So how about that Zimmerman trial?

[Bodeanicus]

Originally Posted by Daldolma [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

^ dum
there is also no evidence to suggest zimmerman "harassed" martin. as a neighborhood watchman, he followed him and upon confronting him, asked him what he was doing.

Against the advice of every Neighboorhood Watch organization's guidelines in the entire country. Zimmerman is not a policeman, despite his fantasies to the contrary. According to SYG, Martin had the right to defend himself against Zimmerman. Too bad he was black. Apparently, in Florida, they just send you on home for picking a fight, then killing black people. That is, until someone reports it to national media.

that's all we know from the facts. there's nothing wrong with that. it's not illegal, it's not unethical, it's not even all that stupid.

It's causing the unnecessary death of another human being through negligence, incompetence, and stupidity. In other words, it's manslaughter.

if, as zimmerman claims, martin attacked him on that basis, zimmerman had every right to defend himself.

Martin had every right to defend himself from a strange man, who is not a security guard or police officer, following him. Or are all black teenage males "fucking punks" up to "no good." And Zimmerman is a proven liar. He and his wife both got thrown into jail for lying about their finances to a judge, remember?

and given the reasonable assumption that zimmerman would face serious bodily harm during this attack (he had already suffered a broken nose and was being pinned to the ground), he was justified to use deadly force.

Maybe he shouldn't harass strangers and he wouldn't get his ass kicked. If he hadn't had his gun, his fat pussy ass wouldn't have gotten out of the car in the first place. It comes down to that idiotic SYG law that never should have been passed by fat, old white baby boomers frightened to death of black people. This is what happens.

this all supposes zimmerman's claims are truthful, and they may not be. but there is vastly insufficient evidence to disprove his claims beyond a reasonable doubt. hence, charging him was an exercise in futility

Wrong. It's the state's duty to investigate the killing of a human being by another human being, no matter the circumstances beyond "Hey Bob, it's just a dead ******. Let him go, you know how them coons are."

[Samoht]

Originally Posted by Bodeanicus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

According to SYG, Martin had the right to defend himself against Zimmerman.

no, no he didn't. simply being on the street as someone else does not mean you have to defend yourself. trayvon was the aggressor. this is amplified by the fact that he lost gz but then ambushed him. SYG says you don't have to flee, so he gave up SYG the second he fled.

[Bodeanicus]

Originally Posted by Samoht [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

no, no he didn't. simply being on the street as someone else does not mean you have to defend yourself. trayvon was the aggressor. this is amplified by the fact that he lost gz but then ambushed him. SYG says you don't have to flee, so he gave up SYG the second he fled.

Proof that he ambushed him. And if you like to Breitbart's "Racist Treehouse" site, you're a fucking moron.

[Daldolma]

Originally Posted by Bodeanicus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Against the advice of every Neighboorhood Watch organization's guidelines in the entire country. Zimmerman is not a policeman, despite his fantasies to the contrary. According to SYG, Martin had the right to defend himself against Zimmerman. Too bad he was black. Apparently, in Florida, they just send you on home for picking a fight, then killing black people. That is, until someone reports it to national media.



It's causing the unnecessary death of another human being through negligence, incompetence, and stupidity. In other words, it's manslaughter.



Martin had every right to defend himself from a strange man, who is not a security guard or police officer, following him. Or are all black teenage males "fucking punks" up to "no good." And Zimmerman is a proven liar. He and his wife both got thrown into jail for lying about their finances to a judge, remember?



Maybe he shouldn't harass strangers and he wouldn't get his ass kicked. If he hadn't had his gun, his fat pussy ass wouldn't have gotten out of the car in the first place. It comes down to that idiotic SYG law that never should have been passed by fat, old white baby boomers frightened to death of black people. This is what happens.



Wrong. It's the state's duty to investigate the killing of a human being by another human being, no matter the circumstances beyond "Hey Bob, it's just a dead ******. Let him go, you know how them coons are."

wow. there is a staggering amount of incorrect in this post. i'm going to go paragraph by paragraph.

Paragraph 1a - he doesn't have to follow the guidelines of neighborhood watch. should he have? sure. and trayvon should've run home or called the cops. a lot of different scenarios could have resulted in a much better outcome. but he has no legal obligation to follow those guidelines.

Paragraph 1b - it's highly questionable as to whether trayvon had the legal right to initiate physical violence with zimmerman. you claim that he was allowed to engage, in accordance with SYG. that depends upon a reasonable apprehension of harm. it would be a tough case to prove that trayvon reasonably believed zimmerman would harm him based simply on the fact that he followed him and asked what he was doing. it would be even tougher to prove that after initiating violence, it was necessary to pin zimmerman to the ground and continue hostile action. but most importantly, even if you were to prove that martin was justified and believed himself to be acting in self defense, that does NOT mean that zimmerman was not ALSO acting in self defense when he shot martin. martin could have attacked out of self defense, at which point zimmerman could have shot him in self defense. this would be a tragic misunderstanding based on two non-criminal instances of self defense. such is the law as it relates to self defense. it is mostly about reasonable perception -- not actual danger.

Paragraph 1c - your contention that zimmerman picked the fight is based wholly on supposition with no grounding in fact. we lose clarity as to the events that occurred in between zimmerman asking what trayvon was doing and both parties brawling on the ground. that intervening action is of paramount importance in determining who, in fact, "picked the fight".

Paragraph 2 - following a person and asking what they're doing is not grounds for a conviction of manslaughter. it is not negligent. it is not incompetent or stupid. it is nosy, maybe, which also is not a crime. you are making assumptions as to the intervening actions that resulted in violence. those assumptions are your own -- they're fabricated, not factual.

Paragraph 3 - again, you are advocating for trayvon's right to defend himself. again, this is an uphill battle and in no way relevant to the outcome of the zimmerman case. even if trayvon was acting well within his rights of self defense, so too could zimmerman have been.

Paragraph 4a - there is no evidence that he harassed martin. that is, again, supposition on your part.

Paragraph 4b - perhaps zimmerman wouldn't have gotten out of his car without his gun -- that only bolsters zimmerman's case for self defense. if you argue he's a pussy, you further support the notion that he feared for his life while being attacked by martin.

Paragraph 4c - SYG has not been mobilized by zimmerman nor is it relevant to this case in any way. SYG grants zimmerman the ability to defend himself without an obligation to retreat. according to testimony, zimmerman was pinned to the ground by martin. this would nullify his responsibility to retreat, even in a non-SYG state.

Paragraph 5 - correct. it was the state's duty to investigate. they did, and they filed no charges because there is insufficient evidence to properly charge that a crime was, in fact, committed. it was not until this became a cause celebre that a special prosecutor was appointed to initiate far further scrutiny than a case such as this would typically garner

[Bodeanicus]

Originally Posted by Daldolma [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

wow. there is a staggering amount of incorrect in this post. i'm going to go paragraph by paragraph.

Paragraph 1a - he doesn't have to follow the guidelines of neighborhood watch. should he have? sure. and trayvon should've run home or called the cops. a lot of different scenarios could have resulted in a much better outcome. but he has no legal obligation to follow those guidelines.

Paragraph 1b - it's highly questionable as to whether trayvon had the legal right to initiate physical violence with zimmerman. you claim that he was allowed to engage, in accordance with SYG. that depends upon a reasonable apprehension of harm. it would be a tough case to prove that trayvon reasonably believed zimmerman would harm him based simply on the fact that he followed him and asked what he was doing. it would be even tougher to prove that after initiating violence, it was necessary to pin zimmerman to the ground and continue hostile action. but most importantly, even if you were to prove that martin was justified and believed himself to be acting in self defense, that does NOT mean that zimmerman was not ALSO acting in self defense when he shot martin. martin could have attacked out of self defense, at which point zimmerman could have shot him in self defense. this would be a tragic misunderstanding based on two non-criminal instances of self defense. such is the law as it relates to self defense. it is mostly about reasonable perception -- not actual danger.

Paragraph 1c - your contention that zimmerman picked the fight is based wholly on supposition with no grounding in fact. we lose clarity as to the events that occurred in between zimmerman asking what trayvon was doing and both parties brawling on the ground. that intervening action is of paramount importance in determining who, in fact, "picked the fight".

Paragraph 2 - following a person and asking what they're doing is not grounds for a conviction of manslaughter. it is not negligent. it is not incompetent or stupid. it is nosy, maybe, which also is not a crime. you are making assumptions as to the intervening actions that resulted in violence. those assumptions are your own -- they're fabricated, not factual.

Paragraph 3 - again, you are advocating for trayvon's right to defend himself. again, this is an uphill battle and in no way relevant to the outcome of the zimmerman case. even if trayvon was acting well within his rights of self defense, so too could zimmerman have been.

Paragraph 4a - there is no evidence that he harassed martin. that is, again, supposition on your part.

Paragraph 4b - perhaps zimmerman wouldn't have gotten out of his car without his gun -- that only bolsters zimmerman's case for self defense. if you argue he's a pussy, you further support the notion that he feared for his life while being attacked by martin.

Paragraph 4c - SYG has not been mobilized by zimmerman nor is it relevant to this case in any way. SYG grants zimmerman the ability to defend himself without an obligation to retreat. according to testimony, zimmerman was pinned to the ground by martin. this would nullify his responsibility to retreat, even in a non-SYG state.

Paragraph 5 - correct. it was the state's duty to investigate. they did, and they filed no charges because there is insufficient evidence to properly charge that a crime was, in fact, committed. it was not until this became a cause celebre that a special prosecutor was appointed to initiate far further scrutiny than a case such as this would typically garner

And it still doesn't change the fact that if Zimmerman hadn't gotten of his car with his 9mm security blanket and tried to play cop, and let the real police handle it, none of this shit would have happened. He's guilty of manslaughter, at least, and it's looking like he's going to jail. As he should.

[Daldolma]

Originally Posted by Bodeanicus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

And it still doesn't change the fact that if Zimmerman hadn't gotten of his car with his 9mm security blanket and tried to play cop, and let the real police handle it, none of this shit would have happened. He's guilty of manslaughter, at least, and it's looking like he's going to jail. As he should.

no, it doesn't change the fact that if zimmerman doesn't get out of car, none of this happens. you are correct about that. that is the tragedy of the situation.

unfortunately, the conclusions you draw from that inkling of factual information are devastatingly poor. the difference between murder 2 and manslaughter is all about zimmerman's state of mind. basically, whether or not the actions were perpetrated with ill will or malice. ill will is not really the main dispute in this case. he called martin a fucking punk -- if you're going to deny self defense, you may as well go ahead with murder 2.

but that's irrelevant, because in order for either of these charges to land, you need to disprove self defense. and there is insufficient evidence to disprove self defense. it is not looking like he's going to jail -- it is overwhelmingly looking like acquittal. if some miscarriage of justice does result in conviction, he is virtually certain to overturn on appeal.

[Bodeanicus]

Originally Posted by Daldolma [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

no, it doesn't change the fact that if zimmerman doesn't get out of car, none of this happens. you are correct about that. that is the tragedy of the situation.

unfortunately, the conclusions you draw from that inkling of factual information are devastatingly poor. the difference between murder 2 and manslaughter is all about zimmerman's state of mind. basically, whether or not the actions were perpetrated with ill will or malice. ill will is not really the main dispute in this case. he called martin a fucking punk -- if you're going to deny self defense, you may as well go ahead with murder 2.

but that's irrelevant, because in order for either of these charges to land, you need to disprove self defense. and there is insufficient evidence to disprove self defense. it is not looking like he's going to jail -- it is overwhelmingly looking like acquittal. if some miscarriage of justice does result in conviction, he is virtually certain to overturn on appeal.

And it still doesn't change the fact that if Zimmerman hadn't gotten of his car with his 9mm security blanket and tried to play cop, and let the real police handle it, none of this shit would have happened. He's guilty of manslaughter, at least, and it's looking like he's going to jail. As he should.

Spin it anyway you like, Zimmerman caused an avoidable death due to astounding stupidity and poor judgement. Manslaughter.

[Frieza_Prexus]

Originally Posted by Bodeanicus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Maybe he shouldn't harass strangers and he wouldn't get his ass kicked. If he hadn't had his gun, his fat pussy ass wouldn't have gotten out of the car in the first place. It comes down to that idiotic SYG law that never should have been passed by fat, old white baby boomers frightened to death of black people. This is what happens

SYG is not in any way at issue. I think you're missing the legal points that are at stake within the trial. Page 16 if this thread has detailed posts concerning the exact charges brought against him and the exact nature of his defense and why it is likely to succeed.

Relevant repost below:

Originally Posted by Frieza_Prexus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I think you're not catching the thrust of the argument. SYG abuse is not in question here, at all. Sure, people are talking about it BECAUSE of the trial, but it is in NO WAY part of the actual proceedings. SYG was not used, much less abused, here.

Zimmerman's defense is as follows:

Self-defense because he was about to be murderized while pinned to the ground. That's it. He is NOT asserting SYG nor is it relevant to the case. SYG would ONLY be relevant if he had to opportunity to flee before using deadly force but chose not to flee. Even if Florida was NOT a SYG state, the concept would be irrelevant because of Zimmerman's defense. His story is that he was pinned. It is an integral part of his claims. Because his defense includes the inability to escape, SYG never enters the picture.

This is an all-or-nothing situation. He either proves that he defended himself from imminent harm while pinned, or he does not. There is no third theory where SYG comes into play.

[Misto]

Martin started the fight.

He slams the beaner's head on the concrete. Beaner pulls a gun. Kills the ******.

He feared for his life. He did nothing wrong.

--

To the people that want this beaner on death row for what he did. Engaging someone in a conversation doesn't give you grounds to punch them in the face.

That's it. It's that simple.

--

Oh. Hasbinbad is still a fag.

[Reapin]

Originally Posted by Misto [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Martin started the fight.

He slams the beaner's head on the concrete. Beaner pulls a gun. Kills the ******.

He feared for his life. He did nothing wrong.

--

To the people that want this beaner on death row for what he did. Engaging someone in a conversation doesn't give you grounds to punch them in the face.

That's it. It's that simple.

--

Oh. Hasbinbad is still a fag.

Martin was being stalk by someone he didn't know..in the dark and he was lost. He tried to defend himself because he felt threatened. The beaner never identified himself as a neighborhood watch volunteer (probably because he was living a fantasy he was a big bad cop). Zimmerman is a proven liar and manipulator. Martin is a dead kid.

I side with the dead kid.