Post: #176

(07-12-2013 02:20 AM)Easy E Wrote:  

(07-12-2013 02:13 AM)urbannomad Wrote:  

Quote:but a minimum of 5 years in protected custody sounds right to me.

@Speakeasy Do you really think this is just for killing a Minor?
People are very passionate and on polar opposites of this issue..This black lady today ask (watching the cnn in the lobby)"What Zimmerman punishment should be" I said 10-20 years...He's at lease responsible for involuntary manslaughter..Why majority of society scrutinize Martin as menace and Justin Bieber as harmless teenager when some of their antics are the same.

This looks like self-defense to me, so I wouldn't be surprised if the jury acquits him on 2nd degree murder and manslaughter.

You know there are people who are actually in prison because they didn't fire a warning shot before the person lunge at them with a blunt object with clear intend to kill....If you need a gun to define yourself from a teenager you aren't worthy of protecting others...

Post: #177

(07-12-2013 02:59 AM)urbannomad Wrote:  

(07-12-2013 02:20 AM)Easy E Wrote:  

(07-12-2013 02:13 AM)urbannomad Wrote:  

Quote:but a minimum of 5 years in protected custody sounds right to me.

@Speakeasy Do you really think this is just for killing a Minor?
People are very passionate and on polar opposites of this issue..This black lady today ask (watching the cnn in the lobby)"What Zimmerman punishment should be" I said 10-20 years...He's at lease responsible for involuntary manslaughter..Why majority of society scrutinize Martin as menace and Justin Bieber as harmless teenager when some of their antics are the same.

This looks like self-defense to me, so I wouldn't be surprised if the jury acquits him on 2nd degree murder and manslaughter.

You know there are people who are actually in prison because they didn't fire a warning shot before the person lunge at them with a blunt object with clear intend to kill....If you need a gun to define yourself from a teenager you aren't worthy of protecting others...

Hey, man, I didn't write the "stand your ground" law, so don't attack me. I am telling you this is a case of self-defense under Florida law. Get that through your thick head. Even the cops who responded to the 911 call agreed. Stop trying put your own spin on the law and actually read it.

Post: #178

My bad player..I thought you were saying and felt that Zimmerman was indubitably defending himself..Yeah, in the eyes of the law his conduct are practicable..

Post: #179

(07-11-2013 06:52 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  I know.

So why do so many people on here think he was trying to make "Lean"?

Because nobody really knows about it outside of Houston and have a bunch of misconceptions? Even Texas Prophet got it wrong. Trayvon was completely off for thinking Robitussin cough syrup is related to it. He wanted to lean but didn't know what the hell he was doing. Now you have people who have no idea what it is reading Facebook posts from a kid who has no idea what it is and you get people on the forum getting mixed up.

Post: #180

(07-12-2013 04:43 AM)houston Wrote:  

(07-11-2013 06:52 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  I know.

So why do so many people on here think he was trying to make "Lean"?

Because nobody really knows about it outside of Houston and have a bunch of misconceptions? Even Texas Prophet got it wrong. Trayvon was completely off for thinking Robitussin cough syrup is related to it. He wanted to lean but didn't know what the hell he was doing. Now you have people who have no idea what it is reading Facebook posts from a kid who has no idea what it is and you get people on the forum getting mixed up.

So, how do you make lean?

I always thought it was:

-Promethazine w/Codeine
-Sprite Soda
-Jolly Rancher candy

^Looking back at my post, I said codeine cough syrup, but what I meant to say was promethazine w/ codeine, which is really just prescription strength cough syrup.

Post: #181

The thing people forget is Martin was banging Z's head on the ground, which easily could kill him as well.

If a guy is doing that to me and I have a gun hell yeah I'm gonna pop his ass.

Post: #182

1. They already stated that he did NOT sustain LIFE THREATENING injuries
2. Stand your ground does not apply, and if it did it would of applied for Martin: Jeb Bush, who signed the bill into law, said “Stand your ground means stand your ground. It doesn’t mean chase after somebody who’s turned their back"
Other law makers & lawyers also stated stand your ground doesn't apply. So the police are not detectives or lawyers they're supposed to allow the detectives & district attorneys office determine whether or not stand your ground applies not them.

Post: #183

Have they mentioned "Lean" in the trial?

Post: #184

(07-12-2013 08:04 AM)PhilE Wrote:  1. They already stated that he did NOT sustain LIFE THREATENING injuries

He was supposed to let him bang his head on the sidewalk a few more times then?

Post: #185

vegas have a line on this?

Post: #186

(07-12-2013 12:47 PM)chyamor Wrote:  vegas have a line on this?

Never heard of Inkling before this, but I was searching for prediction markets for the trial earlier and found this:

Quote:POSSIBLE ANSWERS PREDICTED CHANCE
1st Degree murder. 0.06%
2d Degree murder. 1.27%
Voluntary manslaughter. 2.08%
Involuntary manslaughter. 11.63%
Not Guilty / Other. 84.95%

Post: #187

(07-12-2013 12:46 PM)Hotwheels Wrote:  

(07-12-2013 08:04 AM)PhilE Wrote:  1. They already stated that he did NOT sustain LIFE THREATENING injuries

He was supposed to let him bang his head on the sidewalk a few more times then?

I was going to say something similar. Like I said in an earlier post, just wish these two idiots would have never bumped into each other. And despite how much I dislike Zimmerman (he just seems like a pathetic human being), the injuries could have been worse if he continued to let Martin beat the fuck out of him. Maybe Zimmerman should have manned up and just fought back, the problem with guns is the extra "confidence" one gets I imagine.

Much like assholes who learn martial arts but forget the whole idea of avoiding fights and being humble. The skills without the responsibilities. But that is just the way society is. Want the wedding without the marriage, want the baby without forgoing your social life, want a puppy as an accessory without the desire to pick up after it.

Want all the good without working for it. That is why lottery winners are always entertaining.

Post: #188

I think everyone can agree that Zimmerman was being overzealous by playing cop and confronting Martin, but the most pertinent fact that can't be ignored in this case is that Martin deliberately and consciously initiated a physical altercation with Zimmerman.

He didn't stop and talk to him reasonably. He didn't run away. He didn't tell him to go fuck himself and keep walking. He didn't even punch Zimmerman or push him away (and that's assuming Zimmerman tried to grab him) and then leave. He attacked Zimmerman and jumped on him, punching him and smashing his head into the ground.

At that point, Zimmerman was in reasonable fear for his life, not just from the beating he was taking, but from the chance that Martin could take his gun and use it against him. His best chance to walk away alive at that point was to shoot Martin, and that's exactly what he did. Could the entire thing have been avoided if Zimmerman hadn't pursued Martin and confronted him? Of course. But confronting Martin did not cause the physical altercation that led to Martin's death. Martin made the choice to physically attack Zimmerman.

The fact that Martin initiated the physical altercation is quite clear by applying logic and common sense:

1) Martin would not have attacked Zimmerman if Zimmerman had his gun drawn, or if Martin knew Zimmerman was carrying a gun. Therefore, Zimmerman was not brandishing or displaying his weapon.

2) Zimmerman, knowing he was carrying a gun, would not choose to initiate unarmed combat, since this would nullify the advantage he possessed from his gun and would put him at great risk for Martin taking his gun from him.

3) Therefore the only reasonable explanation is that Zimmerman confronted Martin, who then became physically aggressive and attacked Zimmerman, assuming him to be unarmed.

The logic here is air-tight. The only way to paint Martin as the victim is to assume that Zimmerman initiated a fist fight with Martin while carrying a gun, which is to essentially assume that he is a complete and utter idiot. The entire reason to carry a gun is to avoid physical altercations. It makes no sense that Zimmerman would be packing a gun only to intentionally engage in a fistfight that would not only nullify his advantage, but that would put him at risk for having his gun taken from him and used against him. So to make this assumption you must believe that Zimmerman possesses sub-retardation levels of intelligence or was suicidal, neither which appear to be the case based on the evidence presented about Zimmerman at the trial.

Trayvon Martin made the choice to physically attack Zimmerman after he was confronted, that's why he's dead. Period. It was a bad choice. Did he deserve to die for not? No. He was a dumb kid. But he made the choice to initiate violence, not Zimmerman.

At the end of the day this is not a story about race, it's a cautionary story about why you shouldn't engage in street fights.

Post: #189

Something a lot of people may not know about "stand your ground" is that a number of states have the same doctrine* even though they may never have passed "stand your ground" laws. This includes my home state of Washington. They call it "no duty to retreat" instead, but it means the same thing: if attacked while you are in a place you have a right to be, you aren't required to retreat before using force to defend yourself. Makes sense to me, I don't know why you should have to back down before a bully.

*There may be some procedural differences. Apparently in Florida, if someone asserts self defense, the prosecution has to meet some kind of burden to even get to trial, while in Washington it would be hashed out in trial.

Post: #190

scorpion,

I have always appreciated your posts. And I don't know how this case ends. I am just an observer. But logic doesn't always work, especially in this day and age. Zimmerman doesn't seem to have logical abilities, seemed like he filled his decision making with superhero ego/hate stuff. He may have never intended to use the gun but it gave him courage to do more than he should have. Then he got in over his head and needed it to save himself.

Heck, even logic doesn't work in economics anymore. Not everyone makes rational decisions, plenty of people, including myself, on this board do not make rational/logical decisions. We all have gotten caught up in the moment. Without that gun maybe Z doesn't even put himself in that situation. Just like the shithead at the bar only talks smack when his friends are there.

Zimmerman provided unnecessary stimulus to Martin. Triggering whatever nonsense was going through Martin's head at the time. Doesn't mean Martin should have been doing what he was doing either. Z should have stopped pretending to be anything more than a civilian and let the cops do their thing.

Originally, I supported Martin the case when I first heard about it. It seemed like, and still is, an unnecessary death. As the evidence comes in, it seems maybe Z will not be jailed. In a legal sense he will be considered innocent. But neither of these two are innocent. They both have some degree of guilt for what happened.

In some schools of thought there are no accidents and there are no victims. People play an active role in what happens in their lives. So Z and M both played an active role in this matter. It is just the ego's nature to want to be right and make something else wrong, but, oftentimes, both parties are wrong.

Post: #191

Speaking of Washington state, in 2000 a white hoodlum (Christopher Kinison) attacked an East Asian (Minh Duc Hong) - calling Hong a racist slur and sucker punching Hong in the face. Hong stabbed Kinison to death. Hong was acquitted of manslaughter.

I see a lot of similarities to this case. Hoodlum calls Hispanic (incorrectly) a cracker, punches him and got shot.

Post: #192

It's just as easy to say Martin shouldn't have attacked Zimmerman as it is to say Zimmerman should have never got out of his car. Especially since the 911 dispatch told him to STAY IN HIS CAR.

have you ever wanted to punch a rent a cop or an over eager security guard? I have. Now imagine he's following you around your home turf.

The police were on there way when Zimmerman shot him.

Post: #193

Sort of appropriate for this thread. This is the actor staring in "Fruitvale Station" the movie about the black man shot by a police officer in the SF.
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/mov...5900.story

Quote:The actor's early interactions with the authorities have also stuck with him. If he has the option of driving down a street with "hard-core criminal drug dealers" or a road populated by cops, he said he'll opt for the thugs.

"Driving in L.A., if I see a cop, I will turn off the block," he said, still camera-ready from the junket in a starched shirt and preppy sweater. "I don't want to be on the same street. And all of my paperwork is legit. My license is in order. No warrants. I'm not on parole."

Quote:"That car gave me a lot of headaches," he recalled, sitting in an empty Los Angeles gastropub midafternoon. Because he was an African American teenager driving a nice car, Jordan said, he was pulled over and questioned by the police dozens of times. "They'd say, 'Is it stolen?' I'd tell them to check the locks. 'Please step out of the car.' [What] do I need to step out of the car for? 'Step out of the car.'"

Look the human mind at some point in development starts to generalize in order to process data faster. It can't look at every situation as unique it starts leveraging on what it thinks it knows. Unfortunately or however you see it, certain minorities just don't get the benefit of the doubt. This actor has been acting for a while (was in Friday Night Lights) and seems pretty solid, but he doesn't seem to get the benefit of the doubt from cops. To deny that negative generalizations exist is to be in a bubble. But at the same time, minorities who feel oppressed at some point get frustrated and then stop trying/caring and that adds to generalizations. Someone has to break the cycle first. But the ego says , "no I shouldn't have to they should change." i am not saying we should all hold hands and sing kumbaya.

What I am saying is move out the US and bang hot foreign chicks

Post: #194

At the end of the day, no matter what side you are on, it's indisputable that the prosecution didn't prove it's case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Hopefully, for the sake of our justice system, the verdict comes back not guilty.

I mean what was he supposed to do, sit there and get his head bashed in more and wait until it reached a "threshold" where he could then shoot him?

Post: #195

(07-12-2013 02:44 PM)rlongo924 Wrote:  At the end of the day, no matter what side you are on, it's indisputable that the prosecution didn't prove it's case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Hopefully, for the sake of our justice system, the verdict comes back not guilty.

I mean what was he supposed to do, sit there and get his head bashed in more and wait until it reached a "threshold" where he could then shoot him?

I hear what you are saying - but for justice sakes he needs to be punished in some form. Maybe not in criminal - maybe in civil. He shouldn't have been out there playing rent a cop. Neither side is innocent (look at OJ Simpson) and god forbid Z is free and becomes a symbol for everyone else who wants to shoot someone or play cop. There are social implications here. Some people just need a little evidence that lines up with what they believe in and they act on it. I don't need those nutjobs running around thinking they can do what they want with stand your ground.

The thing with Zimmerman was that he wasn't defending his house or anything, his ground kept moving around following the kid. At some point the ground he was defending was public space. I am goofing around with the stand your ground law - but I hope you can see my point.

Like I said, wish the two idiots never met.

Post: #196

Well it's all in the jury's hands now. Hopefully this fuckboy gets some jail time.

Post: #197

Neither party is "innocent" here, in the sense of being entirely without blame. Zimmerman initiated a confrontation when he shouldn't have, and Martin turned that confrontation violent.

But the fact is that confronting someone is not illegal, while physically attacking them is illegal.

To say that Zimmerman is entirely responsible would be like saying that if a man approaches a women in the street and talks to her he is guilty of harassment and the woman is lawfully allowed to physically assault him. Zimmerman should not have confronted Martin, but legally he was within his rights to do so. Martin was not within his legal rights to initiate a physical assault on Zimmerman. That is the distinction in my mind. If Martin felt threatened by Zimmerman, he could have run away. He could have pushed Zimmerman down and ran. But he didn't. He pounced on him. And he is dead because he chose to become physically violent in reaction to Zimmerman's verbal confrontation.

Post: #198

(07-12-2013 02:32 PM)MidniteSpecial Wrote:  It's just as easy to say Martin shouldn't have attacked Zimmerman as it is to say Zimmerman should have never got out of his car.

Not quite the same thing. Attacking Zman is illegal. Getting out of your car is not (even if it wasn't particularly smart).

(07-12-2013 02:32 PM)MidniteSpecial Wrote:  Especially since the 911 dispatch told him to STAY IN HIS CAR.

No, the dispatcher told Zman "We don't need you to do that," referring to Zman's stated intention to follow him.

Further, we do not have definitive proof that Zman actually followed Martin after getting out of the car. And even if he did, there was nothing illegal about that (again, arguably a poor decision on his part, but there are no statutes against being an idiot).

(07-12-2013 02:53 PM)samsamsam Wrote:  I hear what you are saying - but for justice sakes he needs to be punished in some form. Maybe not in criminal - maybe in civil.

Criminal court is not the place to mete out punishment despite a failure to meet the evidentiary requirement. None of us would want to be a defendant in a court where the jury felt empowered to mete out their brand of social justice even absent proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

No doubt the Martin family will be suing Zman in civil court, where the burden of proof will be much lower.

Post: #199

(07-12-2013 03:05 PM)scorpion Wrote:  But the fact is that confronting someone is not illegal, while physically attacking them is illegal.

Physically attacking someone is not illegal if it is in self defense and you feel there is an impending threat. Remember, the stand your ground law applies to Martin as well who had no idea who this hostile large man with a shaved head and goatee was following him in the dark by car and foot was.

Post: #200

(07-12-2013 03:05 PM)scorpion Wrote:  Martin was not within his legal rights to initiate a physical assault on Zimmerman.

I totally agree with this. I 100% do.

(07-12-2013 03:05 PM)scorpion Wrote:  But the fact is that confronting someone is not illegal.

In regards to "confronting" someone - that basically hints that it isn't a friendly talk. Now I am not sure what rules there were or codes of conduct there was for neighborhood watch. But I get the sense it is to observe and report. While it might not have been illegal, it shifted the situation into a more serious one that ended badly. Does it seem right? And I get right and wrong have little to do with justice sometimes.