Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 29, 2024, 12:00:31 pm
Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
News: Brian Fein is now blogging weekly!  Make sure to check the homepage for his latest editorial.
+  The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums
|-+  TDMMC Forums
| |-+  Off-Topic Board
| | |-+  Trayvon Martin case
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 46 Print
Poll
Question: Do you think Zimmerman is
Guilty   -5 (25%)
Not Guilty   -2 (10%)
Self Defense   -1 (5%)
You don't know enough to decide   -12 (60%)
Total Voters: 17

Author Topic: Trayvon Martin case  (Read 149037 times)
Spider-Dan
Global Moderator
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 15573


Bay Area Niner-Hater


« Reply #45 on: March 27, 2012, 09:05:49 pm »

We were discussing the media sensationalizing and exploiting race in an effort to gain ratings and push an agenda. The difference between them is that one in KC is a blatant crime with proof that got hardly any national air time and the other one has not been determined to be a crime at this time and it is plastered on every tv station, blog, and news site.
There aren't even any suspects in the KC case (which resulted in first-degree burns, not a death).
Zimmerman fully acknowledges killing Martin.
Try harder.

Quote
In lack of any other physical evidence what else is there to do. You can't convict someone without any evidence. If me and you are alone and you kill me and say that I attacked you and there is no other contradictory evidence, it's a moot point. Innocent until proven guilty. They have to prove him guilty.
No, you can't convict someone without A FREAKING TRIAL, and if the police refuses to ARREST someone, NO TRIAL EVEN OCCURS.

Do you understand this fundamental point?  "Innocent until proven guilty" applies to THE COURT SYSTEM.  Zimmerman hasn't even been arrested!

Since when do you have to have proof of guilt to ARREST someone?

Quote
So you're saying that if law enforcement would have arrived before the shooting that they would have let him be shot.
No, I'm saying that he was shot and law enforcement refuses to even arrest his killer.  How can he be proven guilty if there is never even a trial?

Quote
Yes everyone is presumed innocent until there is sufficient proof the find them guilty.
...in a court of law, which only applies after an arrest!  Get your frame of reference right before you continue with this irrelevant and ridiculous "innocent until proven guilty" garbage.

Furthermore, one of the major points in this whole debacle is the interpretation of a law that potentially allows Zimmerman to legally stalk and kill Martin.  In that case, your continued insistence that Zimmerman has "broken no law" and is "innocent" does absolutely nothing to address the outrage over the law itself.
« Last Edit: March 27, 2012, 09:12:10 pm by Spider-Dan » Logged

badger6
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 1218



« Reply #46 on: March 27, 2012, 09:24:15 pm »

There aren't even any suspects in the KC case (which resulted in first-degree burns, not a death).
Zimmerman fully acknowledges killing Martin.
Try harder.
No, you can't convict someone without A FREAKING TRIAL, and if the police refuses to ARREST someone, NO TRIAL EVEN OCCURS.

Do you understand this fundamental point?  "Innocent until proven guilty" applies to THE COURT SYSTEM.  Zimmerman hasn't even been arrested!

Since when do you have to have proof of guilt to ARREST someone?
No, I'm saying that he was shot and law enforcement refuses to even arrest his killer.  How can he be proven guilty if there is never even a trial?


...in a court of law, which only applies after an arrest!  Get your frame of reference right before you continue with this irrelevant and ridiculous "innocent until proven guilty" garbage.

Furthermore, one of the major points in this whole debacle is the interpretation of a law that potentially allows Zimmerman to legally stalk and kill Martin.  In that case, your continued insistence that Zimmerman has "broken no law" and is "innocent" does absolutely nothing to address the outrage over the law itself.

You need evidence that a law has been broken to arrest and charge someone. That is the same evidence that you would use to convict someone. Get it now ? Don't you think that if the police had some solid evidence that they would arrest him ? The outrage is a moot point, Law enforcement and criminal justice systems decisions should not be influenced by outside sources. If no more evidence surfaces then Zimmerman shouldn't be arrested or charged with a crime, the law is clear about that and the police have made their decision. If you don't like the law write your congressman. If you want to pick sides based on racial motives without knowing all the facts of the case then you have other issues to deal with.

So to conclude this, I invite anyone to provide any substantiated evidence that this killing was a racial hate crime.
« Last Edit: March 27, 2012, 09:29:47 pm by badger6 » Logged
Spider-Dan
Global Moderator
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 15573


Bay Area Niner-Hater


« Reply #47 on: March 27, 2012, 09:46:01 pm »

You need evidence that a law has been broken to arrest and charge someone. That is the same evidence that you would use to convict someone. Get it now ?
You need probable cause in order to arrest someone.  You need proof beyond a reasonable doubt to convict.

Zimmerman claims that he killed Martin in self-defense.  Given that the following facts are uncontested:

1) Martin was an unarmed minor
2) Zimmerman outweighed Martin by over 100 lbs
3) Zimmerman was pursuing Martin, even after having been advised otherwise by the 911 dispatcher

...there could easily be probable cause (a very low standard of evidence, mind you) to believe that Zimmerman's account is not true and that he is only claiming self-defense to avoid criminal repercussions.

Keep in mind that probable cause is a judgment call.  The police department decided that Zimmerman's account is solid, even though he has a history of conflict with the police and an extensive record of (unsubstantiated) 911 calls to report "suspicious activity."  That is their judgment call, which is in question.

The alleged racial motive is that if the decedent were not a young black male, the police would not be so quick to wholeheartedly presume that Zimmerman's account is completely truthful.
Logged

bsmooth
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 4633


I love YaBB 1G - SP1!


« Reply #48 on: March 28, 2012, 01:10:34 am »

Wow so many factors that have been left out by this quick police investigation.
1. Listen to the 911 tape, he first says these guys always get away, and then just before the dispatcher asks if he is following the person, Zimmerman mutters "fucking..coons/goons" you can decide for yourself what the second word sounds like to you. This goes towards mens rea
2. Zimmerman has a history of violence. He was arrested for battery on a law enforcement officer and went into a diversion program to get the charges dropped, and he said it was the officers fault. He then got into a domestic dispute with his now ex-fiance and the court ordered them to stay apart for a year, Zimmerman said it was her fault. Now he gets into this shooting as says it was the kid's fault.
3. He has a long history of calling in everyone he thinks is a criminal. He chased a vehicle with his SUV while on the phone with 911. The person he was chasing told police he was afraid Zimmerman was going to attack him.
4. No witness saw the attack start, they heard the screams and saw the kid on top of Zimmerman, but the only witness to say Trayvon started the fight is the shooter himself.
5. Zimmerman admits that Trayvon approached from his left and asked "you got a problem" and that they then had "words". Zimmerman then states that after confronting Trayvon in the street, he turned towards his SUV, and pulled out his cellphone when he was attacked. Again the only witness to corroborate this is Zimmerman.
6. The police conducted a post mortem blood test on the victim for drugs or alcohol, but not the shooter.
7. This police department has a history of ignoring attacks on blacks and questionable investigations. In 2010 an officers son beat up a homeless black man and even though there was video evidence of the attack, which the police knew about, they did not arrest him for awhile. Also two security guards shot another black man and claimed self defense. The victim was not armed and shot in the back, but they were cleared under this law.

All-in-all this is a convoluted mess to be quickly pushed away as a justifiable shooting.
Logged
CF DolFan
Global Moderator
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 16872


cf_dolfan
« Reply #49 on: March 28, 2012, 06:08:57 am »

DC and Atlanta are both cities with majority black populations.  Do you mean to say that there are no neighborhoods (particularly, gated communities) in DC or Atlanta where the population is not representative of the city as a whole?  Where a black or Latino kid wearing a hoodie might be subject to profiling?
This is a small town and as far from being Atlanta as you are of being a republican. There are no "white" neighborhoods in the city. As well, I think you are over thinking the whole gated community. Don't confuse having a gate with being a rich neighborhood. It's a lower middle class neighborhood.
Logged

Getting offended by something you see on the internet is like choosing to step in dog shite instead of walking around it.
CF DolFan
Global Moderator
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 16872


cf_dolfan
« Reply #50 on: March 28, 2012, 08:42:22 am »

Wow so many factors that have been left out by this quick police investigation.
1. Listen to the 911 tape, he first says these guys always get away, and then just before the dispatcher asks if he is following the person, Zimmerman mutters "fucking..coons/goons" you can decide for yourself what the second word sounds like to you. This goes towards mens rea
the consensus is there is no consensus. People wanting it to be racial say it is and others say it isn't. CNN admitted to not being able to determine what was said as well other news outlets.

2. Zimmerman has a history of violence. He was arrested for battery on a law enforcement officer and went into a diversion program to get the charges dropped, and he said it was the officers fault. He then got into a domestic dispute with his now ex-fiance and the court ordered them to stay apart for a year, Zimmerman said it was her fault. Now he gets into this shooting as says it was the kid's fault.
I'm not a big fan of the resisting arrest charges. They are easily added to just about anything. Even touching the officer to include battery. I have no idea if he punched him or not but I'm speaking of my own experiences.

3. He has a long history of calling in everyone he thinks is a criminal. He chased a vehicle with his SUV while on the phone with 911. The person he was chasing told police he was afraid Zimmerman was going to attack him.
He headed the neighborhoood watch program in a "high crime" neighborhood which would makes sense that he dealt with suspicios people more than the average. This isn't a lily white neighborhood that was unusual to have crime or suspicious people.

4. No witness saw the attack start, they heard the screams and saw the kid on top of Zimmerman, but the only witness to say Trayvon started the fight is the shooter himself.
And he is assumed guilty because no one saw it? Is this seriously what you are saying?

5. Zimmerman admits that Trayvon approached from his left and asked "you got a problem" and that they then had "words". Zimmerman then states that after confronting Trayvon in the street, he turned towards his SUV, and pulled out his cellphone when he was attacked. Again the only witness to corroborate this is Zimmerman.
Again with the only Zimmerman thing.  Look, if Zimmerman called the boy a punk arse "N" bitch it really doesn't matter to the law. If the boy was beating him he had a right to protect himself under the law. [/quote]

6. The police conducted a post mortem blood test on the victim for drugs or alcohol, but not the shooter.
Seems odd but I do not know what the policy is. People assume they should have but is that normal procedure? That would be the bigger question.

7. This police department has a history of ignoring attacks on blacks and questionable investigations. In 2010 an officers son beat up a homeless black man and even though there was video evidence of the attack, which the police knew about, they did not arrest him for awhile.
this was screwed up and the first time I have heard the homeless man was black ... which is refreshingly nice.  Race didn't play a part in it. A stupid drunk police kid got covered up which is a horrible thing. It really didn't matter who the guy was. The kid is an arse and the cops who covered it are even worse. It cost the Chief his job and as such, they have a new highly respected Chief that came over from the Sheriff's Department. BTW ... the local Sheriff is very well liked.


Also two security guards shot another black man and claimed self defense. The victim was not armed and shot in the back, but they were cleared under this law.
   The "victim" had already run over one person breaking their legs and was backing up to run over the guards. He was trying to get away. This is a high crime apartment complex ... hence the armed guards. For some reason that is always convienently left out when this case is mentioned. This also supports my theory that  there is more to any story when it sounds crazy.



All-in-all this is a convoluted mess to be quickly pushed away as a justifiable shooting.
Logged

Getting offended by something you see on the internet is like choosing to step in dog shite instead of walking around it.
Phishfan
Global Moderator
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 15559



« Reply #51 on: March 28, 2012, 09:21:26 am »

DC and Atlanta are both cities with majority black populations.  Do you mean to say that there are no neighborhoods (particularly, gated communities) in DC or Atlanta where the population is not representative of the city as a whole?  Where a black or Latino kid wearing a hoodie might be subject to profiling?

Since you are not from the area, I should point out the use of gated community for this area is media hype. It is town homes which are just basically apartments for sale. This was not a high class "gated community" that comes to mind when you hear those terms. It is just a selling point for the place.
Logged
Phishfan
Global Moderator
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 15559



« Reply #52 on: March 28, 2012, 09:32:18 am »

Given that the following facts are uncontested:

1) Martin was an unarmed minor
2) Zimmerman outweighed Martin by over 100 lbs
3) Zimmerman was pursuing Martin, even after having been advised otherwise by the 911 dispatcher


#3 is contested. Zimmerman says Martin attacked him from behind while he was returning to his car.
Logged
CF DolFan
Global Moderator
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 16872


cf_dolfan
« Reply #53 on: March 28, 2012, 09:49:18 am »

Since you are not from the area, I should point out the use of gated community for this area is media hype. It is town homes which are just basically apartments for sale. This was not a high class "gated community" that comes to mind when you hear those terms. It is just a selling point for the place.

The houses in this neighborhood are currently selling anywhere from $90,000 to about $135,000 according to the property appraiser's records if that gives you any idea. They are tax appraised at 80-90.  Just my opinion but a far cry from the country club atmosphere some people are trying to paint.
Logged

Getting offended by something you see on the internet is like choosing to step in dog shite instead of walking around it.
Spider-Dan
Global Moderator
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 15573


Bay Area Niner-Hater


« Reply #54 on: March 28, 2012, 12:08:07 pm »

#3 is contested. Zimmerman says Martin attacked him from behind while he was returning to his car.
...after having pursued him, which is uncontested.
Logged

Dave Gray
Administrator
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 30395

It's doo-doo, baby!

26384964 davebgray@comcast.net davebgray floridadavegray
WWW Email
« Reply #55 on: March 28, 2012, 12:18:55 pm »

I'm not going to be all up in arms if this goes to trial, the evidence is reviewed fairly, and it's deemed that Zimmerman acted in self-defense.  ....just like I wasn't up in arms when Casey Anthony was released.

However, the fact that Zimmerman wasn't even arrested when the initial look at the situation and circumstance certainly doesn't appear like self-defense, not to mention that he was allowed to keep the weapon, really speaks to the problem here.  The law probably needs to be changed, regardless, to the point where you can't pursue someone, get into an altercation, and then kill them in self-defense.  I think that a reasonable attempt to flee (unless you're protecting your family or property) is a much more logical law.
Logged

I drink your milkshake!
Phishfan
Global Moderator
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 15559



« Reply #56 on: March 28, 2012, 12:23:33 pm »

...after having pursued him, which is uncontested.

We don't know that he kept following him after the operator asked him not to which was your point.

Unrelated, I wonder why none of the witnesses who saw the two on the ground apparently did not see the shooting. We have witnesses saying martin was on top of Zimmerman before the shot, then witnesses seeing Zimmerman standing over Martin after the shot. Apparently no one has come forward (or it is being kept quiet) as to seeing the shot. Zimmerman's story is Martin was on top of him trying to grab his gun. I don't see how anyone would have an opportunity to flee if that is how it happened.

I'm fine if the grand jury indicts him and this goes to trial but as the law stands, the police had no evidence to disprove the self defense claims.
« Last Edit: March 28, 2012, 12:32:06 pm by Phishfan » Logged
Dave Gray
Administrator
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 30395

It's doo-doo, baby!

26384964 davebgray@comcast.net davebgray floridadavegray
WWW Email
« Reply #57 on: March 28, 2012, 12:27:13 pm »

Of course he did.  Dude was driving a car.  Unless Trayvon dragged the dude out of the car...

All the guy had to do was go home...or stay in the car.

Regardless, again...the guy wasn't arrested.  This is most certainly an arrestable scenario.  An unarmed minor is dead after an armed man, who had 60 calls to the police of suspicion in recent history, was in pursuit of him.

You don't let the guy go home with the gun, regardless of what he says to justify it.
Logged

I drink your milkshake!
CF DolFan
Global Moderator
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 16872


cf_dolfan
« Reply #58 on: March 28, 2012, 12:27:52 pm »

I'm not going to be all up in arms if this goes to trial, the evidence is reviewed fairly, and it's deemed that Zimmerman acted in self-defense.  ....just like I wasn't up in arms when Casey Anthony was released.

However, the fact that Zimmerman wasn't even arrested when the initial look at the situation and circumstance certainly doesn't appear like self-defense, not to mention that he was allowed to keep the weapon, really speaks to the problem here.  The law probably needs to be changed, regardless, to the point where you can't pursue someone, get into an altercation, and then kill them in self-defense.  I think that a reasonable attempt to flee (unless you're protecting your family or property) is a much more logical law.
The police took the gun.
Logged

Getting offended by something you see on the internet is like choosing to step in dog shite instead of walking around it.
Phishfan
Global Moderator
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 15559



« Reply #59 on: March 28, 2012, 12:33:01 pm »

Of course he did.  Dude was driving a car.  Unless Trayvon dragged the dude out of the car...


He left his vehicle prior to the operator asking if he was following him.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 46 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

The Dolphins Make Me Cry - Copyright© 2008 - Designed and Marketed by Dave Gray


Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines