Trayvon Martin: civil rights leaders call for Florida police chief to resign


View Poll Results: Should George Zimmerman be arrested???
No. He acted in self defense 4 12.50%
Yes. Then let the legal system play out 8 25.00%
Dunno. No enough facts in this case yet 9 28.13%
The USA is so Fukked up, where is the pop corn. 11 34.38%
Voters: 32. You may not vote on this poll

Tonington
#91
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post


And IF Martin was on top of Zimmerman pounding his head on the pavement, the shooting is (probably) justified.

Says who? The stand your ground law applies to Martin too. If Martin sees a gun drawn, then pounding Zimmerman's head would be justified if Martin fears he is going to be shot.
 
Niflmir
+1
#92
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

Yeah....but he sure didn't chase him!!!

Zimmerman: 28 years old, with asthma, 5'9" tall, 240 lbs

Martin: 17 years old, football player, 6'3" tall, 160 lbs.



And IF Martin was on top of Zimmerman pounding his head on the pavement, the shooting is (probably) justified.

Too many unknowns...but the more information that becomes availible, the more it appears Zimmerman is innocent.

Sure, but two can play at that game:

Zimmerman: avoided a conviction through plea bargaining, accused of domestic violence, has a restraining order filed against him, out looking for trouble (so desperate to find trouble, that he calls the police when he sees open garage doors)

Martin: young student athlete, out for a short walk to buy some skittles and iced tea, on his way back to his father's girlfriend's residence.

There is more than enough vague evidence perpetuated by the media to make either side of the story seem plausible. Luckily a grand jury will at least shed some light on all of this.
 
Colpy
#93
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

Says who? The stand your ground law applies to Martin too. If Martin sees a gun drawn, then pounding Zimmerman's head would be justified if Martin fears he is going to be shot.

Absolutely!

So who attacked who????

There is no law against asking someone what they are doing.
 
Locutus
+1
#94
This will be in the media any second now.




Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

Absolutely!

So who attacked who????

There is no law against asking someone what they are doing.


 
CDNBear
#95
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

Martin was walking home, in a public place, which isn't unlawful.

That hasn't been proven.

Quote:

Also, the use of deadly force isn't valid when there is provocation. When Zimmerman chased down Martin, that was provocation.

Not necessarily.

Quote:

Zimmerman put himself in that situation. You can't provoke somebody into violence and then claim use of deadly force.

If Zimmerman was the aggressor. If.

Quote:

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine (external - login to view)

Ya, I've read 776.
 
Ocean Breeze
#96
Let me ask again.........Why KILL Martin. IF lethal force was nec , why not just injure him. There are many parts of the body that could have been targetted and still leave Martin alive. Something STINKS......regardless of how much the gun defenders want to give Zimmerman a break . Who is giving Martin the break. ??
 
Niflmir
#97
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

That hasn't been proven.

Not necessarily.

If Zimmerman was the aggressor. If.

Ya, I've read 776.

Well, it doesn't take much more proof than: a) he was watching a basketball (edit: I make a terrible witness) game which was on a break, b) he had bought skittles and iced tea at the 7 eleven and was found half way between there and the house he would return to, c) his father's girlfriend states that he had declared his intention to return.

Actually, even if Zimmerman was the aggressor, it doesn't necessarily rule out the applicability of self defense. I might start a fist fight, but when my to-be victim pulls out a knife, and I pull out mine, that isn't such excessive force at that point.
 
CDNBear
#98
Quote: Originally Posted by NiflmirView Post

Well, it doesn't take much more proof than: a) he was watching a football game which was on a break, b) he had bought skittles and iced tea at the 7 eleven and was found half way between there and the house he would return to, c) his father's girlfriend states that he had declared his intention to return.

LOL.

Quote:

Actually, even if Zimmerman was the aggressor, it doesn't necessarily rule out the applicability of self defense. I might start a fist fight, but when my to-be victim pulls out a knife, and I pull out mine, that isn't such excessive force at that point.

I'd like to see some case law on that one.
 
Niflmir
+1
#99
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

LOL.

I'd like to see some case law on that one.

Contrast section 34 vs section 37 of the criminal code and look up the cases in canlii where both appear. In Canada, at least...

Quote:

[22] The appellant contends that the trial judge erred in not providing the jury with the precise wording of s. 37 and of s. 34(2) of the Code. Sections 34 and 37 read:

34. (1) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted without having provoked the assault is justified in repelling force by force if the force he uses is not intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm and is no more than is necessary to enable him to defend himself.

(2) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted and who causes death or grievous bodily harm in repelling the assault is justified if

(a) he causes it under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence with which the assault was originally made or with which the assailant pursues his purposes; and

(b) he believes, on reasonable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm.

37. (1) Every one is justified in using force to defend himself or any one under his protection from assault, if he uses no more force than is necessary to prevent the assault or the repetition of it.

(2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to justify the wilful infliction of any hurt or mischief that is excessive, having regard to the nature of the assault that the force used was intended to prevent.

[23] The second paragraph of the initial charge to the jury on self-defence (reproduced in para. 15 above) uses the language of s. 34(1). The third paragraph uses the language of s. 34(2) but (reasonably) excludes causation of death or reasonable apprehension of death, neither of which factors could have any application in this case. The last two sentences of the fourth paragraph and the entirety of the fifth paragraph encompass the wording of s. 37.

[24] (I note in passing that the trial judge instructed the jury with respect to the subjective element of self-defence and did not instruct on the objective element discussed in the cases. That has not become an issue on the appeal, no doubt because it likely operated to the benefit of the appellant.)

[25] The appellant argues that s. 34(2) is available to “initial aggressors”, citing McIntosh at para. 25. He argues that s. 37 is also available to initial aggressors citing R. v. Pintar 1996 CanLII 712 (ON CA), (1996), 110 C.C.C. (3d) 402 at 423-424 (Ont. C.A.) and R. v. Grandin 2001 BCCA 340 (CanLII), (2001), 154 C.C.C. (3d) 408 at paras. 41 and 54 (B.C.C.A.).

From CanLII - 2007 BCCA 104 (CanLII) (external - login to view).

I will note in passing that it would be fairly straightforward to convince a Canadian jury that bringing a gun to a fist fight is the definition of excessive.
 
Cannuck
-1
#100
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

I'd like to see some case law on that one.

Quote: Originally Posted by NiflmirView Post

Contrast section 34 vs section 37 of the criminal code and look up the cases in canlii where both appear. In Canada, at least...



From CanLII - 2007 BCCA 104 (CanLII) (external - login to view).

I will note in passing that it would be fairly straightforward to convince a Canadian jury that bringing a gun to a fist fight is the definition of excessive.

 
CDNBear
#101
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

Lame attempt at something stupid edited out...

I'm going to blame that idiotic post, on your admitted stupidity.

You really should head back to your Justin Beiber forum.

Post #1566209 - Re: Trayvon Martin: civil rights leaders call for Florida police chief to resign (external - login to view) Bad Cannuck



Awww, poor Jimmy PWNS himself, and cries with the click of his mouse. I blame your admitted stupidity.
 
Locutus
#102
Trayvon Martin case: Martin was the aggressor, police sources say



By Rene Lynch March 26, 2012, 9:25 a.m.


As Florida braced itself for what could be the biggest day of protest yet in the Trayvon Martin (external - login to view) case, police revealed new details that depict the slain 17-year-old as the aggressor and appear to support George Zimmerman's claim that he was acting in self-defense when he shot the teenager.
Martin was killed one month ago today. That's one month of justice denied, according to protesters who are expected to amass throughout the day to continue their demand for Zimmerman's arrest in the Sanford, Fla. case.
A forum hosted by CNN (external - login to view) commentator Roland Martin is being held at noon (external - login to view) today in that city, followed by a 4 p.m. rally that is expected to draw thousands (external - login to view). Civil rights activist Jesse Jackson (external - login to view) plans to lead protesters to the Sanford City Commission meeting being held this evening, and attended by the slain teen's parents. And students at Florida State University, the University of Florida and Florida A&M University will hold rallies on their campuses.
The Orlando Sentinel is reporting (external - login to view) that police sources say Martin was the aggressor on Feb. 26, knocking Zimmerman to the ground with a single punch and then climbing on top of the 28-year-old neighborhood watch captain and slamming the back of his head into the ground. Police say this account, given by Zimmerman, is supported by eyewitnesses, according to the Sentinel's report.
One such witness reportedly told police that he saw Martin on top of Zimmerman, striking the man, while Zimmerman cried out for help. The attack left Zimmerman bloodied, police sources told the Sentinel, and led him to fire at Martin in self-defense.
Police say Zimmerman was bleeding from the nose, had a fat lip and confirm that the back of his head was cut. He received first aid (external - login to view) at the scene but refused to go to the hospital and received medical treatment the following day, according to the Sentinel's sources.
The Sentinel's story also makes public new details about the circumstances leading up to the deadly confrontation between Zimmerman and Martin.
At the time, Martin was suspended from high school after he was found to be in possession of an empty marijuana baggie, according to the Sentinel. Martin's school has a "zero-tolerance" drug policy, the newspaper added.
Zimmerman was heading to the grocery store when he spotted Martin and called police to report a black youth acting suspiciously, possibly on drugs.
Zimmerman stepped out of his SUV to follow Martin, even though a police dispatcher told him he didn't need to do so.
Zimmerman told police he he'd lost sight of Martin and was heading back to his car when the youth suddenly stepped into his path. According to the Sentinel, Martin asked Zimmerman if he had a problem. Zimmerman said no and reached for his cellphone. Martin then said something like, "Well, you do now" and punched him, according to the Sentinel's sources.


Trayvon Martin case: Police release new details that help George Zimmerman's claim that he fired in self defense. - latimes.com (external - login to view)
 
Niflmir
+1
#103
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

I'm going to blame that idiotic post, on your admitted stupidity.

You really should head back to your Justin Beiber forum.

Post #1566209 - Re: Trayvon Martin: civil rights leaders call for Florida police chief to resign (external - login to view) Bad Cannuck



Awww, poor Jimmy PWNS himself, and cries with the click of his mouse. I blame your admitted stupidity.

Yeah, I don't really see why he characterises my post that way. Seeing as I was originally furthering a point that you had made, and as I saw it you were simply asking to have the actual facts.
 
CDNBear
#104
Quote: Originally Posted by NiflmirView Post

Yeah, I don't really see why he characterises my post that way. Seeing as I was originally furthering a point that you had made, and as I saw it you were simply asking to have the actual facts.

You'll have to excuse Jimmy, he's not very bright. In fact, he's admittedly stupid.

We've learned to just have fun with him, since reasoned discussion with him, is completely out of the question.
Last edited by CDNBear; Mar 26th, 2012 at 05:11 PM..
 
Colpy
+1
#105
Quote: Originally Posted by Ocean BreezeView Post

Let me ask again.........Why KILL Martin. IF lethal force was nec , why not just injure him. There are many parts of the body that could have been targetted and still leave Martin alive. Something STINKS......regardless of how much the gun defenders want to give Zimmerman a break . Who is giving Martin the break. ??

No.

I have some experience in this stuff.

If you are in danger of grievous bodily harm, you STOP your attacker as quickly as possible by shooting him in a place that will incapacitate him.

Whether he dies or not is completely immaterial.

He shot him ONCE.

It doesn't matter where....he succeeded in stopping him.
 
Niflmir
#106
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

No.

I have some experience in this stuff.

If you are in danger of grievous bodily harm, you STOP your attacker as quickly as possible by shooting him in a place that will incapacitate him.

Whether he dies or not is completely immaterial.

He shot him ONCE.

It doesn't matter where....he succeeded in stopping him.

Yes but if using a gun on a person who is punching you is not excessive force, then there is no such thing as excessive force. The question isn't "Did the force used stop the assault?" the question is "Was the force used proportional to the violence it was intended to stop?"
 
gerryh
#107
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post


I have some experience in this stuff.
.


There's no surprise, and explains a whole lot.
 
Locutus
+1
#108
I prefer this Fark headline but the point is obvious regarding this MSM and politically motivated race-baiting clusterfuk:


Not that it'll change anyone's mind. "George Zimmerman suffered a broken nose, and had an injury to the back of his head, he was attacked by Trayvon Martin on that evening," (Auto-play video) (external - login to view)



Even so; after everyone (the motley crews on 4chan do a better job sourcing and covering this fiasco with a higher degree of objectivity) knows where to acquire current ones, the ABC page still runs misleading photos of both individuals:

George Zimmerman's Attorney and Friend Speak About Trayvon Martin Incident - ABC News (external - login to view)
 
CDNBear
#109
Quote: Originally Posted by NiflmirView Post

Yes but if using a gun on a person who is punching you is not excessive force, then there is no such thing as excessive force. The question isn't "Did the force used stop the assault?" the question is "Was the force used proportional to the violence it was intended to stop?"

Isn't that the point of having to prove self defence? You have to prove you believed you were in grave danger. To justify using a weapon. Non?
 
L Gilbert
+2
#110
I can think of several ways to poke holes in eyewitness versions most of the time.

U.S. News - Thousands march in protest to Florida hearing on Trayvon Martin slaying (external - login to view)

but then there's this

Michael Smerconish: Tale of the Trayvon Martin Case 911 Calls (external - login to view)

All I can say is that I'm glad it isn't me that has to figure out what exactly happened.
 
Locutus
+2
#111
Former NAACP leader C.L. Bryant is accusing Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton of “exploiting” the Trayvon Martin tragedy to “racially divide this country.”

Read more: Trayvon Martin | Jesse Jackson | Al Sharpton | The Daily Caller (external - login to view)

No sh!t.
 
Ocean Breeze
#112
IF Zimmerman was shooting in self defense and was a skilled shot........he still DID NOT HAVE TO KILL Martin. He could have just injured him in the arm, leg etc. Why KILL HIM??

It makes no sense. KILLING in this case does not qualify as sefl defense. If he had injured him by shooting him......and then immediately called 9-11 for an ambulance.......... we would have a much clearer idea of the situation as we would have both parties alive to describe what took place.

It is critical to remove all bias (be it racial or pro guns or some exaggerated defintion of "self defense ) from the situation.

Quote: Originally Posted by LocutusView Post

Former NAACP leader C.L. Bryant is accusing Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton of “exploiting” the Trayvon Martin tragedy to “racially divide this country.”

Read more: Trayvon Martin | Jesse Jackson | Al Sharpton | The Daily Caller (external - login to view)

No sh!t.

Here we go. No **** indeed.

Quote: Originally Posted by LocutusView Post

I prefer this Fark headline but the point is obvious regarding this MSM and politically motivated race-baiting clusterfuk:


Not that it'll change anyone's mind. "George Zimmerman suffered a broken nose, and had an injury to the back of his head, he was attacked by Trayvon Martin on that evening," (Auto-play video) (external - login to view)



Even so; after everyone (the motley crews on 4chan do a better job sourcing and covering this fiasco with a higher degree of objectivity) knows where to acquire current ones, the ABC page still runs misleading photos of both individuals:

George Zimmerman's Attorney and Friend Speak About Trayvon Martin Incident - ABC News (external - login to view)


this is totally CRAZY. IF it was self defense ...........Zimmerman DID NOT HAVE TO KILL HIM. All he needed to do is injure him as in incapacitate him.
 
CDNBear
#113
Quote: Originally Posted by Ocean BreezeView Post

..... we would have a much clearer idea of the situation as we would have both parties alive to describe what took place.

Do you actually think the two stories would corroborate each other?

Quote:

Here we go.

As usual, late to the party. This divisiveness has been going almost from the get go.
 
Locutus
#114
Trayvon Martin Shooter Told Cops Teenager Went For His Gun



Trayvon Martin Shooter Says Teenager Went for His Gun - ABC News (external - login to view)
 
L Gilbert
+1
#115
So far, this issue makes me think that Zimmerman went maliciously powercrazy and ever since has been doing whatever he can to escape the consequences. I still wouldn't want to be the one to sort the mess out.
 
Ocean Breeze
#116
Quote:

Report: Witness Says Trayvon Martin Attacked George Zimmerman

..........Zimmerman did NOT HAVE TO KILL HIM. IF he felt so threatened , he could /should have just injured him to incapacitate him. Yet NO ONE is considering that option.

Assuming of course he was skilled in gun usage.

Too bad the victim is not alive to present his side of the story. ( or would it be denounced as invalid because he is black??)


WHAT IS THE REAL issue here ??

Quote:

Trayvon Martin Shooter Told Cops Teenager Went For His Gun


well, THAT is his word. but again.......he did NOT HAVE TO KILL HIM. unless he was inept in gun handling. IF that was the case.........he should not be carrying a gun to begin with.
 
Locutus
#117
This from /b/





He is still innocent, until proven guilty in a court of law. He could have executed him on national tv wearing a KKK hood and he would still be innocent until proven guilty.
Never forget that.

 
Ocean Breeze
#118
Well, last I heard , he was not even arrested.........so the court of law scenario does not apply. (even if technically it is true )

He might have more rights (and safety ) if he were arrested , then he has at the moment. Not to forget that lots of folks want his hide or to simply lynch him.

when emotions run as high as they are about this situation.....all reason ,logic gets tossed aside ,
 
gopher
#119
Quote:

quote Colpy,

Not quite.

Considering the fact that Zimmerman has a price on his head (!!!!!!), one can hardly blame a Zimmerman-sympathetic witness for being shy.

The Fox report showed someone speaking out of his door to the reporter. Anyone from that neighborhood can readily identify the person as being from that address assuming it is a real one. Therefore, if it was a valid report, someone should have been able to say who it was. Don't mind me being a skeptic since, after all, it was reported by Fox and no other source has confirmed it nor have the police.
 
Cannuck
+1 / -1
#120
I think we haven't ruled out Rush Limbaugh on the grassy knoll.
 
no new posts