All Forums | Politics

family of trayvon martin to hold one year rememberance in NYC tonight

...
Participants:
Search model icon
Views: 6433
Posts: 154
 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2008
Posts: 5625
Posted: #76
Quote Originally Posted by mattbrot:


sorry to sound condescending here - but is that really your counter argument???

We disagree on almost everything but you are better than that.....


From your statement you have never heard or understood the term 'justifiable homicide'.

?
 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2008
Posts: 5625
Posted: #77
Quote Originally Posted by mattbrot:


sorry to sound condescending here - but is that really your counter argument???

We disagree on almost everything but you are better than that.....


From your statement you have never heard or understood the term 'justifiable homicide'.

?
 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2008
Posts: 5625
Posted: #78
A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

https://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html


You tell me mattbrott how this does not apply.

Is it because Zimmerman followed Trayvon after being asked not to?

Please explain?
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2005
Posts: 6840
Posted: #79
Quote Originally Posted by bowlslit:



From your statement you have never heard or understood the term 'justifiable homicide'.

?

just saying that those are fabricated examples.  probably not what we should use as our "vantage" points.

 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2005
Posts: 6840
Posted: #80
Quote Originally Posted by bowlslit:

A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

https://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html


You tell me mattbrott how this does not apply.

Is it because Zimmerman followed Trayvon after being asked not to?

Please explain?

Bowl -- there is so much more than this.  you and both know it. So to quote that definition is not fair.

All that aside -- I do believe that Z should of not followed trayvon after being asked not to. But either way your quoted text does not prove anything one way or the other.


 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2008
Posts: 5625
Posted: #81
Quote Originally Posted by mattbrot:


Bowl -- there is so much more than this.  you and both know it. So to quote that definition is not fair.

All that aside -- I do believe that Z should of not followed trayvon after being asked not to. But either way your quoted text does not prove anything one way or the other.





Ok Great.

You present me with evidence that Zimmerman assaulted Trayvon and I will counter with evidence that Tryavon assaulted Zimmerman.

You first!
 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2008
Posts: 5625
Posted: #82
Quote Originally Posted by Stiln:



It's not what I believe, Jesus Christ...... Are you brain dead? I'm serious bro... Are you??

He was ALREADY charged with 2nd degree murder......................

The question is whether he is guilty or not guilty.... But if he is found not guilty that does not negate the fact that he was once charged with murder... Do you understand that??


How many people over time have been charged with something and then later had the charges dropped. Big whoop!

If you really believe he should be charged with murder then explain why?

You've already said yo want him to spend 25 to life for murder so explain why his case is not justifiable homicide?

I'm curious big boy....lets see if you're as smart as you say you are.
 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2008
Posts: 5625
Posted: #83
Quote Originally Posted by Stiln:

"yo want him to"


you missed an entire letter you friggin idiot...

But I digress, I think they will proceed with a trial... He murdered someone this is not petty theft...

I don't really feel like researching the web for Florida murder laws, and I certainly don't take anyone's advice on here about them either so, I will wait until April 22 when a court of law decides whether to push forth with the case or not..


How many people over time have been charged with something and then later had the charges dropped. Big whoop!

Actually a lawyer would slap you across the face for some dumb behind remark like that though, I know that. Terminology is everything and for you to previously say his actions did not warrant a murder charge is a HUGE difference from saying the charges have been dropped.

Again pointing out your retardation..


What was the over under on riots before he was charged with murder?

How long after the incident did he get charged?

If this is a slam dunk case like you think it is then they could have charged him within a week pumkin.

I'm going to use Cdnumbers blueprint and give all of you guys a NEWSFLASH!


IT DOESN'T MATTER IF ZIMMERMAN FOLLOWED TRAYVON AFTER BEING TOLD NOT TO. THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS IN THIS CASE IS WHO ASSAULTED WHO AND WAS DEADLY FORCE JUSTIFIED.

Zimmerman had every right to be anywhere in the neighborhood just the same as Trayvon.

Do I agree that Zimmerman should have held back? Maybe.

He was sick and tired of the burglars getting away so he made extra effort to help make sure that this time that didn't happen. I'm going to speculate a little bit and say that while he was following Trayvon on foot, Trayvon decided to turn around and confront Zimmerman.

All of you guys are getting hung up on bs that doesn't even matter to the case.
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2009
Posts: 6580
Posted: #84
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger

of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape

such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the

assailant; or

I just keep going back to this part of it and think that Zimm could have avoided this by not following Martin. He had a means to escape by not chasing after Martin.




 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Jul, 2003
Posts: 27850
Posted: #85
b,bu,bu,but,but,but  if the glove doesnt fit, you must acquit 
 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2008
Posts: 5625
Posted: #86
Quote Originally Posted by Ktrain:

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger

of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape

such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the

assailant; or

I just keep going back to this part of it and think that Zimm could have avoided this by not following Martin. He had a means to escape by not chasing after Martin.






Ktrain,

Is it illegal for Zimmerman to follow Trayvon? NO

Is it legal for Zimmerman to want to ask Trayvon what his business is in the neighborhood? YES

Is it legal for Trayvon to ask Zimmerman why he is following him? YES
Is it legal to assault someone because they are following you? NO

The only hot water Zimmerman would have been in is if he had brandished the gun before the confrontation. Absent any evidence or witness statements to corroborate that then you have to assume that didn't happen.

It looks like you don't understand SYG fully. You can start a fist fight at a bar with someone in the parking lot...and you can exchange blows with that person and if they pull a knife out on you and threaten to carve you up and you then have justification to SYG and use deadly force.

There is no responsibility of either party to retreat to claim SYG.

As long as both parties are legally authorized to be there then there is no problem for either to proclaim SYG law.

Once Trayvon started assaulting Zimmerman then that put his SYG claim in jeopardy.
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2009
Posts: 5755
Posted: #87
Quote Originally Posted by Stiln:

You often see that especially those who are relegated to corrected spelling mistakes, grammatical mistakes, whatever he wishes to call it....

Point is.....IF zimmerman does see jail time (25 years to life) it will be because of a decision by a jury, not bowslits very limited understanding of murder laws...

You've done it before.

I remember a thread about gays in the military and said when I was in the military I was against it but now it doesn't matter to me. First, you called me out saying I was lying about being in the military. When I listed the units (batallions) I was in you corrected my spelling of "battalions". The reason I remember that thread is because I knew it would come in handy one day.
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2009
Posts: 6580
Posted: #88
Quote Originally Posted by bowlslit:



Ktrain,

Is it illegal for Zimmerman to follow Trayvon? NO

Is it legal for Zimmerman to want to ask Trayvon what his business is in the neighborhood? YES

Is it legal for Trayvon to ask Zimmerman why he is following him? YES
Is it legal to assault someone because they are following you? NO

The only hot water Zimmerman would have been in is if he had brandished the gun before the confrontation. Absent any evidence or witness statements to corroborate that then you have to assume that didn't happen.

It looks like you don't understand SYG fully. You can start a fist fight at a bar with someone in the parking lot...and you can exchange blows with that person and if they pull a knife out on you and threaten to carve you up and you then have justification to SYG and use deadly force.

There is no responsibility of either party to retreat to claim SYG.

As long as both parties are legally authorized to be there then there is no problem for either to proclaim SYG law.

Once Trayvon started assaulting Zimmerman then that put his SYG claim in jeopardy.

Have you read that article that has been referenced in this thread? It sounds like no one has a clear meaning on the law or fully understands it? 

Even your example wouldn't need the knife to constitute SYG....in fact, it seems you don't even need a physical altercation. 

"• A Seventh-day Adventist was acting erratically, doing cartwheels through an apartment complex parking lot, pounding on cars and apartment windows and setting off alarms. A tenant who felt threatened by the man's behavior shot and killed him. He was not charged. 

• A Citrus County man in a longstanding dispute with a neighbor shot and killed the man one night in 2009. He was not charged even though a witness and the location of two bullet wounds showed the victim was turning to leave when he was shot."


This is my problem with SYG. Well that and this:

https://miami.cbslocal.com/2012/03/20/deaths-nearly-triple-since-stand-your-ground-enacted/



 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2009
Posts: 6580
Posted: #89
Sorry that second sentence wasn't meant to be a question. I don't want anyone jumping all over me for not proofreading. 
 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2008
Posts: 5625
Posted: #90
ktrain,

Why didn't you just say your problem is with SYG.

Wait, do you think Zimmermans claim of SYG is justified or not? If not, why?
 
Covers Referee
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2004
Posts: 15701
Posted: #91

Quote Originally Posted by bowlslit:




The only hot water Zimmerman would have been in is if he had brandished the gun before the confrontation. Absent any evidence or witness statements to corroborate that then you have to assume that didn't happen.


Ummm, no.

See you ARE assuming it didn't happen. You just don't know. Neither do I.

But when you make a post touting your ex-cop, investigtor, family/friends who are cops credentials and use those to say you "know" what happened, you open yourself up to ridicule.

You may be right. Then again, you may not be. Just because TM isn't alive to present contradictory evidence doesn't mean it does not exist.

ZImmerman's version will be subject to cross-examination (he will have to testify). His version will be measured against evidence in the form of ballistics (sadly, not wound ballistics though), eyewitnesses, prior statements he made, etc.

People are convicted all the time where their version of events does not hold up when confronted at trial.

Perhaps his will. We just don't know. Even you.

 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2008
Posts: 5625
Posted: #92
Quote Originally Posted by djbrow:

Ummm, no.

See you ARE assuming it didn't happen. You just don't know. Neither do I.

But when you make a post touting your ex-cop, investigtor, family/friends who are cops credentials and use those to say you "know" what happened, you open yourself up to ridicule.

You may be right. Then again, you may not be. Just because TM isn't alive to present contradictory evidence doesn't mean it does not exist.

ZImmerman's version will be subject to cross-examination (he will have to testify). His version will be measured against evidence in the form of ballistics (sadly, not wound ballistics though), eyewitnesses, prior statements he made, etc.

People are convicted all the time where their version of events does not hold up when confronted at trial.

Perhaps his will. We just don't know. Even you.



Don't you think if he did have the gun out that Trayvon would have mentioned it to the girlfriend was on the phone with him?


"DAMN GINA, HE'S GOT A GUN PULLED ON ME, CALL THE COPS QUICK"


 
Covers Referee
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2004
Posts: 15701
Posted: #93

Quote Originally Posted by bowlslit:



Don't you think if he did have the gun out that Trayvon would have mentioned it to the girlfriend was on the phone with him?


"DAMN GINA, HE'S GOT A GUN PULLED ON ME, CALL THE COPS QUICK"


My point is you don't know what the exact situation is when TM was shot.

Is it possible that it is exactly what his version is and he was fearful for his life and pulled the gun from his wasitbelt and fired it? Absolutely.

Is it possible that he pulled the gun and TM backed away slightly in fear and Zimmerman was so angry and upset because he was hit that he shot him anyway?

Yep. Could be that too.

 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2009
Posts: 6580
Posted: #94
Quote Originally Posted by bowlslit:

ktrain,

Why didn't you just say your problem is with SYG.

Wait, do you think Zimmermans claim of SYG is justified or not? If not, why?

Read post #14

I really didn't get into this to discuss the Zimmerman case in particular more so than the law as a whole. It just kind of went that way because this is the most well known case. 

I understand why people think Zim's claim of SYG is legit. If you place the starting time of this conflict as the very second that Zimm confronted Martin then I agree that it meets the criteria given. However, I start this conflict from the time Zimm called 911, as he so frequently seemed to do. At that point, he went out of his way, despite being told by authorities not to. If he called dispatch for almost any other reason he would follow instructions of the dispatcher, why not now? I think Zim is primarily (not entirely) at fault for Martin's death though because of the fact that he followed him to confront him. 

However, if this were to go to trial I think he would be easily acquitted after reading all the SYG cases from the article. People were acquitted for far more questionable, and less violent or confrontational situations than Zim's.

Obviously we are never going to know what was truly said or if Zimm made any motion towards Martin, or grabbed at him. Even if Zimm thought he was telling the truth (and I'm not saying he wasn't) he probably doesn't remember everything that was said or exactly how things went down. He would also have some real motivation for skewing details in his favor. I read in an article that one of the detectives thought Zim's accounts seemed scripted. If I can find it again I will post a link. 

Have you ever been in a fight? I've been in a few and I don't remember every last detail of what went down. I know the broad strokes of what went down but even then I might be missing something significant from the story. What I do know is that when the cops showed up they got to hear both sides of the story because neither side pulled out a gun and shot the other. 

So when you say that Zimm asked what Martin was doing, I have a strong suspicion that might not have been the only thing that was said. 

Martin may have punched Zimm first but that doesn't mean that Zimm didn't motion towards or try to grab Martin. I can't think of any other reason why Zimm would want to follow him unless it was to confront and possibly physically detain Martin. 

If you have any articles that clear this up then please link them to me so I can read them. Every witness account I have read picked up the altercation when Martin was already on top of Zimm. If there is some witness account that I am missing that please provide it for me so I can be more thoroughly informed. 

Getting back to the beginning though, my issue is more with SYG as a whole and not with this case in particular. It's used successfully far to often and not being applied correctly as it currently stands for it to be effective, imo. 

If drug dealers are able to commit murder during a deal (in which one of the criteria is that a party isn't supposed to be committing a crime) and walk because they were standing their ground then something needs to be changed. 
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2009
Posts: 6580
Posted: #95
Quote Originally Posted by bowlslit:



Don't you think if he did have the gun out that Trayvon would have mentioned it to the girlfriend was on the phone with him?


"DAMN GINA, HE'S GOT A GUN PULLED ON ME, CALL THE COPS QUICK"



On the other hand, I wouldn't necessarily be willing to believe her entire account of the story either because she has motivation to skew some of the facts in the other direction. 

Just for the record. 
 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2008
Posts: 5625
Posted: #96
ktrain,

Keep in mind the past burglary history of the area. There were a number of people that had gotten away before the cops got there and Zimmermans mindset is getting more discouraged with every person that didn't get caught. You and I both would be the same way.

You and I both would be more determined to make sure people get caught. Granted, Trayvon was apparently doing nothing wrong, but it was Zimmermans job to find out.

Also, keep in mind, that the dispatcher never gave Zimmerman an order to not follow, he merely said "We don't need you to do that".

Any good neighborhood watch person would do their best not to let the perp out of their sight until the cops were on the scene. Right?

Zimmerman had every right to follow Trayvon and ask him what his business is. The dispatcher would have been out of line if he ordered him not to follow. It's not within their authority.

This is the crux of what most people that want Zimmerman to go to jail believe. The fact that Zimmerman followed Trayvon is without value.

The only thing that matters is who turned a verbal confrontation into a physical one and was deadly force justified. Absent physical injuries sustained by Zimmerman he would not be able to claim SYG. Since he did have injuries to his head, SYG can be justified very easily.
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2009
Posts: 6580
Posted: #97
Quote Originally Posted by bowlslit:

ktrain,

Keep in mind the past burglary history of the area. There were a number of people that had gotten away before the cops got there and Zimmermans mindset is getting more discouraged with every person that didn't get caught. You and I both would be the same way.

You and I both would be more determined to make sure people get caught. Granted, Trayvon was apparently doing nothing wrong, but it was Zimmermans job to find out.

Also, keep in mind, that the dispatcher never gave Zimmerman an order to not follow, he merely said "We don't need you to do that".

Any good neighborhood watch person would do their best not to let the perp out of their sight until the cops were on the scene. Right?

Zimmerman had every right to follow Trayvon and ask him what his business is. The dispatcher would have been out of line if he ordered him not to follow. It's not within their authority.

This is the crux of what most people that want Zimmerman to go to jail believe. The fact that Zimmerman followed Trayvon is without value.

The only thing that matters is who turned a verbal confrontation into a physical one and was deadly force justified. Absent physical injuries sustained by Zimmerman he would not be able to claim SYG. Since he did have injuries to his head, SYG can be justified very easily.

This is what I was talking about earlier about Zim being properly trained and having non lethal means to subdue someone if he is going to anoint himself as the neighborhood watch. If this IS his job (policing the area), which I don't believe it was, then he should also carry mase or a taser as well. He should be prepared and not just resort to pulling a gun the second he gets in trouble. 

How else would anyone interpret what the dispatcher said? "We don't need you to do that".....but if you feel like you want to confront a suspicious looking person then by all means go ahead and do the Police Officers jobs for them? 

I don't think any dispatcher would ever tell someone that. I think the interpretation is pretty clear on this one. 

The dispatcher would not have been out of line to keep a civilian from a potential altercation with a "suspicious looking person". I have yet to hear a recording of a dispatcher telling a civilian to actively get involved in stopping a potential crime with the police were on their way. If so, please provide the recording so I can hear it. I'm willing to bet if I call 911 right now and tell them someone is breaking into my neighbors apartment and ask them if I should go in there and intervene, their answer will be no. 

You don't have to do what a dispatcher says but I don't think they are going to ever give you advice that is against your best interest. If your house was on fire and the dispatcher told you to get you and your family out of the house would you disobey them? 

The fact that Zim followed Martin is definitely of value, as his comment "They're always getting away". Sounds like he has some intention on intervening in some way, shape, or form. Which also calls into question his "fear" on the 911 call. 

You can prove that Martin punched Zim but I haven't seen any evidence that Zim didn't attempt to grab Martin first. With the preceding statement and the fact that Zim followed Martin despite being told otherwise, I have to think he might not be above trying to grab and hold on to Martin til the cops came. 

Like I said before, if there is any evidence that Zim only asked Martin what he is doing and didn't try to grab Martin first or try to detain him forcefully then please let me know and post the link. I would gladly be willing to change my view if there is some evidence that shows this because I haven't came across it yet. 

But using my deductive reasoning and life experience, I can't see Zim simply asking Martin what he was doing in a calm manner and Martin simply punching him for it. 

And why is this called a sucker punch by so many people? Was Zim not facing Martin? If so why was his back turned to this "suspicious person" that he voluntarily approached? 

SYG can be applied to a lot of situations very easily according to that article. Hell, it seems like if someone looks at you in a menacing fashion you can shoot them. That's my issue with the law. Is there really any surprise that deaths have jumped up in Florida? 
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2009
Posts: 6580
Posted: #98
We don't need you to do that.

I don't know how much more clear that could have been. 

If he follows these three little words in a phrase of seven words, we're not having this discussion today. 


 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2008
Posts: 5625
Posted: #99
Quote Originally Posted by Ktrain:

We don't need you to do that.

I don't know how much more clear that could have been. 

If he follows these three little words in a phrase of seven words, we're not having this discussion today. 




Hindsight it 20/20.

How was Zimmerman supposed to know that following would put him in a life or death situation.

Where is the criminal activity that you can legally charge him?
 
 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2008
Posts: 5625
Posted: #100
The dispatcher has every right and interest in asking Zimmerman to keep his distance.

Zimmerman has no legal reason or obligation to obey the dispatcher.

This makes the most sense for my theory and Zimmermans account that Trayvon doubled back to confront him. Which I don't blame Trayvon for one bit. I blame Trayvon for escalating the verbal confrontation to a situation that made Zimmerman believe he was in fear for his life or serious bodily injury.

If Trayvon would have never thrown a sucker punch then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Without any shred of evidence that Zimmerman so much as flicked Trayvon with his finger you are out of line for assuming such a thing happened.
All Forums | Politics
About Us
Contact Us
Careers
Our Team
Brand
Testimonials
Betting Guides
Sportsbook Reviews
Sports Betting News
Podcasts
Responsible Gaming
Betting Sites
Canada Betting Sites
Canada Casinos
Best Betting Apps
Contests
Streak Survivor
King of Covers
Office Pools
The Covers community has
810,221
lifetime members worldwide
Covers 30 Years Logo Established in 1995,
Covers is the world
leader in sports
betting information.
Site Map Help Privacy Terms of Service youtube logo facebook logo twitter logo instagram logo linkedin logo google news logo
Covers is verified safe by: Evalon Logo GPWA Logo GDPR Logo GeoTrust Logo Evalon Logo
Copyright © 1995 - 2026 CS Media Limited All Rights Reserved.

If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.