daaaamn
― the late great, Wednesday, 16 May 2012 15:36 (1 year ago) Permalink
so, yes, there was a fight. GZ was losing or lost it, then shot TM.
― goole, Wednesday, 16 May 2012 15:39 (1 year ago) Permalink
not great news for the prosecution :(
― The term or title antichrist, in Christian theology, refers to (contenderizer), Wednesday, 16 May 2012 15:43 (1 year ago) Permalink
my prediction is that the judge and defense will tell the jurors over and over again "your job is bit to decide whether shooting tm was wrong but if it was breaking the letter of the law"
and then it will be an argument about the exact wording of feeling threatened that prosecution will lose
― the late great, Wednesday, 16 May 2012 16:44 (1 year ago) Permalink
i don't know if it's even as difficult as that. seems that the defense just has to suggest that the incident takes place in two "acts" that should be considered independently: act 1) zimmerman's decision to follow and confront martin, and act 2) the subsequent struggle that led to zimmerman shooting martin.
even if zimmerman was "wrong" to follow and confront martin in act 1, he doesn't seem to have broken any major laws there. in act 2, if martin really did start beating zimmerman up for whatever reason, even if only because he was scared by zimmerman's behavior (and we'll never really know), then zimmerman was legally justified in shooting martin to defend himself.
― The term or title antichrist, in Christian theology, refers to (contenderizer), Wednesday, 16 May 2012 16:54 (1 year ago) Permalink
^ not saying this is right or what should happen, just think that this is probably how the defense will handle it.
― The term or title antichrist, in Christian theology, refers to (contenderizer), Wednesday, 16 May 2012 16:55 (1 year ago) Permalink
i wonder if they could even have the case dismissed on those grounds
― the late great, Wednesday, 16 May 2012 17:30 (1 year ago) Permalink
depends on the order of events
a) fight breaks out, GZ pulls his gun during and shootsb) fight breaks out, GZ pulls his gun, TM backs away, GZ shoots anywayb) fight breaks out, fight basically ends, GZ gets up, pulls his gun and shoots
i mean, any number of scenarios fit the facts. b and c aren't really self-defense anymore (whether they still are legally, idk)
― goole, Wednesday, 16 May 2012 18:02 (1 year ago) Permalink
and the timeline if i'm remembering it right is 'fight,' 'zimmerman goes back to his truck to get gun,' shooting
― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Wednesday, 16 May 2012 20:37 (1 year ago) Permalink
ah yes, by his own admission?
eh i'm really sick of speculating about this myself
― goole, Wednesday, 16 May 2012 20:37 (1 year ago) Permalink
that wasn't my understanding, but maybe i've missed something. i was under the impression that zimmerman's story is that he shot martin while martin was on top of and still attacking him.
― The term or title antichrist, in Christian theology, refers to (contenderizer), Wednesday, 16 May 2012 20:42 (1 year ago) Permalink
yeah i agree w/ aero & DJP on this one. again, even with that account, we probably know less than the jury did
― dharunravir (k3vin k.), Sunday, May 13, 2012
based on my limited experience of jury service, we probably know more
― all yoga attacks are fire based (rogermexico.), Thursday, 17 May 2012 14:33 (1 year ago) Permalink
Wouldn't the 'stand your ground' law apply to TM? Regardless of if he even started the fight or what, it seems like a law that says "You can defend yourself if threatened, to the point of fatally shooting the threat" would apply if you were being followed around by a gun-toting guy in a car and then pursued on foot.
― Emperor Cos Dashit (Adam Bruneau), Thursday, 17 May 2012 17:04 (1 year ago) Permalink
yeah, i think you're right. martin probably had a legal right to defend himself against the threat seemingly posed by zimmerman. and if martin took advantage of that permission, then it gave zimmerman the legal right to defend himself against martin. "stand your ground" seems to provide a legal excuse for war in the streets.
― The term or title antichrist, in Christian theology, refers to (contenderizer), Thursday, 17 May 2012 17:40 (1 year ago) Permalink
this conversation is exactly why this law is so fucked up (that is, self-cancelling).
― flesh, the devil, and a wolf (wolf) (amateurist), Thursday, 17 May 2012 18:16 (1 year ago) Permalink
Ah, but does that law make it OK to hit people or only shoot them? These distinctions are very important!
― Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 17 May 2012 18:33 (1 year ago) Permalink
if shooting is okay i find it tough to believe that less than lethal forms of self defense wouldn't be, but idk the stand your ground laws are some nonsense to begin with
― arby's, Thursday, 17 May 2012 18:46 (1 year ago) Permalink
IIRC, you can shoot anyone in defense who is attacking you with a blunt or sharp instrument, but it's against the law to defend yourself with anything but a gun.
Actually, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the the law is that fucking stupid.
― Bob Bop Perano (Deric W. Haircare), Thursday, 17 May 2012 18:55 (1 year ago) Permalink
I can imagine the myopic gun lobby shills that wrote the law were probably all "who cares about anything other than guns? If everyone carried a gun, you wouldn't need to punch, so problem solved!"
― Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 17 May 2012 18:58 (1 year ago) Permalink
cue scene from raiders of the lost ark
― flesh, the devil, and a wolf (wolf) (amateurist), Thursday, 17 May 2012 18:59 (1 year ago) Permalink
what about when you're out of ammo
oh i guess switch to chainsaw
― good men like my father, or president truman (difficult listening hour), Thursday, 17 May 2012 18:59 (1 year ago) Permalink
Then you throw the gun at them. Haven't you ever seen a gangster movie?
― i love the large auns pictures! (Phil D.), Thursday, 17 May 2012 19:04 (1 year ago) Permalink
If chainsaws were outlawed, only outlaws would carry chainsaws.
― Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 17 May 2012 19:04 (1 year ago) Permalink
I wouldn't be surprised if the gun lobby tried to make it illegal to throw away a gun, at someone or otherwise.
― Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 17 May 2012 19:06 (1 year ago) Permalink
Even Superman knows that it's when they throw the gun that you're in the most danger.
― i love the large auns pictures! (Phil D.), Thursday, 17 May 2012 19:09 (1 year ago) Permalink
omg so fake that dudes head would have exploded like a watermelon getting hit if superman hit him IRL
― the late great, Thursday, 17 May 2012 20:42 (1 year ago) Permalink
― Bob Bop Perano (Deric W. Haircare), Thursday, May 17, 2012 2:55 PM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
Considering knives and squirt guns -- but not concealed firearms -- are banned for the GOP convention, I wouldn't be surprised either.
― Tarfumes The Escape Goat, Thursday, 17 May 2012 21:06 (1 year ago) Permalink
the leaks in this are insane, totally benefiting the defense
― Roger Barfing (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 17 May 2012 22:16 (1 year ago) Permalink
Trayvon was high
So legally, you must bring a gun to a knife fight?
― Andrew Farrell, Thursday, 17 May 2012 22:17 (1 year ago) Permalink
Trayvon Martin: world's first violent pot smoker.
― Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 17 May 2012 22:26 (1 year ago) Permalink
Man, case closed. I saw Reefer Madness. That mary jane turns you into a raving maniac.
― Bob Bop Perano (Deric W. Haircare), Thursday, 17 May 2012 22:27 (1 year ago) Permalink
the drug THC
― ♆ (gr8080), Thursday, 17 May 2012 22:50 (1 year ago) Permalink
the drug thx
― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Thursday, 17 May 2012 22:54 (1 year ago) Permalink
americans need to figure out a special way to spell the word "drug" so that it has fangs and blood dripping from it
― The term or title antichrist, in Christian theology, refers to (contenderizer), Thursday, 17 May 2012 22:55 (1 year ago) Permalink
drugula
― pet tommy & the barkhaters (darraghmac), Thursday, 17 May 2012 23:10 (1 year ago) Permalink
This isn't going to go the right way, is it?
― windborne grey frogs (dowd), Friday, 18 May 2012 01:02 (1 year ago) Permalink
there is no right way
― twittering spinster (k3vin k.), Friday, 18 May 2012 01:05 (1 year ago) Permalink
My takeaway of this is that Captain Crime Watch reported the kid to the police, they told him they would handle it and to stand down but he decided to take more intiative. He followed the kid in his car and either he exited the vehicle to confront the kid or the kid confronted him about why he was being followed. The confrontation got physical, the kid was giving it to him good and in the midst of the melee he pulls out his gun shoots the kid. Does that jibe with the facts? Anything I'm missing.
― All kinds of heinous things, Friday, 18 May 2012 01:49 (1 year ago) Permalink
really good summation All kinds of heinous things, thanks for the post.
― J0rdan S., Friday, 18 May 2012 01:49 (1 year ago) Permalink
What frustrates me is, if Z gets away with this law why don't women who kill their partners in self defense after years of beatings, threats etc? How many times must a woman go to the authorities and say "I am in fear of my fucking LIFE here" and be ignored til shes forced to take matters into her own hands, but when she does, it seems mostly she goes to jail as a result? But one white guy chases down one black kid ONCE, kills him because hes being attacked (if true) and thats ok? FFS.
― Pureed Moods (Trayce), Friday, 18 May 2012 11:47 (1 year ago) Permalink
That happens all the time, in Hollywood.
― Josh in Chicago, Friday, 18 May 2012 12:54 (1 year ago) Permalink
― Josh in Chicago, Friday, 18 May 2012 12:55 (1 year ago) Permalink
― Josh in Chicago, Friday, 18 May 2012 12:56 (1 year ago) Permalink
Jordan when you were in preschool what sort of grade did you get in the "plays well with others" category?
― a parker full of poseys (Stevie D(eux)), Friday, 18 May 2012 12:56 (1 year ago) Permalink
What frustrates me is, if Z gets away with this law why don't women who kill their partners in self defense after years of beatings, threats etc? How many times must a woman go to the authorities and say "I am in fear of my fucking LIFE here" and be ignored til shes forced to take matters into her own hands, but when she does, it seems mostly she goes to jail as a result? But one white guy chases down one black kid ONCE, kills him because hes being attacked (if true) and thats ok? FFS. --Pureed Moods (Trayce)
Just happened last week in FL as a matter of fact, woman sentenced to years for firing a warning shot.
― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Friday, 18 May 2012 14:16 (1 year ago) Permalink
This is fucked up. Way to be assholes.
http://www.egotripland.com/trayvoning-internet-fad/
― EZ Snappin, Friday, 25 May 2012 21:25 (1 year ago) Permalink
ugh
― The Reverend, Friday, 25 May 2012 22:09 (1 year ago) Permalink
someone should stomp on that motherfucker's head.
― flesh, the devil, and a wolf (wolf) (amateurist), Friday, 25 May 2012 22:11 (1 year ago) Permalink
or how about not
― The Reverend, Saturday, 26 May 2012 06:55 (1 year ago) Permalink