Trayvon Martin

vant0037 wrote:

Blockhead wrote:

L O L... Lets stick with the facts...
1. He called the non-emergency number and he has no legal obligation to follow an "order" from the dispatcher.

...a "fact" which is irrelevant in an inquiry over whether Mr. Zimmerman was acting in self-defense. He could've been ordered by the President to pick his nose and stand on his head, but that doesn't matter. Mr. Zimmerman has claimed he acted in self-defense. He needs to articulate a threshold of evidence that meets the legal criteria of self-defense. Once that's established, the State then needs to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he wasn't acting in self-defense. Irrelevant or not I was addressing the poster that I quoted explaining the actual facts.

Blockhead wrote:

2. the dispatcher only said "we don't need you to follow him". not "don't follow him".

Irrelevant. See above.
Again. See above.

Blockhead wrote:

3. Zimmerman didnt follow. He got out of his car to find the name of the street to relay to 911. that's when he got jumped by trayvon.

You sound like you were there. When do you testify? And why haven't you been called yet?
So far this is his testimony, and only one from that scene... What/who else should I base my decision off of?

Blockhead wrote:

4. There is no evidence to support the theory that Zimmerman followed him

...except Zimmerman's own words, Trayvon Martin's words, and that annoying little statement from the police dispatcher saying "we don't need you to follow him."

Blockhead wrote:

5. Even if he did follow him, it is not illegal to do so.

Again, Zimmerman was free to do whatever he wanted. The crux of this trial is whether what he did do, legal or not, in violation of an order or a non-order, was legally excusable under the law. I cannot say this enough: the issue of whether the dispatcher could legally "order" Zimmerman to stop is a false one. The order status or non-order status is irrelevant to determining if Zimmerman acted in self-defense.
Ok... And I agree. My point is that following someone is not a crime nor a cause for someone to attack you.

Blockhead wrote:

The main point here was, who was the initial aggressor? The answer to that question is trayvon because he punched zimmerman in the face, broke his nose, CONTINUED to fight him as he got on top of him, slamming his head into the concrete sidewalk, which lead to zimmerman having reasonable fear of great bodily harm/injury or death as the law states. it is the state's burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that George Zimmerman did not meet this criteria.

I'll ask again: when do you testify?
I'll answer again: I am going off the testimony/evidence that has been provided thus far. See Pathologist.
Things proven so far: 1.TM was leaning over GZ when shot. 2.GZ had at least 6 injuries to his skull

It is the State's burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman is guilty of the crime charged. However, self-defense is an affirmative defense, meaning the person raising it must offer some threshold of evidence to establish that it applies. This means that questions over what happened or who started it could actually hurt Zimmerman more than the State. The State has charged Zimmerman with murder. Zimmerman has raised self-defense. If it's unclear that Zimmerman can establish that his actions meet the legal requirements of self-defense, then the State needs to merely establish that a kid is dead, Zimmerman pulled the trigger, and that he acted with some malice or ill intent. There's certainly been testimony to all three.
See Above...

Blockhead wrote:

That shows the type of mindset he has already...

Irrelevant. Martin's mindset isn't at issue. IF Martin was "not stopping" his assault on Zimmerman (again, are you a witness?), that doesn't indicate that Martin was also the aggressor. That's just bad logic.

JonnyPistachio wrote:

Do you mean physical aggression? Because that's what is questionable here... Is a person getting out of a car with a loaded gun and following someone into the dark rain considered aggression?

But I do agree that Trayvon likely punched Zimmerman first. And because of a law - a subjective one at that - He can claim his life was in danger. Yup, zimmerman thought that he would DIE, so he killed Trayvon. He might walk because of that. DO you agree that Zimmerman thought he would die if he didnt shoot trayvon?

But I have to ask you one question - did you see Zimmerman's injury photos? The bloody ones? Yeah, they looked bad, right? Then did you see the ones the next day? His injuries were not bad. I've seen people get punched in the nose a lot, and i've seen peoples heads slammed against concrete. Zimmerman's injuries were'nt that bad. They appeared bad at first because of the blood, but they in no way appear life threatening to me. But thats why this case is so polarized, because some people dont put as much weight on that.. they just think Zimmerman acted within sketchy, subjective stand your ground law.

Blockhead wrote:

JonnyPistachio wrote:

Do you mean physical aggression? Because that's what is questionable here... Is a person getting out of a car with a loaded gun and following someone into the dark rain considered aggression?

But I do agree that Trayvon likely punched Zimmerman first. And because of a law - a subjective one at that - He can claim his life was in danger. Yup, zimmerman thought that he would DIE, so he killed Trayvon. He might walk because of that. DO you agree that Zimmerman thought he would die if he didnt shoot trayvon?

But I have to ask you one question - did you see Zimmerman's injury photos? The bloody ones? Yeah, they looked bad, right? Then did you see the ones the next day? His injuries were not bad. I've seen people get punched in the nose a lot, and i've seen peoples heads slammed against concrete. Zimmerman's injuries were'nt that bad. They appeared bad at first because of the blood, but they in no way appear life threatening to me. But thats why this case is so polarized, because some people dont put as much weight on that.. they just think Zimmerman acted within sketchy, subjective stand your ground law.

So anyone who has a concealed carry is an aggressor? TM didn't know Zimmerman had a gun until well after zimmerman was attacked. hence the Self Defense.
I'll be brutally honest here. I have a family (wife/daughters) that mean more to me than anything. And I will never let anyone take me away from them, so if someone crosses the line where i THINK there is a possibility of something life threatening happening to me (weather it be or not), I will take that chance anytime, and if that means ending someones life, then so be it. I am not taking a chance with my life.

You'r right his injuries weren't that bad, so what? Are you going to take that chance hoping the other person will stop? And if Zimmerman is telling the truth, and TM said " your going to die tonight" you would take that chance?

Blockhead wrote:

JonnyPistachio wrote:

Yes, I'd be willing to take that chance. I'm hoping to never put myself in that position. I for one, could NEVER live myself if I shot and killed someone for punching me in the nose. and for instance, I'd never get out of my car at night in the rain and follow someone behind some houses with a loaded gun when told not to. Thats why I think Zimmerman is dangerous.

And no, im not suggesting that anyone who has a concealed carry is an aggressor, but I am suggesting that someone who is carrying their gun, possibly out of the holster at night (we have no idea), following someone in the rain, could be considered an aggressor.. we have no idea how it happened, and you have no idea if Trayvon knew zimmerman had a gun or not -- unless you simply believe every word the lying Zimmerman has spouted...

Then were different I guess, and maybe thats why we have differing opinions on this case.
Either way, from my experience, Zimmerman didn't do any out of the ordinary.
Our neighborhood HOA sent out an email notifying people to close their garage doors during the day because some kids/criminals were going into opened garage doors and stealing things while people were up at the pool or whatever. So knowing that is going on in my neighborhood, I wouldn't think twice about following or asking a kid what there up-to if I am unfamiliar with who they are or haven't seen them in the neighborhood before. There is absolutely nothing wrong with being a concerned parent and looking out for your neighborhood, which is what zimmerman did. He also called the cops to report such suspicious activity. It seems you want to keep linking whoever had the "gun" with "aggressor".
Also why are you putting so much emphasis on it "raining" and being dark out.

mickeyrat wrote:

Blockhead wrote:

JonnyPistachio wrote:

Yes, I'd be willing to take that chance. I'm hoping to never put myself in that position. I for one, could NEVER live myself if I shot and killed someone for punching me in the nose. and for instance, I'd never get out of my car at night in the rain and follow someone behind some houses with a loaded gun when told not to. Thats why I think Zimmerman is dangerous.

And no, im not suggesting that anyone who has a concealed carry is an aggressor, but I am suggesting that someone who is carrying their gun, possibly out of the holster at night (we have no idea), following someone in the rain, could be considered an aggressor.. we have no idea how it happened, and you have no idea if Trayvon knew zimmerman had a gun or not -- unless you simply believe every word the lying Zimmerman has spouted...

Then were different I guess, and maybe thats why we have differing opinions on this case.
Either way, from my experience, Zimmerman didn't do any out of the ordinary.
Our neighborhood HOA sent out an email notifying people to close their garage doors during the day because some kids/criminals were going into opened garage doors and stealing things while people were up at the pool or whatever. So knowing that is going on in my neighborhood, I wouldn't think twice about following or asking a kid what there up-to if I am unfamiliar with who they are or haven't seen them in the neighborhood before. There is absolutely nothing wrong with being a concerned parent and looking out for your neighborhood, which is what zimmerman did. He also called the cops to report such suspicious activity. It seems you want to keep linking whoever had the "gun" with "aggressor".
Also why are you putting so much emphasis on it "raining" and being dark out.

well, he also , against direction or advice from 911 dispatch pursued Trayvon. He is the primary actor who set this in motion.

JonnyPistachio wrote:

Blockhead wrote:

He also called the cops to report such suspicious activity. It seems you want to keep linking whoever had the "gun" with "aggressor".
Also why are you putting so much emphasis on it "raining" and being dark out.

Because, I think it would be HIGHLY unlikely that Zimmerman wouldve gotten out of his car had he not had a gun on him. Also, people are usually less likely to follow someone in the dark and in the rain. He was VERY determined to get up on Trayvon if you ask me. I think he went too far. And I definitely, as I said before, dont think a punch to the nose and a tiny scrape on the head warrants DEATH. I know a ton of people who have punched people in the nose worse than that, and Im happy some gun toting idiot like Zimmerman didnt end their lives because of it.

Also, I bring those things up I guess because Zimmerman didnt follow suggestions of the dispatcher. He also said he'd wait by the mailboxes, which he didnt do. He also lied about his finances. He also said that doctors said he should've gotten stitches in his head but they decided not to for some odd reason. :? I just dont buy the guys story, and I think he used very bad judgement. I also agree with Gimme - I think Zimmerman is a drama queen and made up the things he said that trayvon said. I mean, according to Zimmerna, he was screaming like a baby for 10 seconds on the 911 call before he shot Trayvon. How could he even hear Travyon say "you're gonna die tonight."

But he might walk - I do see that he might not be guilty according to the crappy florida law. But that is why this is so polarizing, and I dont blame you for thinking like you do. Its a simple difference really. But I think you're a pretty good dude, and I doubt you'd kill someone if they punched you in the nose.

Just putting guns in this type of situation is what is the real problem. It gives pussies like Zimmerman too much confidence and bravado. BOTH trayvon and zimmerman did stupid shit that night, but did it need to result in death?

Blockhead wrote:

Anyways, its pretty evident that the only reason charges were filed was because of the media pressure.

RW81233 wrote:

"they" always get away wasn't racial at all