This could make me very sad

[Oklahomahawk]

I think your recollection of the case is off. I don't believe there was ever any evidence that Zimmerman instigated a physical confrontation and that was a large part of the case.

Well some of that is because he shot the only other witness but let's look at the facts, Zimmerman was behind Martin geographically speaking, Zimmerman followed Marin after the cops told him not to, Zimmerman then overtakes Martin and gets in front of him and apparently gets in his face demanding to know who he is and why he's there, neither of which Zimmerman has any right to know. At this point if Zimmerman even tries to de-escalate the situation I would be inclined to support him more, and maybe this is where his supporters get their stances from, a fight ensues, a physical confrontation that would not have happened had Zimmerman not done the things he did, Zimmerman is not doing well in the fight so he shoots Martin. Now clearly from a legal standpoint this is not murder, but it's certainly something IMO he should be in jail for.

 

[weso1]

Do you really think that? I think he should be in jail because he started/created a situation of violence, a situation that did not exist before he entered the scene, would not have happened had he not acted in the manner he did, after he had been advised by cops to "stand down", instigates a physical confrontation, it didn't go his way and he shot a kid, a kid who should still be alive today. According to what I'm hearing from you (and correct me if I'm wrong) I can see you on the street, chase you down, get in your face and instigate a physical conflict with you, then when you start to kick my ass I can shoot you to death and claim self defense, as I was just "standing my ground". Is this close?

No, I don't think you should be put in jail just because you started an argument. If so then there should be a lot of nagging women in jail for instigating physical assaults by their husbands.

And yes, if you are getting beat up to the point that you fear for your own life then you have the right to shoot that person. That's the legal definition of self defense.

What is the actual legal basis for your argument? It seems to me that your whole argument is based on your own feelings rather than legal and moral logic.

 

[gilesfan]

Think about the entire connotations of what you just said, he's an asshole, he was told by police NOT to do the stuff he was doing, he did it anyway. So I can start a fight with you, and when you start kicking my ass I can shoot you and I'm in the right???

He still did nothing against the law and you keep bringing up "instigating a fight." What is your evidence for instigating a fight because following someone is certainly not considered instigation.

What evidence was there that Zimmerman initiated a physical confrontation?

 

[gilesfan]

Put it this way. If I'm in a dark alley and two scary looking people are following me, I have zero right to shoot them out of fear. If they initiated contact with me, implied they had a weapon, or got physical, I have every right to defend myself. Similarly, you can't just beat the **** out of someone because they followed you.

 

[Oklahomahawk]

No, I don't think you should be put in jail just because you started an argument. If so then there should be a lot of nagging women in jail for instigating physical assaults by their husbands.

And yes, if you are getting beat up to the point that you fear for your own life then you have the right to shoot that person. That's the legal definition of self defense.

What is the actual legal basis for your argument? It seems to me that your whole argument is based on your own feelings rather than legal and moral logic.

You disconnected the two things, he started a fight, after being told by cops to "stand down" and apparently he had been told this by police on other occasions. Can we agree so far?
Then after a fight he started turns bad he literally kills another person whose only crime, at that point anyway, was to defend himself against a person who started the fight. Can we agree on this part?

So going around starting fights and apparently beating up anyone whose fighting skills, etc., are lesser than our own is OK, but if as it turns out their fighting skills, etc., are superior to ours it's OK to shoot them TO DEATH.

 

[Oklahomahawk]

He still did nothing against the law and you keep bringing up "instigating a fight." What is your evidence for instigating a fight because following someone is certainly not considered instigation.

What evidence was there that Zimmerman initiated a physical confrontation?

Hasn't there always been that evidence, if for no other reason their geographic locations during the course of this "incident"? And again if you kill the only other person involved it does make your side of the story a little more believable I guess.

 

[Oklahomahawk]

Put it this way. If I'm in a dark alley and two scary looking people are following me, I have zero right to shoot them out of fear. Agreed

If they initiated contact with me, implied they had a weapon, or got physical, I have every right to defend myself. Agreed

Similarly, you can't just beat the **** out of someone because they followed you. So our biggest point of contention is whether Zimmerman was the one who started the fight or whether he was following Martin in a friendly way, offering to "take some of those Skittles off his hands", help him cross the street, etc.?

.

Yours and weso's points are, at least the way I understand you guys, that since there is not visual/physical evidence that Zimmerman threw the first punch, any accusations about him be the aggressor can't be proven, and since Martin is no longer around to argue his side we have to take Zimmerman's side because he's the only one left to tell us what happened and just in case he really was just trying to help and Martin jumped on him and started to beat him up he had every right to defend himself. Am I too far off on this?

By the way, a woman in Florida shot and killed her estranged husband who had a documented history of beating the shi-ite out of her, in the home and despite the fact that she tried to claim the same law/protection that Zimmerman used they put her in prison for manslaughter I think it was, honestly I don't recall the specific charge but the basics are pretty "find-able" I think. Why aren't these the same thing?

 

[weso1]

You disconnected the two things, he started a fight, after being told by cops to "stand down" and apparently he had been told this by police on other occasions. Can we agree so far?

No. Actually, it's believed that Trayvon started the actual confrontation. And there is no evidence that disputed Zimmerman's claim that Trayvon punched him in the nose first.

Getting in an argument with someone is not a crime. If you came up to me and told me that I looked like an idiot I can't punch you in the face just because you said that. I would be arrested for assault. And if I kept punching you and saying something like, oh I don't know "You're going to die tonight m-fer" then you would have the right to shoot my ass. In the Trayvon case though, it's believe that Trayvon started the actual confrontation.

 

[gilesfan]

.

It doesn't matter if he followed him in a "friendly" way or an "intimidating" way. There was never evidence that Zimmerman initiated a confrontation with Martin. I believe there was more of a likelihood that Martin lost Zimmerman and then snuck up on him. I believe that is what the whole basis of stand your ground is/was.

Unfortunately, there was never any evidence that Zimmerman started a fight. Only evidence (Zimmermans account) that Martin started the fight (which Zimmerman also passed a polygraph test). I wish Zimmerman was in jail, just because he's an idiot. But, unless he started a fight, which there is no evidence to support, he wasn't convicted.

 

[57Brave]

Sharpton, or I sometimes hear him called, the black Mike Huckabee, is a media whore who makes an economic killing (no pun intended) by being essentially an "ambulance chaser". Sure he brings attention to things, sometimes even things that need attention but I guess the main difference here is that you see him as a crusader for justice, I see him as a crusader for contributions and attention, just like Jesse.

It got your attention. Pretty sure that was his intent

 

[Oklahomahawk]

No. Actually, it's believed that Trayvon started the actual confrontation. And there is no evidence that disputed Zimmerman's claim that Trayvon punched him in the nose first.

Getting in an argument with someone is not a crime. If you came up to me and told me that I looked like an idiot I can't punch you in the face just because you said that. I would be arrested for assault. And if I kept punching you and saying something like, oh I don't know "You're going to die tonight m-fer" then you would have the right to shoot my ass. In the Trayvon case though, it's believe that Trayvon started the actual confrontation.

It seems to me like we're actually agreeing on quite a bit of the basics, but where we're diverging is in whom we decide to give the benefit of the doubt. You and gilesy rigthly say that there's a lot we don't know about what really happened that night. I'm still not sure we agree on your last statement, if go up to you and call you an ugly name you don't have the right to punch me, as we agree, but if I go up to you call you ugly names, you take offense, punch we, we roll around on the ground, you're getting the best of me and I shoot/kill you--to me you through the first punch and you should be charged with assault even if it's after you're dead, but I'm really the one who started the fight so I don't see how a person can start the fight, be in the process of losing the fight, shoot the person with whom I started the fight and not be guilty of any crime. Had it not been for my actions none of this crap would have happened. How can I not be guilty of anything?

 

[Oklahomahawk]

It doesn't matter if he followed him in a "friendly" way or an "intimidating" way. There was never evidence that Zimmerman initiated a confrontation with Martin. I believe there was more of a likelihood that Martin lost Zimmerman and then snuck up on him. I believe that is what the whole basis of stand your ground is/was.

Unfortunately, there was never any evidence that Zimmerman started a fight. Only evidence (Zimmermans account) that Martin started the fight (which Zimmerman also passed a polygraph test). I wish Zimmerman was in jail, just because he's an idiot. But, unless he started a fight, which there is no evidence to support, he wasn't convicted.

Being an idiot running around with a gun shooting people, or just person in this case should be some sort of crime. Honestly I think we're all "fishing" on this to some degree since there are still and always will be quite a few unknowns about that night, but I really think there are more than enough red flags in Zimmerman's past about his personality and past behavior to suggest he had issues (not the least of which were compensation issues IMO) and the only thing I've ever heard about Martin's past was that he got in trouble for smoking pot, which unless Zimmerman is a bag of Doritos probably makes Martin less dangerous not more.

 

[Oklahomahawk]

It got your attention. Pretty sure that was his intent

Dude, pick your heroes a little more carefully.

 

[57Brave]

just cause I think people deserve an even shot doesn't make them my heroes !
I think your opinion of Reverand Al's participation in this case is harsh and painted with a broad brush

 

[MrShwag]

Really ------- vigilante renta cop (Caucasian) shoots kid (AA) for walking down the street --- you don't want to know about it ?

I hate to judge but ...

Mixed Hispanic-White actually, but for your needs, probably much more apt to place him in the "Caucasian" category. And easier, less blurry. etc.. GZ is a complete low-class, trashy douchebag. Hopefully every one boycotts participating in this auction. Doubt it though. Some other db will buy in.

 

[weso1]

It seems to me like we're actually agreeing on quite a bit of the basics, but where we're diverging is in whom we decide to give the benefit of the doubt. You and gilesy rigthly say that there's a lot we don't know about what really happened that night. I'm still not sure we agree on your last statement, if go up to you and call you an ugly name you don't have the right to punch me, as we agree, but if I go up to you call you ugly names, you take offense, punch we, we roll around on the ground, you're getting the best of me and I shoot/kill you--to me you through the first punch and you should be charged with assault even if it's after you're dead, but I'm really the one who started the fight so I don't see how a person can start the fight, be in the process of losing the fight, shoot the person with whom I started the fight and not be guilty of any crime. Had it not been for my actions none of this crap would have happened. How can I not be guilty of anything?

I'm not sure we do agree on the basics. I believe in innocent until proven guilty and that you should only go to jail if you commit a crime. Based on what we know of the case it appears the only one who commited a crime here was Trayvon, who committed assault and battery. I also believe in the right to self defense. You're muddying the water with all these hypotheticals, but there are laws that define what constitutes battery and what constitus assault and what justifies an act of self defense.

Now, obviously I believe that Zimmerman should have followed the advice from the 911 call but that doesn't constitute a criminal act. You haven't shown any sort of criminal act on Zimmerman's part other than that you feel what he did was wrong. That's great but there's a reason we have things like evidence, trials and juries rather than just what you feel is right.

Anyways I really don't want to rehash this already closed case. There in reality is not a general problem of black kids being killed in self defense by mixed race rent a cops in suburban neighborhoods. So there's really nothing to even solve by over analyzing this case.

 

[57Brave]

You've implied that I'm a racist bigoted homophobe many times in the past. As a leftist many of your arguments are centered around the idea that the people you disagree with are racist bigoted homophobes without evidence. It's a very judgemental style. Trying to pretend you don't do that is pretty dishonest.

oh, I implied.

Like I said I never threw insults or cast judgmental aspersions your way.

If you read an implication that is because you read an implication.

When you (royal) wear a red coat you are wearing a red coat.

If you don't want people saying you are wear red coats, don't wear a red coat

 

[Carp]

Really ------- vigilante renta cop (Caucasian) shoots kid (AA) for walking down the street --- you don't want to know about it ?

I hate to judge but ...

How convenient you call him Caucasian to suit you're argument. The guy was Hispanic and his mother was Peruvian. But sure, let's pretend this was some white on black crime.....

More on topic, it was truly deplorable that selling the gun at auction was ever really considered.

 

[57Brave]

https://www.google.com/search?q=are+hispanics+caucasian&ie=&oe=

not convenient, just an observation

 

[Oklahomahawk]

I'm not sure we do agree on the basics. I believe in innocent until proven guilty and that you should only go to jail if you commit a crime. Based on what we know of the case it appears the only one who commited a crime here was Trayvon, who committed assault and battery. I also believe in the right to self defense. You're muddying the water with all these hypotheticals, but there are laws that define what constitutes battery and what constitus assault and what justifies an act of self defense.

Wow, just f*cking wow!!!!!! I mean Whiskey Tango Foxtrot!!!!!!!!!!!! I guess you're right, we don't agree on ****. There's no proof Zimmerman did anything wrong, the only one we can prove did was the dead black kid. I believe in the right to self defense too, but obviously I don't think that right covers starting a fight that didn't need to be started and then killing your opponent when he starts getting the better of you and I guaranteedamntee you that you wouldn't feel this way if the victim was somebody you cared about. You'd be able to see all these nuances crystal clear then. And what I'm muddying the water with what really happened, not the "well if you kill everyone else involved you can then claim whatever bull**** defense you want and you won't get convicted. By that logic OJ was innocent too, right? And Baretta? And that ahole who murdered his wife by weighting her 8.5 month pregnant ass down and throwing her in the ocean. The "actual" evidence against him was pretty thin, wasn't it? Oh and forget all that stuff Hilldog was and is charged with, Whitewater, innocent, emailgate, never happened, being a ****ty SoS, no proof here.

Now, obviously I believe that Zimmerman should have followed the advice from the 911 call but that doesn't constitute a criminal act. You haven't shown any sort of criminal act on Zimmerman's part other than that you feel what he did was wrong. That's great but there's a reason we have things like evidence, trials and juries rather than just what you feel is right.

What I feel he did was wrong???????????? Again WTF?????? You don't have to have a job with the BAU to put this 2 and 2 together. JEEZ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Anyways I really don't want to rehash this already closed case. There in reality is not a general problem of black kids being killed in self defense by mixed race rent a cops in suburban neighborhoods. So there's really nothing to even solve by over analyzing this case.

Except maybe justice eventually not as much FOR Trayvon Martin as To that POS George Zimmerman. To be honest I"m a little surprised he hasn't already got his "justice". It must be because he's such a badass ninja or something.

Oh and while I would rate this post right up there in the rarified air with some of Vol's posts I have to say this does actually explain the infatuation with Guiliani and especially with Rafael Cruz. I mean he said all the right things to get the votes of the Christian right and he went through the motions and there wasn't any "evidence" that he was a charlatan but even most of the Christian right finally saw through his schtick. Oh and all those Repubs who don't even like Trump, like Graham and Boehner just to name a couple were good guys until they said what they really thought about Rafael, now they're on the poopy list right next to me.