Trayvon Martin and "Stand Your Ground" in FL

[zoogs]

Thanks for the responses, Carl. I must not be following this thread very well, I thought you and Ziggy were in disagreement about something. I mean, clearly you are, but I'm not sure what Carry on.

[carlfense]

If I am not mistaken, you are the one who called me out when I said that concrete could be considered as a use of a deadly weapon in the Zimmerman/Martin Case. . . .You cant move the goalposts, and you probably shouldn't be a betting man.

Speaking of moving the goalposts . . .

By all accounts he was the person on top pummeling Zimmerman, which is illegal, he used concrete as a weapon, which is attempted murder, or assault with a deadly weapon.

 

So you are the one with the burden of proof, to show how I am wrong.

That's not how it works. You have the burden of proving your own assertions. This Glen Beck-ian tactic of "I'm right until you prove me wrong" is lame.

 

And then asked for a single case, and so I give you one, then you want me to find you the actual case. . .

And I'm still waiting. I've seen your California case. I've seen your Massachusetts citation only (sidewalk).

 

Are you saying that this . . .

. . . he was the person on top pummeling Zimmerman, which is illegal, he used concrete as a weapon, which is attempted murder, or assault with a deadly weapon.

. . . happened in California or Massachusetts?

[carlfense]

Thanks for the responses, Carl. I must not be following this thread very well, I thought you and Ziggy were in disagreement about something. I mean, clearly you are, but I'm not sure what Carry on.

Well, the brief run-down is that Ziggy thinks that the evidence:

 

1. exonerates Zimmerman

 

and

 

2. is sufficient to convict Martin of attempted murder or assault with a deadly weapon.

 

 

I disagree.

[SECHusker]

I don't think race was the most pressing issue in this case, while it sad that an innocent kid was followed by an adult and shot. I think the most pressing issue about this case is at what point can someone use deadly force.

 

I'm pretty sure many of us have seen or been involved in a fight, and regardless of who was in the wrong for starting the fight it was always a 'no-no' to pull out a gun. And in most cases I've seen if a person pulls out a gun, they usually get charged with something.

 

I think the decision sets a horrible precedent that if you are in a fight, and feel threatened you can kill someone.

[husker_99]

I don't think race was the most pressing issue in this case, while it sad that an innocent kid was followed by an adult and shot. I think the most pressing issue about this case is at what point can someone use deadly force.

 

I'm pretty sure many of us have seen or been involved in a fight, and regardless of who was in the wrong for starting the fight it was always a 'no-no' to pull out a gun. And in most cases I've seen if a person pulls out a gun, they usually get charged with something.

 

I think the decision sets a horrible precedent that if you are in a fight, and feel threatened you can kill someone.

so zimmerman should've let martin bash his head into the sidewalk? 17 year old isn't a kid anymore. not when 18 you are legally an adult.

[sd'sker]

I don't think race was the most pressing issue in this case, while it sad that an innocent kid was followed by an adult and shot. I think the most pressing issue about this case is at what point can someone use deadly force.

 

I'm pretty sure many of us have seen or been involved in a fight, and regardless of who was in the wrong for starting the fight it was always a 'no-no' to pull out a gun. And in most cases I've seen if a person pulls out a gun, they usually get charged with something.

 

I think the decision sets a horrible precedent that if you are in a fight, and feel threatened you can kill someone.

so zimmerman should've let martin bash his head into the sidewalk? 17 year old isn't a kid anymore. not when 18 you are legally an adult.

so 17 is still a kid, then.

 

zimmerman should have stayed in his vehicle. pretty simple. however, the prosecution did not have enough evidence, so zimmerman should have been acquitted. but that does not make what he did and how he behaved right.

 

the other precedent is that you if you are going to use force, use deadly force. because then you do not have to worry about anymore witnesses.

[husker_99]

I don't think race was the most pressing issue in this case, while it sad that an innocent kid was followed by an adult and shot. I think the most pressing issue about this case is at what point can someone use deadly force.

 

I'm pretty sure many of us have seen or been involved in a fight, and regardless of who was in the wrong for starting the fight it was always a 'no-no' to pull out a gun. And in most cases I've seen if a person pulls out a gun, they usually get charged with something.

 

I think the decision sets a horrible precedent that if you are in a fight, and feel threatened you can kill someone.

so zimmerman should've let martin bash his head into the sidewalk? 17 year old isn't a kid anymore. not when 18 you are legally an adult.

so 17 is still a kid, then.

 

zimmerman should have stayed in his vehicle. pretty simple. however, the prosecution did not have enough evidence, so zimmerman should have been acquitted. but that does not make what he did and how he behaved right.

 

the other precedent is that you if you are going to use force, use deadly force. because then you do not have to worry about anymore witnesses.

no 17 is at least late teen stage. Zimmerman went back to his vehicle after the dispatcher told him they didn't need him to follow martin. Martin came back. sorry but you can kill someone bashing their head into a sidewalk and if not that brain injury. Before this trial even started Zimmerman was painted as the villain. So Zimmerman national perception was that he killed an black teenage boy. Hell they can't even get it right that he is hispanic not white.

[SECHusker]

I don't think race was the most pressing issue in this case, while it sad that an innocent kid was followed by an adult and shot. I think the most pressing issue about this case is at what point can someone use deadly force.

 

I'm pretty sure many of us have seen or been involved in a fight, and regardless of who was in the wrong for starting the fight it was always a 'no-no' to pull out a gun. And in most cases I've seen if a person pulls out a gun, they usually get charged with something.

 

I think the decision sets a horrible precedent that if you are in a fight, and feel threatened you can kill someone.

so zimmerman should've let martin bash his head into the sidewalk? 17 year old isn't a kid anymore. not when 18 you are legally an adult.

so 17 is still a kid, then.

 

zimmerman should have stayed in his vehicle. pretty simple. however, the prosecution did not have enough evidence, so zimmerman should have been acquitted. but that does not make what he did and how he behaved right.

 

the other precedent is that you if you are going to use force, use deadly force. because then you do not have to worry about anymore witnesses.

 

@husker_99 you are giving complete bias to Zimmerman's testimony that the kid was bashing his head in, and correct me if i'm wrong but the only other person that knows the truth about whether someone was getting their head bashed is dead. You say bashing someone's head in but in the pictures I saw there were only scrapes to the back of Zimmerman's head, and there was proof he suffered a concussion,fracture, or any head trauma.

 

My point, and I completely agree with sd'ker, is that at what point was ok to use deadly force, especially when he walked away from the fight.

 

If Trayvon had pulled out a gun and shot Zimmerman I would be asking the same question.

[SECHusker]

I don't think race was the most pressing issue in this case, while it sad that an innocent kid was followed by an adult and shot. I think the most pressing issue about this case is at what point can someone use deadly force.

 

I'm pretty sure many of us have seen or been involved in a fight, and regardless of who was in the wrong for starting the fight it was always a 'no-no' to pull out a gun. And in most cases I've seen if a person pulls out a gun, they usually get charged with something.

 

I think the decision sets a horrible precedent that if you are in a fight, and feel threatened you can kill someone.

so zimmerman should've let martin bash his head into the sidewalk? 17 year old isn't a kid anymore. not when 18 you are legally an adult.

so 17 is still a kid, then.

 

zimmerman should have stayed in his vehicle. pretty simple. however, the prosecution did not have enough evidence, so zimmerman should have been acquitted. but that does not make what he did and how he behaved right.

 

the other precedent is that you if you are going to use force, use deadly force. because then you do not have to worry about anymore witnesses.

no 17 is at least late teen stage. Zimmerman went back to his vehicle after the dispatcher told him they didn't need him to follow martin. Martin came back. sorry but you can kill someone bashing their head into a sidewalk and if not that brain injury. Before this trial even started Zimmerman was painted as the villain. So Zimmerman national perception was that he killed an black teenage boy. Hell they can't even get it right that he is hispanic not white.

 

anytime you stalk someone 'pedo' style and that person ends up dead, of course their is going to be scrutiny placed on you.

[husker_99]

I don't think race was the most pressing issue in this case, while it sad that an innocent kid was followed by an adult and shot. I think the most pressing issue about this case is at what point can someone use deadly force.

 

I'm pretty sure many of us have seen or been involved in a fight, and regardless of who was in the wrong for starting the fight it was always a 'no-no' to pull out a gun. And in most cases I've seen if a person pulls out a gun, they usually get charged with something.

 

I think the decision sets a horrible precedent that if you are in a fight, and feel threatened you can kill someone.

so zimmerman should've let martin bash his head into the sidewalk? 17 year old isn't a kid anymore. not when 18 you are legally an adult.

so 17 is still a kid, then.

 

zimmerman should have stayed in his vehicle. pretty simple. however, the prosecution did not have enough evidence, so zimmerman should have been acquitted. but that does not make what he did and how he behaved right.

 

the other precedent is that you if you are going to use force, use deadly force. because then you do not have to worry about anymore witnesses.

 

@husker_99 you are giving complete bias to Zimmerman's testimony that the kid was bashing his head in, and correct me if i'm wrong but the only other person that knows the truth about whether someone was getting their head bashed is dead. You say bashing someone's head in but in the pictures I saw there were only scrapes to the back of Zimmerman's head, and there was proof he suffered a concussion,fracture, or any head trauma.

 

My point, and I completely agree with sd'ker, is that at what point was ok to use deadly force, especially when he walked away from the fight.

 

If Trayvon had pulled out a gun and shot Zimmerman I would be asking the same question.

except Martin was on top of Zimmerman while Zimmerman shot Martin.

[sd'sker]

I don't think race was the most pressing issue in this case, while it sad that an innocent kid was followed by an adult and shot. I think the most pressing issue about this case is at what point can someone use deadly force.

 

I'm pretty sure many of us have seen or been involved in a fight, and regardless of who was in the wrong for starting the fight it was always a 'no-no' to pull out a gun. And in most cases I've seen if a person pulls out a gun, they usually get charged with something.

 

I think the decision sets a horrible precedent that if you are in a fight, and feel threatened you can kill someone.

so zimmerman should've let martin bash his head into the sidewalk? 17 year old isn't a kid anymore. not when 18 you are legally an adult.

so 17 is still a kid, then.

 

zimmerman should have stayed in his vehicle. pretty simple. however, the prosecution did not have enough evidence, so zimmerman should have been acquitted. but that does not make what he did and how he behaved right.

 

the other precedent is that you if you are going to use force, use deadly force. because then you do not have to worry about anymore witnesses.

no 17 is at least late teen stage. Zimmerman went back to his vehicle after the dispatcher told him they didn't need him to follow martin. Martin came back. sorry but you can kill someone bashing their head into a sidewalk and if not that brain injury. Before this trial even started Zimmerman was painted as the villain. So Zimmerman national perception was that he killed an black teenage boy. Hell they can't even get it right that he is hispanic not white.

no one is disputing that you can kill a person by bashing their head into the ground, but that is only relevant because the is the only survivor's testimony and that survivor could have left the scene or stayed in the safety of his vehicle.

 

the nation perception was that zimmerman killed a black teenage boy because zimmerman killed a black teenage boy. and whether he was white or hispanic, he was equally capable of profiling. whether he did or did not, the point still stands that zimmerman could have easily avoided this by using better judgment, but he did not and now a person is dead. hard to take the side of the guy with a gun in a fight, especially when that person approached the person he found suspicious. reasonable people do not approach people they find suspicious and they do not feel threatened when they are the only one with a gun.

[husker_99]

I don't think race was the most pressing issue in this case, while it sad that an innocent kid was followed by an adult and shot. I think the most pressing issue about this case is at what point can someone use deadly force.

 

I'm pretty sure many of us have seen or been involved in a fight, and regardless of who was in the wrong for starting the fight it was always a 'no-no' to pull out a gun. And in most cases I've seen if a person pulls out a gun, they usually get charged with something.

 

I think the decision sets a horrible precedent that if you are in a fight, and feel threatened you can kill someone.

so zimmerman should've let martin bash his head into the sidewalk? 17 year old isn't a kid anymore. not when 18 you are legally an adult.

so 17 is still a kid, then.

 

zimmerman should have stayed in his vehicle. pretty simple. however, the prosecution did not have enough evidence, so zimmerman should have been acquitted. but that does not make what he did and how he behaved right.

 

the other precedent is that you if you are going to use force, use deadly force. because then you do not have to worry about anymore witnesses.

no 17 is at least late teen stage. Zimmerman went back to his vehicle after the dispatcher told him they didn't need him to follow martin. Martin came back. sorry but you can kill someone bashing their head into a sidewalk and if not that brain injury. Before this trial even started Zimmerman was painted as the villain. So Zimmerman national perception was that he killed an black teenage boy. Hell they can't even get it right that he is hispanic not white.

 

anytime you stalk someone 'pedo' style and that person ends up dead, of course their is going to be scrutiny placed on you.

He stopped following Martin. in fact he kept talking to the dispatcher and have the police meet him by his truck.

[husker_99]

I don't think race was the most pressing issue in this case, while it sad that an innocent kid was followed by an adult and shot. I think the most pressing issue about this case is at what point can someone use deadly force.

 

I'm pretty sure many of us have seen or been involved in a fight, and regardless of who was in the wrong for starting the fight it was always a 'no-no' to pull out a gun. And in most cases I've seen if a person pulls out a gun, they usually get charged with something.

 

I think the decision sets a horrible precedent that if you are in a fight, and feel threatened you can kill someone.

so zimmerman should've let martin bash his head into the sidewalk? 17 year old isn't a kid anymore. not when 18 you are legally an adult.

so 17 is still a kid, then.

 

zimmerman should have stayed in his vehicle. pretty simple. however, the prosecution did not have enough evidence, so zimmerman should have been acquitted. but that does not make what he did and how he behaved right.

 

the other precedent is that you if you are going to use force, use deadly force. because then you do not have to worry about anymore witnesses.

no 17 is at least late teen stage. Zimmerman went back to his vehicle after the dispatcher told him they didn't need him to follow martin. Martin came back. sorry but you can kill someone bashing their head into a sidewalk and if not that brain injury. Before this trial even started Zimmerman was painted as the villain. So Zimmerman national perception was that he killed an black teenage boy. Hell they can't even get it right that he is hispanic not white.

no one is disputing that you can kill a person by bashing their head into the ground, but that is only relevant because the is the only survivor's testimony and that survivor could have left the scene or stayed in the safety of his vehicle.

 

the nation perception was that zimmerman killed a black teenage boy because zimmerman killed a black teenage boy. and whether he was white or hispanic, he was equally capable of profiling. whether he did or did not, the point still stands that zimmerman could have easily avoided this by using better judgment, but he did not and now a person is dead. hard to take the side of the guy with a gun in a fight, especially when that person approached the person he found suspicious. reasonable people do not approach people they find suspicious and they do not feel threatened when they are the only one with a gun.

well Martin could've kept walking to the house he was going to. The only reason a 17 year old kid goes back is because he thinks he can take on the guy.

[sd'sker]

well Martin could've kept walking to the house he was going to. The only reason a 17 year old kid goes back is because he thinks he can take on the guy.

he was just acting in self-defense.

[husker_99]

well Martin could've kept walking to the house he was going to. The only reason a 17 year old kid goes back is because he thinks he can take on the guy.

he was just acting in self-defense.

No sorry if you go back it's not self-defense. That's an aggressor.