Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 29, 2024, 02:38:02 am
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 ... 25 26 [27] 28 29 ... 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 148933 times)
badger6
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 1218



« Reply #390 on: April 20, 2012, 11:57:59 am »

It appears as though Zimmerman did indeed have the injuries that many people were questioning !!!




Logged
Spider-Dan
Global Moderator
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 15573


Bay Area Niner-Hater


« Reply #391 on: April 20, 2012, 12:10:56 pm »

It's called "JUSTICE FOR ZIMMERMAN vs RACIST LYNCH MOB.”
Given the nature of Terry Jones' "we need to take back America" statements, this name works on more than one level.
Logged

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

It's doo-doo, baby!

26384964 davebgray@comcast.net davebgray floridadavegray
WWW Email
« Reply #392 on: April 20, 2012, 12:32:01 pm »

Zimmerman has been very cooperative, so far.  There's no reason to think he's a flight risk.  I think that a lenient bond and reasonable restritions make the most sense, including leaving the state, so long as he reports his whereabouts.
Logged

I drink your milkshake!
EKnight
GameDay Trolls
Uber Member
*
Posts: 2955



« Reply #393 on: April 20, 2012, 01:07:29 pm »

It appears as though Zimmerman did indeed have the injuries that many people were questioning !!!






From ABCNews: "Even if George Zimmerman was injured in a fight, it doesn't change the fact that the prosecuters believe Zimmerman was the aggressor, and if Zimmerman was the aggressor, and they got into a fight, that doesn't allow him to use deadly force. It's simply that you can't be losing a fight and then decide to use your gun to protect yourself."

Apparently the prosecuter already had copies of the photo before charges were even brought, and they felt that it did not change the circumstance at all. Apparently, witnesses also viewed a chase between two people, but they were not positive who was chasing who, and finally, absolute proof that he followed Martin after being told not to: he apparently did not hang up the phone, but instead you can actually hear him getting out of a vehicle after the dispatcher tells him to cease. You then hear him shut the door of the vehicle, and him begin running before the call actually ends.

Noteworthy, too, TruTV pointed out (which I didn't know) that Zimmerman had previously been arrested and charged with “resisting officer with violence” and “battery of law enforcement officer,” and a separate charge of domestic violence. -EK




« Last Edit: April 20, 2012, 01:52:06 pm by EKnight » Logged
MyGodWearsAHoodie
Global Moderator
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 14262



« Reply #394 on: April 20, 2012, 02:12:23 pm »

From ABCNews: "Even if George Zimmerman was injured in a fight, it doesn't change the fact that the prosecuters believe Zimmerman was the aggressor, and if Zimmerman was the aggressor, and they got into a fight, that doesn't allow him to use deadly force. It's simply that you can't be losing a fight and then decide to use your gun to protect yourself."


True.  But the location of the injuries are relevent.  The injuries are on the back of Zimmerman's head.  This suggests that at the time they were made Zimmerman was either fleeing or on the ground.  An unauthorized use fo force on Marin's behalf.

Likewise the autoposy of Martin will be relevent.  If Martin was shot in the back while attempting to flee than Zimmerman was not acting in self defense. If Martin was shot while Zimmerman was on the ground and Martin was over him beating him than it was. 

Quote

Apparently the prosecuter already had copies of the photo before charges were even brought, and they felt that it did not change the circumstance at all.

At this point that is pretty much a pointless conclution.  The prosecuter is under extreme political pressure to bring charges to avoid race riots.  This is going to trial regradless of what exculapatory evidence exists.  The DA might be able to win reelection if he loses this trial to a jury, but his political carear is over if he drops the charges for insufficient evidence. 

Quote

Noteworthy, too, TruTV pointed out (which I didn't know) that Zimmerman had previously been arrested and charged with “resisting officer with violence” and “battery of law enforcement officer,” and a separate charge of domestic violence. -EK


Charged?  Was he ever convicted or just charged?  If just charged it is irrelevent.  If convicted it is still probably inadmissible. 
Logged

There are two rules for success:
 1. Never tell everything you know.
EKnight
GameDay Trolls
Uber Member
*
Posts: 2955



« Reply #395 on: April 20, 2012, 02:29:21 pm »

The prosecutor (and this is all just the conjecture from TruTV, so take it for that) is likely going to say that the use of force by Martin was completely "authorized" because he- and ultimately NOT Zimmerman- was acting in self defense. Either of the circumstances you proposed looks bad for Zimmerman- shooting someone in the back while they are fleeing is not going to be covered in any way as stand your ground, and shooting someone while you are on top of them will not fall under that either. Zimmerman was not convicted of the third degree felonies associated with “resisting officer with violence” and “battery of law enforcement officer.” The charges were reduced to “resisting officer without violence” and then waived when he entered an alcohol education program and anger management. I would guess that that will be admissable, but I'm not certain. Regarding the domestic violence, a restraining order was issued, so I'm hearing that will be admissable according to TruTV. -EK
 
« Last Edit: April 20, 2012, 02:39:05 pm by EKnight » Logged
Spider-Dan
Global Moderator
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 15573


Bay Area Niner-Hater


« Reply #396 on: April 20, 2012, 02:40:19 pm »

True.  But the location of the injuries are relevent.  The injuries are on the back of Zimmerman's head.  This suggests that at the time they were made Zimmerman was either fleeing or on the ground.
There's also the possibility that Zimmerman was knocked down and hit his head on the ground during a struggle.

Ultimately, it's going to come down to who initiated the conflict.  As had been said, you don't get to claim self-defense during a fight that you started, even if you are losing it.  And if Zimmerman tried to physically detain Martin, this case is basically done.
Logged

MyGodWearsAHoodie
Global Moderator
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 14262



« Reply #397 on: April 20, 2012, 02:43:57 pm »

shooting someone while you are on top of them will not fall under that either.

But if Martin was on top of Zimmerman and Zimmerman was on the ground.  That would be self defense.

[/quote]

Quote
Regarding the domestic violence, a restrainign order was issued, so that absolutely will be admissable according to TruTV. -EK
 

Than TruTV knows nothing about the rules of evidence.  Its character evidence.  The only way it is admissible is if Zimmerman's lawyer first presents evidence that Zimmerman has a peaceful character.  E.g. calls someone one to the stand that testifies "Zimmerman would never hurt a fly", than the DA can introduce it as evidence to rebut the testimony, otherwise it is inadmissible.  If Zimmerman's atty opens that door with this evidence out there, than the atty is a fool.  
Logged

There are two rules for success:
 1. Never tell everything you know.
badger6
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 1218



« Reply #398 on: April 20, 2012, 02:50:18 pm »

True.  But the location of the injuries are relevent.  The injuries are on the back of Zimmerman's head.  This suggests that at the time they were made Zimmerman was either fleeing or on the ground.  An unauthorized use fo force on Marin's behalf.

The thing that I'm looking at is that if Zimmerman had a gun and was going to commit murder. How the hell did Martin injure him. I would have dropped him before he got to me. Not to mention, if you are going to murder someone you don't call the cops first.

Likewise the autoposy of Martin will be relevent.  If Martin was shot in the back while attempting to flee than Zimmerman was not acting in self defense. If Martin was shot while Zimmerman was on the ground and Martin was over him beating him than it was.

The investigator on the stand pretty much said that the powder burns and stippling(sp???) were consistent with an up close shooting. He is under oath saying that as fact. That pretty much rules out a long range shooting. He also admitted under oath that FBI forensic analysis of the 911 call did not help identify who was yelling for help, and was inconclusive.

At this point that is pretty much a pointless conclution.  The prosecuter is under extreme political pressure to bring charges to avoid race riots.  This is going to trial regradless of what exculapatory evidence exists.  The DA might be able to win reelection if he loses this trial to a jury, but his political carear is over if he drops the charges for insufficient evidence. 

It didn't take a month and a half to get the fact together to charge Zimmerman. They weren't going to charge him and they caved in to the racial pressure to "do something". Contrary to what  the special prosecutor Angela Corey said something about "Zimmerman wasn't charged due to public pressure". The fact is that if there was no public pressure there would have been no arrest or charges filed. So in fact she lied and it was in fact due to racial pressure.

Charged?  Was he ever convicted or just charged?  If just charged it is irrelevant.  If convicted it is still probably inadmissible. 

The judge pretty much discounted these previous charges as not very relevant.
Logged
MyGodWearsAHoodie
Global Moderator
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 14262



« Reply #399 on: April 20, 2012, 02:52:50 pm »

There's also the possibility that Zimmerman was knocked down and hit his head on the ground during a struggle.


That is possible.  That is why I said the location was relevent, not dispositive.

Quote
Ultimately, it's going to come down to who initiated the conflict.  As had been said, you don't get to claim self-defense during a fight that you started, even if you are losing it.  And if Zimmerman tried to physically detain Martin, this case is basically done.

Not who intiated the conflict but who escalated it to deadly force.  (Deadly force = capible of death or serious bodily injury.)

E.g. If party A pushs party B to the ground causing party B to get a minor scrape, and then party B pulls out a knife and lunges at party A.  Followed by Party A pulling out a gun and shooting party B.  Party A actually still has the claim of self defense, even though party A inciciated the conflict, because party B escalated it to deadly force.   
Logged

There are two rules for success:
 1. Never tell everything you know.
Dave Gray
Administrator
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 30395

It's doo-doo, baby!

26384964 davebgray@comcast.net davebgray floridadavegray
WWW Email
« Reply #400 on: April 20, 2012, 02:54:03 pm »

We seem to be talking in circles here. 

This comes down to "what is the nature of self-defense?"  Can you be acting in self-defense, if you were the aggressor?

If I go and start a fight, can I then kill the person who fights be back, in defense?  Of course not.  That's the rub.

I don't think you'll find anyone here who's thinking that Zimmerman set out to kill Trayvon, prior to the incident.  However, I think that you will find people that think that Zimmerman overstepped his ability to claim self-defense, by seeking out a confrontation with Trayvon.

I don't know what happened in the situation, but if some random dude tries to detain me for simply walking to my own house, you bet your ass that I'm going to assault him if he tries to touch me.  I certainly don't feel that gives him the right to kill me.
Logged

I drink your milkshake!
EKnight
GameDay Trolls
Uber Member
*
Posts: 2955



« Reply #401 on: April 20, 2012, 02:54:50 pm »

But if Martin was on top of Zimmerman and Zimmerman was on the ground.  That would be self defense.




But that's not what happened- Zimmerman's own report to the police was that after his head was hit into the ground, he moved over a grassy area where the actual shooting took place. Of course, this is one of three to five different statements Zimmerman has given, which isn't helping his case at all. -EK
Logged
Spider-Dan
Global Moderator
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 15573


Bay Area Niner-Hater


« Reply #402 on: April 20, 2012, 03:02:11 pm »

Not who intiated the conflict but who escalated it to deadly force.  (Deadly force = capible of death or serious bodily injury.)

E.g. If party A pushs party B to the ground causing party B to get a minor scrape, and then party B pulls out a knife and lunges at party A.  Followed by Party A pulling out a gun and shooting party B.  Party A actually still has the claim of self defense, even though party A inciciated the conflict, because party B escalated it to deadly force.
It would be nearly impossible to make that argument with Martin being unarmed.   You cannot start a fistfight and then claim self-defense when you are losing a fistfight.

If Zimmerman made any attempt to detain Martin (given that Martin had committed no crime), it would clearly be assault, and Martin would have been acting in self-defense to fight back.  If Zimmerman then shot Martin, that would be murder.
Logged

MyGodWearsAHoodie
Global Moderator
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 14262



« Reply #403 on: April 20, 2012, 03:03:41 pm »

We seem to be talking in circles here. 

This comes down to "what is the nature of self-defense?"  Can you be acting in self-defense, if you were the aggressor?


yes, under some circumstances.

Quote

If I go and start a fight, can I then kill the person who fights be back, in defense?  Of course not.  That's the rub.



No, of course not.

 But if you start a fight, then break off the fight and flee and the guy chase you down and you defend yourself, you can claim self defense in the second fight.  

Or if you start a conflict that just involves pushing and shoving and he goes and gets a tire iron to hit you with you can claim self defense in protecting yourself from the tire iron.

Quote

I don't think you'll find anyone here who's thinking that Zimmerman set out to kill Trayvon, prior to the incident.  However, I think that you will find people that think that Zimmerman overstepped his ability to claim self-defense, by seeking out a confrontation with Trayvon.


yup, tht is the issue, nobody is claiming it was 1st degree murder.

Quote
I don't know what happened in the situation, but if some random dude tries to detain me for simply walking to my own house, you bet your ass that I'm going to assault him if he tries to touch me.  I certainly don't feel that gives him the right to kill me.

But if all the guy does is block the sidewalk and asks you some questions you can't punch him to get him out of the way, without you being the aggressor.  Even if the reason he stopped you was racial profiling.  
Logged

There are two rules for success:
 1. Never tell everything you know.
EKnight
GameDay Trolls
Uber Member
*
Posts: 2955



« Reply #404 on: April 20, 2012, 03:10:43 pm »

But if all the guy does is block the sidewalk and asks you some questions you can't punch him to get him out of the way, without you being the aggressor.  Even if the reason he stopped you was racial profiling.  

Why not? He has no legal standing to continue blocking your way. If he doesn't move after you repeatedly ask him to and moves to obstruct you, you absolutely have the right to physically move him. At least one of the legal definitions for "assault" is "intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact." That is exactly what blocking someone from getting to their own property is. Under the very law that Zimmerman is trying to use- stand your ground- Martin would have the right to move him if he was purposefully moving to prevent Martin from walking home, to his own property.

Moreover, that picture doesn't seem to help Zimmerman's case IMO. Looks to me like he got punched in the nose, fell on his head, and shot the kid. His heart rate would have been sky high, and anyone who has ever had a head wound knows how thin your scalp is and how much it would bleed. I've bled more than that from a shaving cut- those "wounds" didn't happen from him having his head beaten into the sidewalk for a full minute like he's claiming. They're miniscule appearing. Further, if his injuries were SO bad, why didn't he go to the hospital that night? Why wait until the next day? Who does that?

Edit- FWIW, I believe he will not be convicted. I think it's going to be very difficult to convince 12 people beyond any doubt that he is guilty of second degree murder. That doesn't mean I believe he's any more innocent than Casey Anthony, but she got off with what seems like more and stronger evidence, so I'd be shocked if he's convicted. -EK
« Last Edit: April 20, 2012, 03:24:24 pm by EKnight » Logged
Pages: 1 ... 25 26 [27] 28 29 ... 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