Black Teen Shot 3

Off Topic
441

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Loudog75 wrote:
Zimmerman was essentially a self employed security guard.

99% of all security guards go to work with a flashlight and a notebook. Their job - Observe and Report.

Zimmerman decided to take his gun to work that day. Wrong decision!! Now he should be liable. If they don’t get him for manslaughter I believe they’ll take the rest of his life financially in civil court.

I can’t believe you guys are all still arguing for his innocense.

GUILTY!!![/quote]

This is a very complicated case, Louddog. You know, a lotta ins, lotta outs, lotta what-have-you’s. And, uh, lotta strands to keep in mind, man.

But here’s a quick summary of the discussion over the last 3 threads:[/quote]

The Pink Panther has ties to the criminal underworld and has been linked to jewel theft, so if the Little Man decided to shoot him for painting a pillar pink, he’s perfectly at liberty to do so.

442

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:

See that is my question. I’m not sure they have to prove he had the intent to shoot just that he knew he had the capability and a responsibility not to pursue. Does Stand Your ground or Self Defense cover Pursuit if No assault or Crime has occurred ?

The 911 shows Not only intent to pursue but an actual pursuit. It also shows a frame of mind for a confrontation “These assholes always get away”.

Add to this that Zimmerman knows he has the capability to stop Martin.

I’m just asking considering Martin is shot on the direction near his home and Zimmerman is blocks from his car, not on patrol, an no where near his house why would this not Damage a self defense position.[/quote]

“Pursuing” someone is not in and of itself illegal. If he were to continue doing it onto private property or over a period of time, or if asked to stop, or
something like that then it would fall under harassment or stalking or something similar. The point here is the WHY he pursued Trayvon is the important
question here. If it was to observe where he went and what he was up to in order to report it to the police, then that is not illegal. Wrong and stupid, yes, but being stupid is not illegal. If he intended to apprehend Trayvon and hold him until the police got there, that would have been illegal. If he intended to confront Trayvon after chasing him down, then yes Trayvon had a right to defend himself from the threat that Zimmerman represented. If Zimmerman had stopped chasing him and was going back to his vehicle, then Trayvon had no right to attack him at that point. We just plain do not know enough to know for certain (i.e. beyond a reasonable doubt) which of these, or another, scenario is what happened. If the physical evidence matches Zimmerman’s claims like the police seem to be saying, that is probably enough to make his case for self defense and it will be up to the prosecution to prove otherwise. Also, the fact that he had a gun is not really important either if he can actually make a decent argument for self defense. All carrying that gun meant is that he was exercising his constitutional right to bear arms, and his right to carry a concealed weapon through having a CCW permit. If it could be proven that he
chased after Trayvon with the intent to attack him, or detain him against his will, or assault him THEN the fact that he had a gun would become important.
[/quote]

It’s cases like this that are going to fuck up my much beloved gun rights. From what you are saying the only thing that is needed for Zimmerman to get off is his word.

Considering his car was around a corner and from the map over 2 blocks away it will always be a question what direction he was headed. But this does not seem to matter as long as Zimmerman says he was headed back.

I can’t say I agree with zimmermans intention not being a factor but I guess we will find out. I’m not a lawyer so I only have questions no real answers.

443

[quote]red04 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:

See that is my question. I’m not sure they have to prove he had the intent to shoot just that he knew he had the capability and a responsibility not to pursue. Does Stand Your ground or Self Defense cover Pursuit if No assault or Crime has occurred ?

The 911 shows Not only intent to pursue but an actual pursuit. It also shows a frame of mind for a confrontation “These assholes always get away”.

Add to this that Zimmerman knows he has the capability to stop Martin.

I’m just asking considering Martin is shot on the direction near his home and Zimmerman is blocks from his car, not on patrol, an no where near his house why would this not Damage a self defense position.[/quote]

I ahve to agree. Why would they need to prove “intent” beyond the clear fact that he was convinced this was a criminal, chased said criminal while stating “They always get away” which seems to imply he won’t let that happen again, and knew he had a gun on him.

If that isn’t “intent”, what does he need to do, literally say, “I iz gonna killz you”?[/quote]

A defense lawyer could just as easily argue that ‘they always get away’ implies Zimmerman’s knowledge that he doesn’t have the power to stop it from happening(not talking gun, talking legal), and that he should give up, turn around, and go back to his truck.[/quote]

I disagree because he said this BEFORE he got out the truck.

444

[quote]red04 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:

See that is my question. I’m not sure they have to prove he had the intent to shoot just that he knew he had the capability and a responsibility not to pursue. Does Stand Your ground or Self Defense cover Pursuit if No assault or Crime has occurred ?

The 911 shows Not only intent to pursue but an actual pursuit. It also shows a frame of mind for a confrontation “These assholes always get away”.

Add to this that Zimmerman knows he has the capability to stop Martin.

I’m just asking considering Martin is shot on the direction near his home and Zimmerman is blocks from his car, not on patrol, an no where near his house why would this not Damage a self defense position.[/quote]

I ahve to agree. Why would they need to prove “intent” beyond the clear fact that he was convinced this was a criminal, chased said criminal while stating

“They always get away” which seems to imply he won’t let that happen again, and knew he had a gun on him.

If that isn’t “intent”, what does he need to do, literally say, “I iz gonna killz you”?[/quote]

A defense lawyer could just as easily argue that ‘they always get away’ implies Zimmerman’s knowledge that he doesn’t have the power to stop it from happening(not talking gun, talking legal), and that he should give up, turn around, and go back to his truck.[/quote]

Except on the 911tape he makes that statement and continues to follow Martin. The operator ask Later after the “these assholes always get away” statement and other questions he ask Zim are you following him an Zim answers yes.

445

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Loudog75 wrote:
Zimmerman was essentially a self employed security guard.

99% of all security guards go to work with a flashlight and a notebook. Their job - Observe and Report.

Zimmerman decided to take his gun to work that day. Wrong decision!! Now he should be liable. If they don’t get him for manslaughter I believe they’ll take the rest of his life financially in civil court.

I can’t believe you guys are all still arguing for his innocense.

GUILTY!!![/quote]

This is a very complicated case, Louddog. You know, a lotta ins, lotta outs, lotta what-have-you’s. And, uh, lotta strands to keep in mind, man.

But here’s a quick summary of the discussion over the last 3 threads:[/quote]

The Pink Panther has ties to the criminal underworld and has been linked to jewel theft, so if the Little Man decided to shoot him for painting a pillar pink, he’s perfectly at liberty to do so.[/quote]
I’d shoot him for painting my pillar pink.

446

X: I agree with almost everything you said. I agree that Zim convinced himself that Martin was a criminal, that he overstepped his boundaries as a watchman, chased the kid because he thought he was suspicious (although it wasn’t within his power), and knew he was carrying a weapon legally. None of these are felonies to my knowledge, though.

If Zim had intent to kill (murder) then he would have shot Martin on sight. No fight would have taken place. It is unfathomable that Zim was out to kill Martin, decided to brawl instead, then decided to shoot after sustaining possible injuries.

The defense lawyer’s argument that red04 stated is legally sound but I don’t agree with that. X’s implication is more accurate, I think. Zimmerman’s intention to apprehend the kid is certainly a factor, but I cannot accept that Zimmerman intended to kill the kid when he left his truck. Of course, when he pulled out the weapon and pulled the trigger, his intention was clear. But this could have been in self defense. And here we are, full circle.

447

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Loudog75 wrote:
Zimmerman was essentially a self employed security guard.

99% of all security guards go to work with a flashlight and a notebook. Their job - Observe and Report.

Zimmerman decided to take his gun to work that day. Wrong decision!! Now he should be liable. If they don’t get him for manslaughter I believe they’ll take the rest of his life financially in civil court.

I can’t believe you guys are all still arguing for his innocense.

GUILTY!!![/quote]

This is a very complicated case, Louddog. You know, a lotta ins, lotta outs, lotta what-have-you’s. And, uh, lotta strands to keep in mind, man.

But here’s a quick summary of the discussion over the last 3 threads:[/quote]

The Pink Panther has ties to the criminal underworld and has been linked to jewel theft, so if the Little Man decided to shoot him for painting a pillar pink, he’s perfectly at liberty to do so.[/quote]
I’d shoot him for painting my pillar pink.[/quote]

If owner of pillar you are not, choice of color is not yours to make…hmmm…

448

[quote]njrusmc wrote:
X: I agree with almost everything you said. I agree that Zim convinced himself that Martin was a criminal, that he overstepped his boundaries as a watchman, chased the kid because he thought he was suspicious (although it wasn’t within his power), and knew he was carrying a weapon legally. None of these are felonies to my knowledge, though.

If Zim had intent to kill (murder) then he would have shot Martin on sight. No fight would have taken place. It is unfathomable that Zim was out to kill Martin, decided to brawl instead, then decided to shoot after sustaining possible injuries.

The defense lawyer’s argument that red04 stated is legally sound but I don’t agree with that. X’s implication is more accurate, I think. Zimmerman’s intention to apprehend the kid is certainly a factor, but I cannot accept that Zimmerman intended to kill the kid when he left his truck. Of course, when he pulled out the weapon and pulled the trigger, his intention was clear. But this could have been in self defense. And here we are, full circle.[/quote]

I don’t think zim wanted to kill. I am wondering if it matters.

Could Zimmerman have foreseen a confontation by following the kid as far as he did. And does Negligence play a part in the case. Is Zimmermans actions responsible for the confrontation that led up to Martins Death?

Does it matter?

449

The only reason intent to kill matters is that it differentiates between murder and manslaughter. Accidentally killing someone with your car while driving is manslaughter. Intent to kill is murder … I think that’s a good summary.

No doubt Zimmerman saw a conforntation. And as X said, he knew he had a gun, and he probably assumed the kid would have succumbed. Call me a pussy, but if a guy pulled a gun on me I’d let him empty my pockets, no questions asked. Just like when HG got robbed in the store, not worth dying over. But that’s besides the point.

Zim is no doubt responsible for the confrontation. If he hadn’t gotten out of his car, they never would have spoken. How did the discussion turn physical? Who struck first? That does matter.

Case 1:
Zim: I’m with the neighborhood watch. I find you suspicious and I’m calling the police.
Martin: I didn’t do anything, but OK.

Imagine that. Martin wouldn’t be in jail and Martin would be up to his eyeballs in a lawsuit. Zim is totally responsible for the aggression and Martin walks away the hero (and alive).

Case 2:
Zim: I’m with the neighborhood watch. I find you suspicious and I’m calling the police.
Martin: throws punch

Yea. You can see where this is going. This is why I think Martin hit first. Zim wanted to catch a bad guy (thinking he was a super badass) and when Martin resisted, Zim figured that indicated that Martin was guilty. Obviously false, of course.

450

This dosen’t sound like a kid who would provoke a fight…

451

[quote]four60 wrote:

[quote]njrusmc wrote:
X: I agree with almost everything you said. I agree that Zim convinced himself that Martin was a criminal, that he overstepped his boundaries as a watchman, chased the kid because he thought he was suspicious (although it wasn’t within his power), and knew he was carrying a weapon legally. None of these are felonies to my knowledge, though.

If Zim had intent to kill (murder) then he would have shot Martin on sight. No fight would have taken place. It is unfathomable that Zim was out to kill Martin, decided to brawl instead, then decided to shoot after sustaining possible injuries.

The defense lawyer’s argument that red04 stated is legally sound but I don’t agree with that. X’s implication is more accurate, I think. Zimmerman’s intention to apprehend the kid is certainly a factor, but I cannot accept that Zimmerman intended to kill the kid when he left his truck. Of course, when he pulled out the weapon and pulled the trigger, his intention was clear. But this could have been in self defense. And here we are, full circle.[/quote]

I don’t think zim wanted to kill. I am wondering if it matters.

Could Zimmerman have foreseen a confontation by following the kid as far as he did. And does Negligence play a part in the case. Is Zimmermans actions responsible for the confrontation that led up to Martins Death?

Does it matter?

[/quote]

It definitely matters if they want to charge him with murder 1. Doesn’t really matter if they charge him with manslaughter, which is most likely.

452

I think that photo is fake. The middle finger was photoshopped. Someone posted the original photo earlier.

453

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Loudog75 wrote:
Zimmerman was essentially a self employed security guard.

99% of all security guards go to work with a flashlight and a notebook. Their job - Observe and Report.

Zimmerman decided to take his gun to work that day. Wrong decision!! Now he should be liable. If they don’t get him for manslaughter I believe they’ll take the rest of his life financially in civil court.

I can’t believe you guys are all still arguing for his innocense.

GUILTY!!![/quote]

This is a very complicated case, Louddog. You know, a lotta ins, lotta outs, lotta what-have-you’s. And, uh, lotta strands to keep in mind, man.

But here’s a quick summary of the discussion over the last 3 threads:[/quote]

The Pink Panther has ties to the criminal underworld and has been linked to jewel theft, so if the Little Man decided to shoot him for painting a pillar pink, he’s perfectly at liberty to do so.[/quote]
I’d shoot him for painting my pillar pink.[/quote]

If owner of pillar you are not, choice of color is not yours to make…hmmm…[/quote]
What did I say?

454

[quote]Brett620 wrote:

This dosen’t sound like a kid who would provoke a fight…[/quote]

It doesn’t. It looks like a photo shopped picture, which it is just like many others floating around which are either photoshopped or of another kid all together.

the fact that guys like you are STILL posting the fake images without acknowledging this is harming to this kid’s image so the parents have every right to claim this as a smear of his character.

455

[quote]njrusmc wrote:
The only reason intent to kill matters is that it differentiates between murder and manslaughter. Accidentally killing someone with your car while driving is manslaughter. Intent to kill is murder … I think that’s a good summary.

No doubt Zimmerman saw a conforntation. And as X said, he knew he had a gun, and he probably assumed the kid would have succumbed. Call me a pussy, but if a guy pulled a gun on me I’d let him empty my pockets, no questions asked. Just like when HG got robbed in the store, not worth dying over. But that’s besides the point.

Zim is no doubt responsible for the confrontation. If he hadn’t gotten out of his car, they never would have spoken. How did the discussion turn physical? Who struck first? That does matter.

Case 1:
Zim: I’m with the neighborhood watch. I find you suspicious and I’m calling the police.
Martin: I didn’t do anything, but OK.

Imagine that. Martin wouldn’t be in jail and Martin would be up to his eyeballs in a lawsuit. Zim is totally responsible for the aggression and Martin walks away the hero (and alive).

Case 2:
Zim: I’m with the neighborhood watch. I find you suspicious and I’m calling the police.
Martin: throws punch

Yea. You can see where this is going. This is why I think Martin hit first. Zim wanted to catch a bad guy (thinking he was a super badass) and when Martin resisted, Zim figured that indicated that Martin was guilty. Obviously false, of course. [/quote]

Like I said Im no lawyer so these are just questions on my part.

If I aggravate or escalate the situation to a conflict or fight can I still claim self defense? Also why would we or should we believe Zimmerman would be so rational with questions to Martin. His frame of mind from the 911 tapes shows he seen Martin as a “Possible Drugged up Youth, who is acting weird and up to no good”. But in the scenario everyone post is of respect. Zimmermans 911 didn’t sound like he viewed Martin as high as some of the questions do.

And why would anyone expect Martin to act so calm with a person he Ran from. With no Uniform, badge, or any evidence of who he may be other than someone that made me run away?

456

[quote]four60 wrote:

And why would anyone expect Martin to act so calm with a person he Ran from. With no Uniform, badge, or any evidence of who he may be other than someone that made me run away?

[/quote]

Exactly. After being pursued by a guy without a uniform on, you can not fault the kid for defending himself. I am not going to allow someone to chase me and then calmly let them catch up to me with no expectation to have to fight for my life.

HE WAS NOT A COP IN UNIFORM…which means he was just a guy with a gun chasing a kid.

You don’t get to claim self defense after cornering someone with a weapon. That bullshit about going back to his car doesn’t even matter because he was far enough from his car that NO ONE would have known that but him.

That map also doesn’t support that. He was BLOCKS away from his car so who gives a shit if he simply turned in another direction after chasing someone that far.

Honestly…I don’t understand anyone defending Zimmerman.

457

Higher quality video of the released footage:

I definitely see a bump on the back of Zimmerman’s head. However that could just be the shape of his head.

458

550×830 36.2 KB

.

459

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:

It definitely matters if they want to charge him with murder 1. Doesn’t really matter if they charge him with manslaughter, which is most likely.
[/quote]

His intent was to stop the “criminal” from getting away.

he did that.

I would think intent was shown right there.

Bottom line, it does NOT look like he was beaten within an inch of his life so no, I do not believe for a second that he HAD to kill the kid to save his own life.

460

1440×900 131 KB

I do not see any damage to his nose.