Black Teen Shot 3

Off Topic
201

[quote]roscoedog2012 wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]Big_Boss wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:

[quote]Big_Boss wrote:

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:

[quote]thirdruffian wrote:

If you look at the article, it says the Stand Your Ground law didn’t even apply, because dumbass Zimmerman was already on the ground and couldn’t retreat.[/quote]

? I thought that would work in Zimmermans defense?[/quote]

No, the “Stand Your Ground” law merely added you don’t have to run away, if you have the ability to do so.

Here, dumbass was on the ground, so he couldn’t run away.

It’s just plain-old “self-defense.”[/quote]

Nothing is really “plain” in this incident. There are “if these things hold true” it’s just plain-old self-defense. Even with Stand Your Ground law…wouldn’t there still be a need to determine the aggressor before establishing who is justified in their self-defense3??

With that…couldn’t this Stand Your Ground law have justified Martin in defending himself…and putting Zimmerman on the ground in the first place…??? Of course there is the confusing “speculation” that Martin followed Zimmerman back to the vehicle. But it’s just that…speculation. [/quote]

Well this is why it stings so much for the family. The Defense (Zimmerman) does not have to show much of anything because the burden of proof is on the Prosecution.[/quote]

Very true…nothing to refute Zimmerman’s claims. But(IMO) there is enough to still hold him responsible in being careless and negligent…if the prosecution goes that route. [/quote]
I think it is easy to criticize in hindsight.

It’s not that weird to think a neighborhood watch captain would roll up to a suspicious outsider to ask who he is visiting.

It’s not weird to think Trayvon veered off as he pulled up.

It’s not weird to think Trayvon avoiding a question appeared even more suspicious.

It’s not weird to think Zimmerman exited his car to identify himself and ask his question.

Or that Trayvon took off running and Zimmerman headed back to his car.

Or that Trayvon, shown to have authority issues in general, attacked and brought us to the situation at hand.[/quote]

First I will admit that I did not read the volumes of prior post. The level of response to an “attack” has to be in line with the attack. If I pinch you your response should not be to shoot me. Not sure if anyone has said it yet but does anyone really recognize a watch person as being a person of authority to even make me stop and talk to them. Legally you have no authority as a watch person. Yes as it has been said over and over. No one knows what really happened. Does it seem this guy went way overboard? YES[/quote]

Legally speaking, there’s no evidence that Zimmerman stepped outside the legal boundaries of a regular citizen.

202

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]roscoedog2012 wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]Big_Boss wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:

[quote]Big_Boss wrote:

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:

[quote]thirdruffian wrote:

If you look at the article, it says the Stand Your Ground law didn’t even apply, because dumbass Zimmerman was already on the ground and couldn’t retreat.[/quote]

? I thought that would work in Zimmermans defense?[/quote]

No, the “Stand Your Ground” law merely added you don’t have to run away, if you have the ability to do so.

Here, dumbass was on the ground, so he couldn’t run away.

It’s just plain-old “self-defense.”[/quote]

Nothing is really “plain” in this incident. There are “if these things hold true” it’s just plain-old self-defense. Even with Stand Your Ground law…wouldn’t there still be a need to determine the aggressor before establishing who is justified in their self-defense3??

With that…couldn’t this Stand Your Ground law have justified Martin in defending himself…and putting Zimmerman on the ground in the first place…??? Of course there is the confusing “speculation” that Martin followed Zimmerman back to the vehicle. But it’s just that…speculation. [/quote]

Well this is why it stings so much for the family. The Defense (Zimmerman) does not have to show much of anything because the burden of proof is on the Prosecution.[/quote]

Very true…nothing to refute Zimmerman’s claims. But(IMO) there is enough to still hold him responsible in being careless and negligent…if the prosecution goes that route. [/quote]
I think it is easy to criticize in hindsight.

It’s not that weird to think a neighborhood watch captain would roll up to a suspicious outsider to ask who he is visiting.

It’s not weird to think Trayvon veered off as he pulled up.

It’s not weird to think Trayvon avoiding a question appeared even more suspicious.

It’s not weird to think Zimmerman exited his car to identify himself and ask his question.

Or that Trayvon took off running and Zimmerman headed back to his car.

Or that Trayvon, shown to have authority issues in general, attacked and brought us to the situation at hand.[/quote]

First I will admit that I did not read the volumes of prior post. The level of response to an “attack” has to be in line with the attack. If I pinch you your response should not be to shoot me. Not sure if anyone has said it yet but does anyone really recognize a watch person as being a person of authority to even make me stop and talk to them. Legally you have no authority as a watch person. Yes as it has been said over and over. No one knows what really happened. Does it seem this guy went way overboard? YES[/quote]

Legally speaking, there’s no evidence that Zimmerman stepped outside the legal boundaries of a regular citizen. [/quote]

I agree.

It was Dumb, reckless without thinking of “WHAT COULD HAPPEN”. But I’m can’t say he broke any laws.

Even though I wish I could make that statement.

203

[quote]four60 wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]roscoedog2012 wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]Big_Boss wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:

[quote]Big_Boss wrote:

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:

[quote]thirdruffian wrote:

If you look at the article, it says the Stand Your Ground law didn’t even apply, because dumbass Zimmerman was already on the ground and couldn’t retreat.[/quote]

? I thought that would work in Zimmermans defense?[/quote]

No, the “Stand Your Ground” law merely added you don’t have to run away, if you have the ability to do so.

Here, dumbass was on the ground, so he couldn’t run away.

It’s just plain-old “self-defense.”[/quote]

Nothing is really “plain” in this incident. There are “if these things hold true” it’s just plain-old self-defense. Even with Stand Your Ground law…wouldn’t there still be a need to determine the aggressor before establishing who is justified in their self-defense3??

With that…couldn’t this Stand Your Ground law have justified Martin in defending himself…and putting Zimmerman on the ground in the first place…??? Of course there is the confusing “speculation” that Martin followed Zimmerman back to the vehicle. But it’s just that…speculation. [/quote]

Well this is why it stings so much for the family. The Defense (Zimmerman) does not have to show much of anything because the burden of proof is on the Prosecution.[/quote]

Very true…nothing to refute Zimmerman’s claims. But(IMO) there is enough to still hold him responsible in being careless and negligent…if the prosecution goes that route. [/quote]
I think it is easy to criticize in hindsight.

It’s not that weird to think a neighborhood watch captain would roll up to a suspicious outsider to ask who he is visiting.

It’s not weird to think Trayvon veered off as he pulled up.

It’s not weird to think Trayvon avoiding a question appeared even more suspicious.

It’s not weird to think Zimmerman exited his car to identify himself and ask his question.

Or that Trayvon took off running and Zimmerman headed back to his car.

Or that Trayvon, shown to have authority issues in general, attacked and brought us to the situation at hand.[/quote]

First I will admit that I did not read the volumes of prior post. The level of response to an “attack” has to be in line with the attack. If I pinch you your response should not be to shoot me. Not sure if anyone has said it yet but does anyone really recognize a watch person as being a person of authority to even make me stop and talk to them. Legally you have no authority as a watch person. Yes as it has been said over and over. No one knows what really happened. Does it seem this guy went way overboard? YES[/quote]

Legally speaking, there’s no evidence that Zimmerman stepped outside the legal boundaries of a regular citizen. [/quote]

I agree.

It was Dumb, reckless without thinking of “WHAT COULD HAPPEN”. But I can’t say he broke any laws.

Even though I wish I could make that statement.[/quote]

I admire your level-headedness.

204

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:

[quote]DarkNinjaa wrote:
Funeral Director speaks out:

http://www.hlntv.com/video/2012/03/28/trayvon-martin-funeral-director-speaks[/quote]

If I was the Martin Family I would be pissed for this guy doing this. PISSED.

Not sure how his statements will help the family.[/quote]

I guess the idea is that Trayvon’s hands should show signs of having punched someone. [/quote]

What if he decked him with his bottle/can of tea and then started slamming his head into the ground? Then there would not likely be marks or bruises on his hands.

205

[quote]JLD2k3 wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:

[quote]DarkNinjaa wrote:
Funeral Director speaks out:

http://www.hlntv.com/video/2012/03/28/trayvon-martin-funeral-director-speaks[/quote]

If I was the Martin Family I would be pissed for this guy doing this. PISSED.

Not sure how his statements will help the family.[/quote]

I guess the idea is that Trayvon’s hands should show signs of having punched someone. [/quote]

What if he decked him with his bottle/can of tea and then started slamming his head into the ground? Then there would not likely be marks or bruises on his hands.[/quote]

But that tea would be all over the place. Have you seen a can of Arizona? its a brick.

206

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]roscoedog2012 wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]Big_Boss wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:

[quote]Big_Boss wrote:

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:

[quote]thirdruffian wrote:

If you look at the article, it says the Stand Your Ground law didn’t even apply, because dumbass Zimmerman was already on the ground and couldn’t retreat.[/quote]

? I thought that would work in Zimmermans defense?[/quote]

No, the “Stand Your Ground” law merely added you don’t have to run away, if you have the ability to do so.

Here, dumbass was on the ground, so he couldn’t run away.

It’s just plain-old “self-defense.”[/quote]

Nothing is really “plain” in this incident. There are “if these things hold true” it’s just plain-old self-defense. Even with Stand Your Ground law…wouldn’t there still be a need to determine the aggressor before establishing who is justified in their self-defense3??

With that…couldn’t this Stand Your Ground law have justified Martin in defending himself…and putting Zimmerman on the ground in the first place…??? Of course there is the confusing “speculation” that Martin followed Zimmerman back to the vehicle. But it’s just that…speculation. [/quote]

Well this is why it stings so much for the family. The Defense (Zimmerman) does not have to show much of anything because the burden of proof is on the Prosecution.[/quote]

Very true…nothing to refute Zimmerman’s claims. But(IMO) there is enough to still hold him responsible in being careless and negligent…if the prosecution goes that route. [/quote]
I think it is easy to criticize in hindsight.

It’s not that weird to think a neighborhood watch captain would roll up to a suspicious outsider to ask who he is visiting.

It’s not weird to think Trayvon veered off as he pulled up.

It’s not weird to think Trayvon avoiding a question appeared even more suspicious.

It’s not weird to think Zimmerman exited his car to identify himself and ask his question.

Or that Trayvon took off running and Zimmerman headed back to his car.

Or that Trayvon, shown to have authority issues in general, attacked and brought us to the situation at hand.[/quote]

First I will admit that I did not read the volumes of prior post. The level of response to an “attack” has to be in line with the attack. If I pinch you your response should not be to shoot me. Not sure if anyone has said it yet but does anyone really recognize a watch person as being a person of authority to even make me stop and talk to them. Legally you have no authority as a watch person. Yes as it has been said over and over. No one knows what really happened. Does it seem this guy went way overboard? YES[/quote]

Legally speaking, there’s no evidence that Zimmerman stepped outside the legal boundaries of a regular citizen. [/quote]

I was speaking more in line of justification of the reasonable force he used to stop any real or perceived attack if he is using self defense as his defense.

Reasonable Force:

Opinions differ on what constitutes reasonable force but, in all cases, the defendant does not have the right to determine what constitutes “reasonable force” because the defendant would always maintain they acted reasonably and thus would never be guilty

207

I hope at least if nothing at all, everyone is in agreement that Zimmerman should have stayed in his car…waited for police.

208

[quote]four60 wrote:

[quote]JLD2k3 wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:

[quote]DarkNinjaa wrote:
Funeral Director speaks out:

http://www.hlntv.com/video/2012/03/28/trayvon-martin-funeral-director-speaks[/quote]

If I was the Martin Family I would be pissed for this guy doing this. PISSED.

Not sure how his statements will help the family.[/quote]

I guess the idea is that Trayvon’s hands should show signs of having punched someone. [/quote]

What if he decked him with his bottle/can of tea and then started slamming his head into the ground? Then there would not likely be marks or bruises on his hands.[/quote]

But that tea would be all over the place. Have you seen a can of Arizona? its a brick.[/quote]

Would it? I don’t know. Was it a bottle or a can? Was it taken in as evidence? I’d like to know.

209

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
I think it is easy to criticize in hindsight.
[/quote]

210

[quote]JLD2k3 wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:

[quote]JLD2k3 wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:

[quote]DarkNinjaa wrote:
Funeral Director speaks out:

http://www.hlntv.com/video/2012/03/28/trayvon-martin-funeral-director-speaks[/quote]

If I was the Martin Family I would be pissed for this guy doing this. PISSED.

Not sure how his statements will help the family.[/quote]

I guess the idea is that Trayvon’s hands should show signs of having punched someone. [/quote]

What if he decked him with his bottle/can of tea and then started slamming his head into the ground? Then there would not likely be marks or bruises on his hands.[/quote]

But that tea would be all over the place. Have you seen a can of Arizona? its a brick.[/quote]

Would it? I don’t know. Was it a bottle or a can? Was it taken in as evidence? I’d like to know.[/quote]

I’ve only seen Arizona ice tea in a can. I HUGE can.

211

I would just like to thank this fucking wanna-be superhero for the “Trayvon Martin Bill” that will surely be introduced forthwith and with intention of destroying all rights to self defense. This asshat could have easily called the cops and gone the other direction, but no - he just had to save the day. People like this are the real threat to gun rights in this country.

212

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]roscoedog2012 wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]Big_Boss wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:

[quote]Big_Boss wrote:

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:

[quote]thirdruffian wrote:

If you look at the article, it says the Stand Your Ground law didn’t even apply, because dumbass Zimmerman was already on the ground and couldn’t retreat.[/quote]

? I thought that would work in Zimmermans defense?[/quote]

No, the “Stand Your Ground” law merely added you don’t have to run away, if you have the ability to do so.

Here, dumbass was on the ground, so he couldn’t run away.

It’s just plain-old “self-defense.”[/quote]

Nothing is really “plain” in this incident. There are “if these things hold true” it’s just plain-old self-defense. Even with Stand Your Ground law…wouldn’t there still be a need to determine the aggressor before establishing who is justified in their self-defense3??

With that…couldn’t this Stand Your Ground law have justified Martin in defending himself…and putting Zimmerman on the ground in the first place…??? Of course there is the confusing “speculation” that Martin followed Zimmerman back to the vehicle. But it’s just that…speculation. [/quote]

Well this is why it stings so much for the family. The Defense (Zimmerman) does not have to show much of anything because the burden of proof is on the Prosecution.[/quote]

Very true…nothing to refute Zimmerman’s claims. But(IMO) there is enough to still hold him responsible in being careless and negligent…if the prosecution goes that route. [/quote]
I think it is easy to criticize in hindsight.

It’s not that weird to think a neighborhood watch captain would roll up to a suspicious outsider to ask who he is visiting.

It’s not weird to think Trayvon veered off as he pulled up.

It’s not weird to think Trayvon avoiding a question appeared even more suspicious.

It’s not weird to think Zimmerman exited his car to identify himself and ask his question.

Or that Trayvon took off running and Zimmerman headed back to his car.

Or that Trayvon, shown to have authority issues in general, attacked and brought us to the situation at hand.[/quote]

First I will admit that I did not read the volumes of prior post. The level of response to an “attack” has to be in line with the attack. If I pinch you your response should not be to shoot me. Not sure if anyone has said it yet but does anyone really recognize a watch person as being a person of authority to even make me stop and talk to them. Legally you have no authority as a watch person. Yes as it has been said over and over. No one knows what really happened. Does it seem this guy went way overboard? YES[/quote]

Legally speaking, there’s no evidence that Zimmerman stepped outside the legal boundaries of a regular citizen. [/quote]

I agree.

It was Dumb, reckless without thinking of “WHAT COULD HAPPEN”. But I can’t say he broke any laws.

Even though I wish I could make that statement.[/quote]

I admire your level-headedness. [/quote]
x2

213

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:
Well it seems that is what the reporter was trying to hint at.

But why only ask about the hands and not the face or body other than the gunshot? Its leading. She is trying to show that the kid had no marks hinting that he didn’t punch so no attack (and we know this does not prove that).

If they are going to put information out put it all out not half. It leads the defense to say well see Martin’s body shows no sign that Zimmerman hit back. And it does not prove that either but it leaves gaps for people to fill in.

I would be pissed.[/quote]

I think that was Nancy Grace. She has a habit of doing that. She was chastised for it several times when she was a prosecutor. Rumor has it that she was on the verge of being disbarred when she “quit” to do TV. She is one of the most dishonest and biased people in the media. I would take anything she says or is said on her show with a grain of salt.
[/quote]
x2. And her fucking voice is an assault.

214

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:

[quote]DarkNinjaa wrote:
Funeral Director speaks out:

http://www.hlntv.com/video/2012/03/28/trayvon-martin-funeral-director-speaks[/quote]

If I was the Martin Family I would be pissed for this guy doing this. PISSED.

Not sure how his statements will help the family.[/quote]

I guess the idea is that Trayvon’s hands should show signs of having punched someone. [/quote]

I asked my wife about this and his hands should absolutely show some signs under specialized photography.

They may or may not show signs to the naked eye, however, because: (1) bruising needs a beating heart to pump blood and cause the bruise and he died promptly; (2) he’s a male and has less fat; and (3) the darker the skin, the less visible.

This is a link I found:

Medico-Legal Significance of Bruise [/quote]
…and 9 out of 10 times when you cut your knuckles in a fight it’s because you hit teeth, which evidently didn’t happen.

Did your wife mention potential injury on the palm of a hand grabbing a head and throwing it at the ground?

215

[quote]FrozenNinja wrote:
Since the law is so quick to believe Zimmerman’s story I fear that he’ll probably get off. Everyone is taking Zimmerman’s word as gospel and unless some pretty damning evidence comes out Zimmerman will probably be let go free.

People are saying that Trayvon, unarmed, attacked Zimmerman walking back to his truck. I find that hard to believe… That a teenager, unarmed would suddenly bumrush a threat that was wanning. [/quote]
The law still has a first hand, better grasp than us. Just sayin’.

216

[quote]Peter Pigsticker wrote:
I would just like to thank this fucking wanna-be superhero for the “Trayvon Martin Bill” that will surely be introduced forthwith and with intention of destroying all rights to self defense. This asshat could have easily called the cops and gone the other direction, but no - he just had to save the day. People like this are the real threat to gun rights in this country.[/quote]

X2 – Fuckin idiot, I need my guns! Obama can take away my freedom (obama-care and choice of health insurance) but he WILL NOT take my guns

217

[quote]h0nkey46 wrote:

[quote]Peter Pigsticker wrote:
I would just like to thank this fucking wanna-be superhero for the “Trayvon Martin Bill” that will surely be introduced forthwith and with intention of destroying all rights to self defense. This asshat could have easily called the cops and gone the other direction, but no - he just had to save the day. People like this are the real threat to gun rights in this country.[/quote]

X2 – Fuckin idiot, I need my guns! Obama can take away my freedom (obama-care and choice of health insurance) but he WILL NOT take my guns [/quote]

  • insert image of Texas Revolution “Come And Take It” flag here.
218

[quote]Peter Pigsticker wrote:
I would just like to thank this fucking wanna-be superhero for the “Trayvon Martin Bill” that will surely be introduced forthwith and with intention of destroying all rights to self defense. This asshat could have easily called the cops and gone the other direction, but no - he just had to save the day. People like this are the real threat to gun rights in this country.[/quote]

I agree

219

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:

[quote]DarkNinjaa wrote:
Funeral Director speaks out:

http://www.hlntv.com/video/2012/03/28/trayvon-martin-funeral-director-speaks[/quote]

If I was the Martin Family I would be pissed for this guy doing this. PISSED.

Not sure how his statements will help the family.[/quote]

I guess the idea is that Trayvon’s hands should show signs of having punched someone. [/quote]

I asked my wife about this and his hands should absolutely show some signs under specialized photography.

They may or may not show signs to the naked eye, however, because: (1) bruising needs a beating heart to pump blood and cause the bruise and he died promptly; (2) he’s a male and has less fat; and (3) the darker the skin, the less visible.

This is a link I found:

Medico-Legal Significance of Bruise [/quote]
…and 9 out of 10 times when you cut your knuckles in a fight it’s because you hit teeth, which evidently didn’t happen.

Did your wife mention potential injury on the palm of a hand grabbing a head and throwing it at the ground?[/quote]

No, I asked about bruising on the knuckles. She told me to stop fucking around on the computer so I can come home at a reasonable time.

220

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:

[quote]DarkNinjaa wrote:
Funeral Director speaks out:

http://www.hlntv.com/video/2012/03/28/trayvon-martin-funeral-director-speaks[/quote]

If I was the Martin Family I would be pissed for this guy doing this. PISSED.

Not sure how his statements will help the family.[/quote]

I guess the idea is that Trayvon’s hands should show signs of having punched someone. [/quote]

I asked my wife about this and his hands should absolutely show some signs under specialized photography.

They may or may not show signs to the naked eye, however, because: (1) bruising needs a beating heart to pump blood and cause the bruise and he died promptly; (2) he’s a male and has less fat; and (3) the darker the skin, the less visible.

This is a link I found:

Medico-Legal Significance of Bruise [/quote]
…and 9 out of 10 times when you cut your knuckles in a fight it’s because you hit teeth, which evidently didn’t happen.

Did your wife mention potential injury on the palm of a hand grabbing a head and throwing it at the ground?[/quote]

No, I asked about bruising on the knuckles. She told me to stop fucking around on the computer so I can come home at a reasonable time.[/quote]

LOL

Did you growl like Chewbacca?

lol