posts, RR: 0
Reply 129, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 3067 times:

In the words of David Ferrie played by Joe Pesci in the movie JFK.

"It's a mystery! It's a mystery wrapped in a riddle inside an enigma!"

This case has long gone past the characterization of circus. That being said, with the way things have been going for relatively high profile cases in the last couple years..

Casey Anthony.
Barry Bonds (3 charges result in Mistrial)
John Edwards.
Roger Clemens.

Maybe the Sandusky case will get the the justice system back in line...

With all of the murky physical evidence and even murkier eyewitness reports this is simply a mess. It seems to me that either side will have a difficult time finding credible witnesses. At this point it appears that Zimmerman can only hurt himself, which he (and his wife) are apparently trying to do.

Should Zimmerman's jailhouse phone records be permitted as evidence towards his credibility?

http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/18/justic...florida-zimmerman-calls/index.html


User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3402 posts, RR: 9
Reply 130, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 3058 times:

Quoting kpitrrat (Reply 129):
Casey Anthony.

The DA overcharged here as their wasn't enough evidence to support Murder one beyond a reasonable doubt, she was acquitted on the lesser charges likely because the DA focused on pre-meditation over an accidental death.

Quoting kpitrrat (Reply 129):
Barry Bonds (3 charges result in Mistrial)
John Edwards.

Those were mistrials so they can be tried again if more evidence comes to light and with different juries.

Quoting kpitrrat (Reply 129):
Roger Clemens.

This just happened but I assume they could not prove he lied to congress, probably because his trainer was not very credible.

Quoting kpitrrat (Reply 129):
Maybe the Sandusky case will get the the justice system back in line...

One can hope but a lot of those jurors have Penn State connections, but I think he is going away.

Quoting kpitrrat (Reply 129):

With all of the murky physical evidence and even murkier eyewitness reports this is simply a mess. It seems to me that either side will have a difficult time finding credible witnesses. At this point it appears that Zimmerman can only hurt himself, which he (and his wife) are apparently trying to do.

Should Zimmerman's jailhouse phone records be permitted as evidence towards his credibility?

There are no credible witnesses but Zimmerman's credibility has been hurt and his wife will face charges also. I would assume the phone records will be public knowledge as a judge can subpoena them. They have been released public ally also.

Saying that I don't think that he committed murder two but it was voluntary manslaughter, this is because I feel and (I know some disagree) that Zimmerman was looking for trouble and had no reason to enter the situation and killed Martin out of a struggle. With the lack of witness and defendant credibility it is harder to use self-defense as a defense.

There is no evidence that Zimmerman had intent to kill Martin before the struggle began.



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlineTheCommodore From Australia, joined Dec 2007, 2934 posts, RR: 8
Reply 131, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2912 times:

Further news on this saga.

Miami Police Chief has been sacked !

Apparently, because he's lost the "confidence of the community".

Another words, hes done the wrong thing, and he's out on his ear.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/police-chief-sacked-20120621-20qtl.html

[Edited 2012-06-21 15:40:32]


Flown 905,468 kms or 2.356 times to the moon, 1296 hrs, Longest flight 10,524 kms
User currently offlineWrenchBender From Canada, joined Feb 2004, 1779 posts, RR: 8
Reply 132, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2905 times:

Please note it was the Sanford Police Chief who was relieved of his duties not the Miami Police Chief.

WrenchBender



Silly Pilot, Tricks are for kids.......
User currently offlineTheCommodore From Australia, joined Dec 2007, 2934 posts, RR: 8
Reply 133, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2903 times:

Quoting WrenchBender (Reply 132):
Sanford Police Chief

That's correct, sorry.

My mistake.



Flown 905,468 kms or 2.356 times to the moon, 1296 hrs, Longest flight 10,524 kms
User currently offlinezckls04 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 1449 posts, RR: 4
Reply 134, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2894 times:

Here we go again......

Seems from reading the above that everybody knows what went on that night, which should make the trial easy, right?

Ask yourself this- if there hadn't been public outrage about this, would there have ever been a trial? Would any of this information have come out? Even if you're CONVINCED Zimmerman was within his rights and that nothing could persuade you that it was anything other than 100% Martin's fault and 0% Zimmerman's fault, isn't it better to go to trial and find out exactly what happened than just sweep it all under the carpet?

Far too many people here seem to be fighting some kind of weird tribal war and forgetting what our legal system is supposed to be for.



If you're not sure whether to use a piece of punctuation, it's best not to.
User currently offlineTheCommodore From Australia, joined Dec 2007, 2934 posts, RR: 8
Reply 135, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 2875 times:

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 134):
Far too many people here seem to be fighting some kind of weird tribal war and forgetting what our legal system is supposed to be for.

And now a video of the episode posted by Zimmermans defense attorneys ....

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news...ticle.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10814695



Flown 905,468 kms or 2.356 times to the moon, 1296 hrs, Longest flight 10,524 kms
User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7859 posts, RR: 19
Reply 136, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 2855 times:

This has gone on too long -__- the whole case should be thrown out because of the biased media and protests. Pathetic excuse for due process.


我思うゆえに我あり。(Jap. 'I think, therefore I am.')
User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3402 posts, RR: 9
Reply 137, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2817 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 136):
This has gone on too long -__- the whole case should be thrown out because of the biased media and protests. Pathetic excuse for due process.

Using that logic many cases in the US should have been thrown out due to media hype also a lot of the time also the jury goes against the "Court of Public opinion". To list a few: Rodney King (well the cops who beat him), OJ, Casey Anthony, Robert Blake etc. All were though to be guilty by the media and all of them walked.

Due process will be done regardless and nothing the NRA or Al Sharpton says is going to change that, the jury sees the evidence presented to them and will rule on it. If the case gets thrown out then the judge doesn't believe the evidence.

A lot of the this has been about Zimmerman killing his own credibility, having his wife get arrested also. The media didn't cause that, incompetence did.

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 134):
Ask yourself this- if there hadn't been public outrage about this, would there have ever been a trial? Would any of this information have come out? Even if you're CONVINCED Zimmerman was within his rights and that nothing could persuade you that it was anything other than 100% Martin's fault and 0% Zimmerman's fault, isn't it better to go to trial and find out exactly what happened than just sweep it all under the carpet?

  



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently onlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8921 posts, RR: 24
Reply 138, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2795 times:

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 134):
Ask yourself this- if there hadn't been public outrage about this, would there have ever been a trial? Would any of this information have come out? Even if you're CONVINCED Zimmerman was within his rights and that nothing could persuade you that it was anything other than 100% Martin's fault and 0% Zimmerman's fault, isn't it better to go to trial and find out exactly what happened than just sweep it all under the carpet?

Let's remember that putting someone on trial is not without its cost. I haven't checked, but I know that Zimmerman was employed at an insurance company and was taking college courses before the shooting, and as a result of of all this bruhaha, I'm sure he's lost his job and his career track is in a state of disaster. He and his family will end up spending every cent they have (and then go into debt) to pay for all his legal fees. People should not be brought to trial, or even threatened with it, unless there is a pretty damned good case, I think.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11500 posts, RR: 52
Reply 139, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2792 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 138):
I haven't checked, but I know that Zimmerman was employed at an insurance company and was taking college courses before the shooting, and as a result of of all this bruhaha, I'm sure he's lost his job and his career track is in a state of disaster.

Charles, have you forgotten that a teenaged kid is dead?

Your priorities are in the wrong place if you're putting this guy's job over somebody's life.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 138):
People should not be brought to trial, or even threatened with it, unless there is a pretty damned good case, I think.

Fortunately, this is not how it works. Accountability is way more important to ordered society than worrying about the temporary effect on someone's job. If Zimmerman is found not guilty, I doubt he will have much trouble at all getting his life back in order.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently onlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8921 posts, RR: 24
Reply 140, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2788 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 139):
Fortunately, this is not how it works. Accountability is way more important to ordered society than worrying about the temporary effect on someone's job. If Zimmerman is found not guilty, I doubt he will have much trouble at all getting his life back in order.

Oh, I'm sure you would not have a problem digging your way out of a debt several times what you earn per year (and you don't even have an asset at the end, like a house). Sure, no problem...



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11500 posts, RR: 52
Reply 141, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2780 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 140):
Oh, I'm sure you would not have a problem digging your way out of a debt several times what you earn per year (and you don't even have an asset at the end, like a house). Sure, no problem...

Charles,

when you kill someone,

IT IS NOT ABOUT YOU ANYMORE.


I find it amazing that you are so worried about the comfort of the defendant in a homicide trial, as if merely bringing charges is some barbaric, unjust act. I mean, do you actually believe this, or are you just being argumentative?



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently onlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8921 posts, RR: 24
Reply 142, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2774 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 141):

I find it amazing that you are so worried about the comfort of the defendant in a homicide trial, as if merely bringing charges is some barbaric, unjust act. I mean, do you actually believe this, or are you just being argumentative?

Two wrongs don't make a right. Don't you get that?

Quoting D L X (Reply 141):

when you kill someone,

IT IS NOT ABOUT YOU ANYMORE.

Yeah, someone died. But would you not agree that some people have it coming? Never mind this particular case - let's say one of Ted Bundy's victims had gotten hold of a weapon and killed Bundy before getting killed himself. Do you think it would be fair to put that person on trial?



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11500 posts, RR: 52
Reply 143, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2769 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 142):
Two wrongs don't make a right. Don't you get that?

It is not a wrong to try someone when they kill someone.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 142):
But would you not agree that some people have it coming?

That is what a trial is for.

I'm not going to address your straw man argument. The victim was not Ted Bundy, and your suspicious belief that he was does not make him so.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlinezckls04 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 1449 posts, RR: 4
Reply 144, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 2741 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 138):
Let's remember that putting someone on trial is not without its cost. I haven't checked, but I know that Zimmerman was employed at an insurance company and was taking college courses before the shooting, and as a result of of all this bruhaha, I'm sure he's lost his job and his career track is in a state of disaster. He and his family will end up spending every cent they have (and then go into debt) to pay for all his legal fees. People should not be brought to trial, or even threatened with it, unless there is a pretty damned good case, I think.

I see your point, but I think it's worth the money. Zimmerman may well end up the financial loser (unlikely, given the media attention), but unfortunately that's just his bad luck in this case. Had he been immediately prosecuted I think the media would have been less interested (murderer going to trial is less exciting than murderer getting away with it), and his name would not be known nationally- or if it was it would be a flash in the pan.

The other thing to remember is that this law needs to be tested because it's so appallingly badly written. If somebody had broken into Zimmerman's house and Zimmerman defended himself then perhaps a trial would be superfluous (although it would probably be pretty short if things were clear cut). But in this case the lines are vague and nobody really knows whether it will hold up. Justice is sometimes expensive, but the alternative costs much more.



If you're not sure whether to use a piece of punctuation, it's best not to.
User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2749 posts, RR: 8
Reply 145, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2718 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 143):
It is not a wrong to try someone when they kill someone.

It is if it was self defense.



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlineJJJ From Spain, joined May 2006, 1883 posts, RR: 1
Reply 146, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2717 times:

Quoting windy95 (Reply 145):
It is if it was self defense.

How else do you prove that if there is no trial?


User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11500 posts, RR: 52
Reply 147, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2705 times:

Quoting windy95 (Reply 145):

Quoting D L X (Reply 143):
It is not a wrong to try someone when they kill someone.

It is if it was self defense.

No sir. It is not wrong.

I'd be with you if the trial was just for harrassment. But clearly it is not. You and Charles must not just sweep the fact that there is a dead high school kid under the rug. THIS IS SERIOUS. Stop treating it like it's not.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently onlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8921 posts, RR: 24
Reply 148, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2692 times:

Quoting JJJ (Reply 146):
How else do you prove that if there is no trial?

Preponderance of evidence. Before a case comes to trial, a number of people have to be sufficiently convinced of the accused' probable (not just possible) guilt. The police investigator, the judge who signs the arrest warrant, the members of the grand jury, the prosecutor. In this particular case, it appears that the prosecutor did get swayed by public opinion, which is a big no-no.

Quoting D L X (Reply 147):
I'd be with you if the trial was just for harrassment. But clearly it is not. You and Charles must not just sweep the fact that there is a dead high school kid under the rug. THIS IS SERIOUS. Stop treating it like it's not.

You are the one treating what Zimmerman is going through as not serious. His life is a wreck. And just because the "high school kid" is dead does not mean that he should automatically be assumed to be the victim. Have you seen the tape of Zimmerman re-enacting the event? I think his story sounds believable - particularly little things, like the way he describes Martin's sitting up reaction after the shot went off. Sounds like someone who had actually been there and seen it, rather than made up. Have you seen Martin's Twitter account? The kid was a drug-dealing thug.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2749 posts, RR: 8
Reply 149, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2682 times:

Quoting JJJ (Reply 146):
Quoting windy95 (Reply 145):It is if it was self defense.How else do you prove that if there is no trial?

If the evidence show it then the Police and DA do not file charges. Also here in Florida the Judge usually makes the decision before it goes to trial.



OMG-Obama Must Go