Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 29, 2024, 09:12:33 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 ... 27 28 [29] 30 31 ... 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 149001 times)
CF DolFan
Global Moderator
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 16870


cf_dolfan
« Reply #420 on: April 24, 2012, 05:50:46 pm »

I think the big thing was that there had been a severance package as part of the discussion. Since the package needed the council's approval they have a right to not accept it.
He has a contract and is an at-will employee as many government managers are. They can not allow him to break his contract period.... Or at least until the terms of the contract are met but that isn't why they rejected it. It's strictly a "we are behind you" move which is political for some and integrity for others.
Logged

Getting offended by something you see on the internet is like choosing to step in dog shite instead of walking around it.
badger6
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 1218



« Reply #421 on: May 17, 2012, 07:00:27 pm »

New evidence leaked today. Not sure if it is all true, but very interesting indeed. THC in Travon's system, an intermediate distance (1-18 inches) frontal shot to heart, and scrap(s) on Travon's knuckles. Not to mention a grainy black and white picture of Zimmerman's face where his nose is as wide as an 18 wheeler, obviously broken. If true, the prosecutions job just got a bit harder
Logged
bsmooth
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 4633


I love YaBB 1G - SP1!


« Reply #422 on: May 17, 2012, 07:13:24 pm »

New evidence leaked today. Not sure if it is all true, but very interesting indeed. THC in Travon's system, an intermediate distance (1-18 inches) frontal shot to heart, and scrap(s) on Travon's knuckles. Not to mention a grainy black and white picture of Zimmerman's face where his nose is as wide as an 18 wheeler, obviously broken. If true, the prosecutions job just got a bit harder

Not one bit. Since you cannot seem to fathom what self-defense means I will try and make this simple. Every person has the right to use the necessary amount of force if they feel threatened or fear an imminent battery. Both Martin and Zimmerman had this right when the confrontation started.
So this leaves the question of who started the fight and why? Was the fight a direct result of Zimmerman's pursuit and confrontation of Martin? Did Martin strike out because he feared for his safety? Did Zimmerman try and detain Martin until the police arrived? There are so many scenarios that could explain how this fight started beyond the ignorant "he was a thug" or "he hunted him down" mentality.
This "new" evidence and the release of the doctor's reports bring nothing new to the table. The only semi-viable witness already stated he say Martin on top of Zimmerman. Nothing so far sheds light as to how they came to be that way other than the tainted word of the shooter, who has a violent criminal history and a penchant for blaming the victim for everything. Martin did not give a statement as to how the fight started, all his corpse told us is that he was fighting( for his life) when he was gunned down.
Also I would have loved to know what drugs or alcohol were in Zimmerman's system that night as he has a prescription for Adderall and Temazepam, and he refused medical attention the night of the shooting, instead saying he needed to see his psychologist immediately. But that's right the police never tested him, searched the SUV, talked to all the witnesses, etc.
So we will probably never know what exactly happened that night due to favortism, shoddy investigative work, etc.
Logged
badger6
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 1218



« Reply #423 on: May 17, 2012, 08:45:00 pm »

Not one bit. Since you cannot seem to fathom what self-defense means I will try and make this simple. Every person has the right to use the necessary amount of force if they feel threatened or fear an imminent battery. Both Martin and Zimmerman had this right when the confrontation started.
So this leaves the question of who started the fight and why? Was the fight a direct result of Zimmerman's pursuit and confrontation of Martin? Did Martin strike out because he feared for his safety? Did Zimmerman try and detain Martin until the police arrived? There are so many scenarios that could explain how this fight started beyond the ignorant "he was a thug" or "he hunted him down" mentality.
This "new" evidence and the release of the doctor's reports bring nothing new to the table. The only semi-viable witness already stated he say Martin on top of Zimmerman. Nothing so far sheds light as to how they came to be that way other than the tainted word of the shooter, who has a violent criminal history and a penchant for blaming the victim for everything. Martin did not give a statement as to how the fight started, all his corpse told us is that he was fighting( for his life) when he was gunned down.
Also I would have loved to know what drugs or alcohol were in Zimmerman's system that night as he has a prescription for Adderall and Temazepam, and he refused medical attention the night of the shooting, instead saying he needed to see his psychologist immediately. But that's right the police never tested him, searched the SUV, talked to all the witnesses, etc.
So we will probably never know what exactly happened that night due to favortism, shoddy investigative work, etc.

Although I don't advocate it, following someone is not against the law. You cannot attack someone for being followed in public. As far as I can tell, the only way Zimmereman is guilty is if they can prove with facts that he followed him AND tried to physically detain him. If they can't fill in the blank of how the fight started they don't have a case. And the lead investigator already stated under oath that they didn't know who initiated contact, who's voice was on the 911 tape or even if Zimmerman continued the pursuit. Not to mention the fact that Martin's own father said the voice on the 911 tape WASN'T his sons voice way before his mother said that it was. In the end this evidence does matter. These are things that we didn't know or were just speculating on before today.

Martin had an intoxicant in his system.

The gunshot was a close range front shot which would be more consistent with self defense as opposed to a longer range shot in the back.

Besides the gunshot wound, Martin only had scrapes on his knuckles consistent with hitting someone.

Frontal picture of Zimmerman's face that clearly shows a broken nose, contrary to everyone saying, "I don't see any injuries to Zimmerman".

Martin's own father saying that it is not his son's voice on the 911 tapes.

Yes, if true, all of those facts matter in court.

BTW, If as you say, that we don't know who started the fight and If Martin was on top of Zimmerman beating him, how does that equate to being gunned down ? 
Logged
Spider-Dan
Global Moderator
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 15573


Bay Area Niner-Hater


« Reply #424 on: May 18, 2012, 03:00:56 am »

None of that evidence changes the fact that you can't shoot someone during an altercation that you start.

The case will likely hinge on whether or not Zimmerman attempted to physically detain Martin, and the prosecution's ability to make that case will probably lean on an allegation that Zimmerman was pursuing him (against the instructions of the dispatcher).  If Zimmerman tried to physically detain him, all this other stuff is irrelevant; it's an assault that led to murder.
Logged

Cathal
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 2519


« Reply #425 on: May 18, 2012, 08:37:32 am »

^^^ I would say you have to look at it case by case. You can't say that you shouldn't be allowed to shoot someone during an altercation you started. That's not right.
Logged
Landshark
Guest
« Reply #426 on: May 18, 2012, 08:49:42 am »

^^^ I would say you have to look at it case by case. You can't say that you shouldn't be allowed to shoot someone during an altercation you started. That's not right.

Even if he didn't start the altercation, the question is, can he legally respond with a firearm if he's attacked only with fists?
Logged
Cathal
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 2519


« Reply #427 on: May 18, 2012, 09:33:09 am »

^^^ If the attacker is beating the ever loving crap out of him with no end in sight, then sure. I don't see why not. If you can't defend yourself with your fists, then why not? What if a guy, whose a boxer is attacking a woman or an untrained guy. They're not allowed to stop the assault with a gun? It's all case by case to me. I don't generally like to make absolute rules.
Logged
Phishfan
Global Moderator
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 15559



« Reply #428 on: May 18, 2012, 11:13:05 am »

You guys are either leaving out a key piece or just haven't heard it. I don't know which. Zimmerman's story is that he never reached for his gun until it became exposed and Martin reached for it first.

This is the key and only piece of testimony that needs to be refuted in order to disprove self defense if I am on the jury.
Logged
Spider-Dan
Global Moderator
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 15573


Bay Area Niner-Hater


« Reply #429 on: May 18, 2012, 11:41:11 am »

^^^ I would say you have to look at it case by case. You can't say that you shouldn't be allowed to shoot someone during an altercation you started. That's not right.
You cannot claim self-defense in a fight that you started.  This is a very basic and fundamental principle.

And I don't mean "starting a fight" in the sense of you yelling "asshole!" to someone that cut you off.  I mean starting a fight in the sense of you physically assaulting someone.

Look at it this way: if Zimmerman did assault Martin (by trying to physically detain him), what were Martin's options?

- fight back and lose
- fight back and win, then get shot (legally!)
- try to run away
- simply submit to this illegal detention

The third option is particularly ironic on a couple of fronts.  Notwithstanding the fact that running away from someone because they are illegally detaining you is rather unrealistic, when you consider that the basis of Zimmerman's defense is a law that says that you don't have to run away when assaulted, the whole idea becomes fairly absurd.
« Last Edit: May 18, 2012, 11:48:00 am by Spider-Dan » Logged

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


Bay Area Niner-Hater


« Reply #430 on: May 18, 2012, 11:52:10 am »

You guys are either leaving out a key piece or just haven't heard it. I don't know which. Zimmerman's story is that he never reached for his gun until it became exposed and Martin reached for it first.

This is the key and only piece of testimony that needs to be refuted in order to disprove self defense if I am on the jury.
So in your view, it is irrelevant as to whether or not Zimmerman initially assaulted Martin?

I am also interested in hearing what kind of evidence would suffice to refute this testimony from Zimmerman.  Barring slow-motion replay, it seems rather impossible to disprove a claim as to what people were reaching for when scrumming on the ground.
« Last Edit: May 18, 2012, 11:55:18 am by Spider-Dan » Logged

Phishfan
Global Moderator
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 15559



« Reply #431 on: May 18, 2012, 12:13:08 pm »

My personal opinion, the prosecution has overcharged based on what is known. Just as it will be nearly impossible to disprove Martin reached for the gun, with what is known it is just as improbable to prove Zimmerman physically laid hands on Martin. in one instance you have testimony in the other you have speculation.

You need eyewitnesses and none have come forward (to our knowledge) as seeing either stage of this altercation. Therefore we have to take Zimmerman's testimony without any contradictory testimony. Our legal system works that you are innocent until proven guilty and there is no proof that it did not happen this way.

I think self defense is fluid and can be ever evolving. Let's say for a second Zimmerman did lay hands on Martin first. We do know Martin had the upper hand. At that point it is his responsibility to back off. Instead the testimony is that he reached for a gun. At that point it is Zimmerman who is in fear and is then in need of protection.

disclaimer: this is purely speculative
Logged
Spider-Dan
Global Moderator
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 15573


Bay Area Niner-Hater


« Reply #432 on: May 18, 2012, 12:52:39 pm »

You need eyewitnesses and none have come forward (to our knowledge) as seeing either stage of this altercation. Therefore we have to take Zimmerman's testimony without any contradictory testimony. Our legal system works that you are innocent until proven guilty and there is no proof that it did not happen this way.
This kind of approach to adjudication would result in a great number of murder defendants being let go.

Essentially, you're saying that the defendant says one thing, and there's no living eyewitness who can testify otherwise, therefore it must be true.  I'm no lawyer, but I would imagine that in a trial, if the defendant even takes the stand (which is far from guaranteed), their word would be portrayed as highly conflicted.  Not all witness testimony is equal.

Quote
I think self defense is fluid and can be ever evolving. Let's say for a second Zimmerman did lay hands on Martin first. We do know Martin had the upper hand. At that point it is his responsibility to back off. Instead the testimony is that he reached for a gun.
It is interesting that you frame the argument this way.

Imagine a slightly different hypothetical scenarion in which the two of them are scrumming on the ground and instead of reaching for Zimmerman's gun, Martin reaches for his own gun and shoots Zimmerman.  Given that (in this hypothetical scenario) Zimmerman assaulted Martin, they got in a fight, and Martin shot him, wouldn't SYG apply?

How can it be that SYG would apply to both participants in an altercation?  Does it automatically apply to the person that is losing, no matter who started it?

Another scenario:  I am mad that my girlfriend cheated on me with you 2 months ago.  I see you on the street, run up to you, and (while armed) punch you in the face.  You defend yourself and (using your advanced ninja skills) start kicking my ass.  I then shoot you.  This is "self-defense"?
« Last Edit: May 18, 2012, 12:58:37 pm by Spider-Dan » Logged

Cathal
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 2519


« Reply #433 on: May 18, 2012, 01:23:45 pm »

And why is running away such a ridiculous idea? I'll admit, I don't follow any of this, so I don't know why I keep coming back here. I like to wait until most of the facts are in instead of speculating.

But, anyway, why are you saying running away is absurd? By physically detaining him, did he just block his path, or just verbally tell him he can't move, or bear hug Trayvon and told him to wait for the cops? If someone was doing that to me, I'd either run or wait for the cops. Why start a fist fight?
Logged
Phishfan
Global Moderator
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 15559



« Reply #434 on: May 18, 2012, 01:41:43 pm »

Imagine a slightly different hypothetical scenarion in which the two of them are scrumming on the ground and instead of reaching for Zimmerman's gun, Martin reaches for his own gun and shoots Zimmerman.  Given that (in this hypothetical scenario) Zimmerman assaulted Martin, they got in a fight, and Martin shot him, wouldn't SYG apply?

How can it be that SYG would apply to both participants in an altercation?  Does it automatically apply to the person that is losing, no matter who started it?

Another scenario:  I am mad that my girlfriend cheated on me with you 2 months ago.  I see you on the street, run up to you, and (while armed) punch you in the face.  You defend yourself and (using your advanced ninja skills) start kicking my ass.  I then shoot you.  This is "self-defense"?

In order to use stand your ground as a defense you need to be in immediate fear for your own life or grave injury. Martin was winning the fight by all known accounts. He could not legally shoot anyone.

I do indeed feel you have the right to use deadly force at any moment your own life or the life of someone else is in danger. It is a slipperly slope if you started the altercation. The key is there is a huge difference between an ass kicking and fear of your life. Your ninja skill scenario is just an ass kicking. If I as a ninja tried to take your weapon to use against you, then yes I feel you could use it in that case.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 27 28 [29] 30 31 ... 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