That's fine but they are still kids. As I said before, "kid" is not a term reserved for young people with good behavior. There can be murderous kids.Originally Posted by whatever210
Guilty
Not Guilty
That's fine but they are still kids. As I said before, "kid" is not a term reserved for young people with good behavior. There can be murderous kids.
3 guys verbally threatening me prior to entering my property to confront me over being outside is a low threshold????!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!????
Ill give you an example ive used before.
I live in downtown Atlanta, and numerous times, have been hassled by homeless guys usually drunk or high. Usually none of them are aggressive, just looking for food or money, or attention. One night I left my condo to go walk my dog. I live RIGHT next to the World Of Coke and Centennial Park, hardly "ghetto". MAJOR tourist and movie filming area. Well theres a little grassy area next to my building that is the "dog walking area". It is also surrounded by trees and a cement slab our generator is on.
While standing there waiting, I hear a rustle in the bushes. A white man stumbles out mumbling to someone else that was back there (I assume). He looks at me and my German Shepherd and I can tell hes drunk/high. He walks towards me and says "nice dog, let me pet her".
I respond "sorry sir, shes not very friendly with strangers"
He says "neither am I" and proceeds to walk aggressively toward me. My dog senses im worried at this point, theres no one on the street , she cowers down into attack mode and I back up 2 steps toward the street and lighting. I repeat, "please stay back, she is not friendly"
He replies "why do you have to be an asshole, let me pet the fucking dog"
I YELL "STAY BACK OR WE WILL HAVE A PROBLEM, IVE ASKED YOU TWICE." and at which point I back pedal and move quickly across the street (never turning my back) and keep an eye on him. He gives up and walks up the street. He never knew I had a .40 inside my shirt on my waist. There was no reason to, while i was worried, I tried to avoid confrontation as much as possible. Had he ran at me, thing would have ended differently probably. But, had i drawn down the second he walked toward me, things may have ended different as well.
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
like i said, none of us were there...it's going off of everything that was said including what zimmerman has said. i'm not saying trayvon didnt beat zimmerman's ass or none of that...because apparently from zimmerman's face and abrasions on trayvon's hand show that trayvon was beating zimmerman up...i'm talking about who hit who first..we dont know that. FACTS ARE FACTS AND ASSUMPTIONS ARE ASSUMPTIONS, period.
plus the door was locked behind me, im not turning my back and/or reaching into my pockets with 3 guys approaching me. The guy could shoot me, say i attempted to draw a gun... which i did have one on me. His 2 friends could say that i came out, shouting obscenities at them before attempting to draw a weapon and being shot.
Plus, i am not a prisoner in my own home... or lawn... or street...... i will walk outside whenever i please and jog laps up and down the public street.... if anyone attacks me, its on them.
Yes I think stepping onto your property and asking you "What's your business?" is a very low threshold for the use of deadly force.
you have nothing to lose by going inside and contacting LEO. Just because someone shows aggression and verbally threatens you doesnt mean shoot to kill.
In your scenario, I would not agree that your life was ever in danger, based upon the details you just gave. You were harassed lightly maybe, but never in danger. Ive had worse happen to me on a basketball court
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
Perception is everything and as an individual you have the right to perceive danger. Based on your perception of danger, you respond in the way you sit fit in regards to your own safety.
The age of any individual in this case is irrevalent. Doesn't matter how old Trayvon was. The age isn't the crime. In the court of law, 17 is adult and a 17 year old cannot be tried as a juvenile.
Mike said it best. Zimmermann overstepped the boundary and proceeded to pursue Trayvon which ended in his death. The voice recordings clearly show he was told to stay put and wait for PD to arrive but he chose not to. Also, if that was dispatch telling him not to pursue then he has grounds to not listen to that. He could have stayed where he was and Trayvon could have taken his little ass home and wake another day to continue his life.
Sinfix also mentioned he shot in self defense. If he was overtaken by Trayvon, the shooting was justified.
I'm speaking to the potential escalation of the event, not the event as it happened. I felt no danger based on what actually happened.... and did not reveal or draw a weapon. If they entered my yard, i would have spoke.... if they didnt respond to my speaking, i would have drawn a weapon, any approach by them after weapon was out would be viewed as a threat on my life.
Once they stepped on my lawn i probably would have said something along the lines of " you're on camera, i'm warning you to leave"
That is true but your perceptions aren't above question. Your fears must be reasonable in the eyes of a jury or you will be going to jail no matter how justified you felt at the time. It must be that way or else anyone could kill anyone else and claim the person threatened them verbally.
its irrelevant if anyone of us where there or not. Are you saying that you have to be present at every crime to decide its outcome? LOL
This is why we have LEO, and witnesses, and testimony UNDER OATH. EYE WITNESSES have said that Zimmerman was being attacked. The belief is that since there are no punch marks on Trayvon, he was never PUNCHED. So its easy to figure out who swung firstTheres evidence to suggest Martin threw the first punch, there isnt any that Zimmerman did. Again, read the facts, its black and white
So if a girl is raped, and she kills the rapist, are you going to say "WELL DAWG, WE WERENT THERE, SO HOW DO WE KNOW WHAT REALLLLLY HAPPENED" despite the fact that witnesses testify she said "NO GET OFF ME I DO NOT WANT TO HAVE SEX"?
Please, dont EVER be on a jury. Your understanding of the laws is frightening :P
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
As for someone coming into your yard and shouting obscenities at you, that isn't grounds to draw a weapon and you can be charged if your life wasn't in immediate danger.
Bu, I don't recall him saying he pulled his firearm either so his "threshold" hasn't been shown.
I guess people don't lie under oath even though they aren't supposed to.
exactly, Society has a perceived level of "danger'' that is open to interpretation. Otherwise, if someone farts in my direction i could claim i was in danger and kill them.
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
ahh so now you are claiming people are lieing under oath? You seem extremely biased and overly judgmental. If someone produced a video of Trayvon being 10000% guilty, you would say it was doctored, or justified im guessing.
You just made my future responses easier, because its clear no amount of thinking or reading will change your already made up mind.
Whats funny is how you have already tried , judged, and sentenced an event you dont even know the facts on.
Again, please dont ever be on a jury
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
What I find disturbing is they "can" charge him with manslaughter simply because he shot Trayvon but they will have to prove second-degree murder. The problem I see with this is the manslaughter charge isn't the initial charge and should not be introduced now. He is on trial for second-degree murder, which is completely different from manslaughter. If they proceed with the manslaughter charge, I call double jeopardy.
Mistrial.
/thread.
My understanding is in FL, manslaughter is part of the murder charge. IE they can always downgrade it if state doesnt meet burden of proof
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
Vteck, I think you are being a little overly judgemental on Sammich too. He never said Zimmerman started the fight, he said we don't really know. Zimmerman could have swung and missed, then Trayvon proceeded to beat that ass. We will never know. You may feel it is much more likely that Trayvon started it but that doesn't make it necessarily so.
As I mentioned earlier, Blockburger v. United States showed the defendant being charged with a second later on charge when the first one didn't contain what was needed for a full conviction of the first charge. Double jeopardy was ruled in that case and that is similar to this case.
The burden of proof in this particular case is proof that it wasnt self defense, if they cant meet that burden of proof in regards to 2nd degree, does that not trickle down to manslaughter also?
If someone dies it's manslaughter? should we start charging police and military with manslaughter? should Obama be charged with manslaughter for droning that family?? that's more murder than this is.
The criteria for manslaughter is different from second degree murder. I'm not familiar enough to tell you exactly the distinction though.
Suppose Zimmermann is the biggest racist in the world and that was his provocation for this incident. There were only two witnesses to that incident and a dead man tells no tales. You can't throw what ifs and could haves around trying to prove a point. Evidence at hands shows battle signs on Zimmermann's face and Trayvon's hands. That's plain and simple.
Florida Statutes on Second Degree Murder and Manslaughter
This link gives definition of each in the state of Florida.
My FEELINGS are irrelevant. I dont care who started it. When you are charged with being a jury of a case you listen to the facts ONLY and make a determination based on those alone. You dont play WHAT IFs
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
What does the lack of damage on Trayvon have to do with anything?
Is it possible Zimmerman attacked first and couldn't connect?
It is possible.... it's possible that Zimmerman threw the first 15 punches and Trayvon dodged them all Ali style before deciding to drop that cracker.
This is why the justice system operates under the guidelines of "innocent until proven guilty".... What Zimmerman said happened is what happened, until you can prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that it didnt.
Exactly, there is a difference between legally accountable and morally accountable. I agree he should be found innocent in court but I reserve my moral judgement because I don't know the truth.
i'm biased by stating that people do lie under oath...i'm not saying everyone was, but i'm saying people do. jeez smh
all i'm saying is Zimmerman deserves time in jail for killing this person, nothing more nothing less. just like anyone else that kills another person.
That's the point I was making. The evidence shows Trayvon swung first. If you want to know any different? Go ask Trayvon. Oh wait....
No, the evidence shows Trayvon connected first, not swung first.
no its not possible, because you decide a case based upon FACTS, not what ifs.
The facts which are presented by Police, Forensics , EYE WITNESSES claim that Zimmerman was in fear of his life because Trayvon was attacking him and Zimmerman sustained damages that are consistent with this story.
The Prosecution has not offered any contrary evidence, just WHAT IFs. What if Trayvon said "IM GONNA KILL YOU CRAKCER'' or Zimmerman said "DIE *nword*". Its irrelevent because unless theres someone to BACK THOSE STATEMENTS UP, they are discounted and purely speculation.
The fact Zimmerman said that Trayvon said "youre gonna die tonight" is irrelevant , because it cant be proven. We dont know if he said that, likewise we dont know who threw the first punch. Who cares, the point is was Zimemrman justified in shooting Trayvon, according to the EVIDENCE, NOT EMOTION, that answer is YES.
IF TRAYVON WAS ALIVE , IT WOULD BE DIFFERENT.
WE DONT TRY PEOPLE ON WHAT IFs. If we did, Casey Anthony and OJ would be in jail for MURDER.
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
So, any cop shot at in the line of duty and defends himself deserves jail time now?
You realize how absolutely crazy you sound right?
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
like i said before...catching what i was able to catch in this trial, defense has brought up enough reasonable doubt for the 2nd degree charge to be dismissed (regardless of Zimmerman following when he was instructed not to), but i see manslaughter sticking
no one will deny this
*sigh*
but you want to try Zimmerman on WHAT IFs.
We dont convict people on WHAT IFs, we try them based upon what EVIDENCE IS PRESENTED.
The evidence in this trial is clear, Trayvon was the attacker , based upon the eyewitness testimony, police statements, and Zimmerman acted in self defense.
The prosecution tried zimmerman with 2nd degree murder, that was a huge mistake.
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
its your words not mine. You said anyone who kills someone deserves jail time.
Thats an extremely warped sense of our laws.
So a woman being raped who pulls out a weapon and kills her attacker deserves to be in jail? Is that what you are saying?
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
Who did Zimmermann say swung first?
Sent from my Galaxy Note II
I agree that legally right isnt the same as morally right. I like this example for highlighting that...
Lets say you hear someone breaking in your home at night, you walk into your living room to find someone has crawled in your window and shoot them. Turns out your daughter invited that person over and left the window open. You didnt know that. The guy who came in the window didnt mean any harm and was invited by your daughter. Your perception of those events as they unfolded would lead to you being legally in the right, but morally there would be no denying that shooting your daughter's boyfriend was wrong.
The events that led up to Trayvon and Zimmerman crossing paths are open for moral scrutiny but the legality of their altercation and how it ended is pretty cut and dry self defense.
Posting Permissions
