Black teen shot and killed by neighborhood watch in Orlando gated community

[valo403]

Originally Posted by blankall

We don't know that at all.

The 9/11 call has Zimmerman being told not to pursue and then responding "okay". Zimmerman says that Martin ran away. You can hear a the sound of a walking cell phone (wind hitting the receiver), then when they ask him to stop, that sound ends a few moments later. You can clearly hear in the 911 call that Zimerman is not running.

We don't even know if Zimmerman asked Martin any questions. There is a total gap in evidence between the time Zimmerman ended the 911 call and witnesses saw Martin on top of Zimmerman.

We don't know what at all? I didn't even provide a scenario, I don't know what happened. I know exactly what you just laid out. He was told not to. He did anyways. While armed.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by valo403

I think we know the way it works, at least most of us, what I'm saying is that I don't like it. If you initiate a confrontation while armed you should not get the benefit of pleading self defense when you kill someone with that weapon, or at the very least should have the onus put on you to prove the need to use deadly force, rather than being placed on the state.

And someone following you can certainly be responded to with physical violence in certain circumstances. You are not required to wait for someone to attack you.

Once again, I'm going to question what you mean by initiate. The simple fact is no one, besides Zimmerman, knows what happened. If Zimmerman, the appointed captain of the neighbourhood watch on private property, is asking Martin what he is doing that does not give Martin the right to break Zimmerman's nose.

For all we know, much more could have gone on. Perhaps Zimmerman threatened, shoved, or punched Martin. The prosecution still has to prove that. Maybe Zimmerman did get away with murder; he's the only one who really knows.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by valo403

We don't know what at all? I didn't even provide a scenario, I don't know what happened. I know exactly what you just laid out. He was told not to. He did anyways. While armed.

This:

Originally Posted by valo403

At the very least Zimmerman was instructed not to confront Martin and decided to do so anyways, while armed.

We don't know that Zimmerman confronted Martin. The 911 call suggests that Zimmerman gave up his chase. What happened next is what no one knows but Zimmerman.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by blankall

This:





We don't know that Zimmerman confronted Martin. The 911 call suggests that Zimmerman gave up his chase. What happened next is what no one knows but Zimmerman.

So you're suggesting that Zimmerman pursued Martin, gave up his chase and turned back to his car and was then jumped? And your basis for this is what?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by blankall

Once again, I'm going to question what you mean by initiate. The simple fact is no one, besides Zimmerman, knows what happened. If Zimmerman, the appointed captain of the neighbourhood watch on private property, is asking Martin what he is doing that does not give Martin the right to break Zimmerman's nose.

For all we know, much more could have gone on. Perhaps Zimmerman threatened, shoved, or punched Martin. The prosecution still has to prove that. Maybe Zimmerman did get away with murder; he's the only one who really knows.

Does this encounter occur if not for the actions of George Zimmerman, actions that he was expressly instructed not to engage in by the operator, yes or no?

[blankall]

Originally Posted by valo403

Does this encounter occur if not for the actions of George Zimmerman, actions that he was expressly instructed not to engage in by the operator, yes or no?

What actions? The operator tells Zimmerman to stop his pursuit. He then says "okay". Zimmerman tells the operator that Martin is running. You can clearly hear on the 911 call that Zimmerman was not running.

According to Zimmerman, he then went back to his car, at which point he was attacked.

There is zero evidence that Zimmerman engaged anyone. There is zero evidence that Zimmerman did anything but head back to his car as instructed. That's the issue here, evidence. There is no evidence between the time the 911 call ends and witnesses see Martin on top of Zimmerman.

As for your quetions about whether the death occurs regardless of someone's actions, that's ridiculous. They don't occur if Martin doesn't get skittles. They don't occur if Martin's mother doesn't give birth to him. It's not a case of a leading to b. It's a case of who broke the law, and the prosecution has to prove beyond a resonable doubt it was Martin.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by valo403

So you're suggesting that Zimmerman pursued Martin, gave up his chase and turned back to his car and was then jumped? And your basis for this is what?

What's your basis for any other explanation?

I wasn't saying that's my story. That's Zimmerman's story. And it's up to the prosecution to prove their story beyond a reasonable doubt.

My point is there is no evidence between the time the 911 call ends and the witnesses see Martin on top of Zimmerman. I have stated that several times.

[Igottago]

I think the bottom line is, the laws were correctly applied in this case. The legal process got it right.

But as a society, they have it so, so wrong. The laws themselves are illogical. Just more compelling evidence that Americans really need to rethink their relationship with guns. Its downright disturbing and borderline psychotic.

Totally unneccessary loss of a young life.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by blankall

What's your basis for any other explanation?

I wasn't saying that's my story. That's Zimmerman's story. And it's up to the prosecution to prove their story beyond a reasonable doubt.

My point is there is no evidence between the time the 911 call ends and the witnesses see Martin on top of Zimmerman. I have stated that several times.

And my point is that believing that to be gospel is foolish

[valo403]

Originally Posted by blankall

What actions? The operator tells Zimmerman to stop his pursuit. He then says "okay". Zimmerman tells the operator that Martin is running. You can clearly hear on the 911 call that Zimmerman was not running.

According to Zimmerman, he then went back to his car, at which point he was attacked.

There is zero evidence that Zimmerman engaged anyone. There is zero evidence that Zimmerman did anything but head back to his car as instructed. That's the issue here, evidence. There is no evidence between the time the 911 call ends and witnesses see Martin on top of Zimmerman.

As for your quetions about whether the death occurs regardless of someone's actions, that's ridiculous. They don't occur if Martin doesn't get skittles. They don't occur if Martin's mother doesn't give birth to him. It's not a case of a leading to b. It's a case of who broke the law, and the prosecution has to prove beyond a resonable doubt it was Martin.

I knew you would run to this, it's the easy out.

It's a question of proximate cause. Were Zimmerman's actions the proximate cause of the confrontation? I see absolutely no way that anyone can credibly answer no to that question.

I don't need you to spell out the evidentiary standard, we aren't talking about obtaining a criminal conviction here. As I said, we know what the law is, I am taking issue with the fact that it allows this to take place.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by valo403

And my point is that believing that to be gospel is foolish

But the law doesn't allow anything else. There's no evidence that Zimmerman actually confronted or talked to Martin prior to the incidence that lead to Martin on top of Zimmerman. There's evidence that Zimmerman followed, there's evidence that he was told to stop and return to his vehicle and he agreed to it and was walking.



Everything else is speculation, and you can't convict on that.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by valo403

And my point is that believing that to be gospel is foolish

Are you purposely being dense?

Are you saying that on the dispatch call, the dispatcher told him "we don't need you to do that", he responds "okay", then stays with the operator for a couple more minutes giving the dispatcher more information (this is INDISPUTABLE FACT - http://www.documentcloud.org/documen...zimmerman.html) = Disobeying the dispatcher, and chasing Trayvon down?

Seriously. Read the transcript. It even says "I don't know where he is".

[valo403]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

But the law doesn't allow anything else. There's no evidence that Zimmerman actually confronted or talked to Martin prior to the incidence that lead to Martin on top of Zimmerman. There's evidence that Zimmerman followed, there's evidence that he was told to stop and return to his vehicle and he agreed to it and was walking.



Everything else is speculation, and you can't convict on that.

Again, I am not at all discussing the requirements to convict, nor that speculation is admissible as factual evidence.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Regorium

Are you purposely being dense?

Are you saying that on the dispatch call, the dispatcher told him "we don't need you to do that", he responds "okay", then stays with the operator for a couple more minutes giving the dispatcher more information (this is INDISPUTABLE FACT - http://www.documentcloud.org/documen...zimmerman.html) = Disobeying the dispatcher, and chasing Trayvon down?

Seriously. Read the transcript. It even says "I don't know where he is".

We're discussing events that happened following the end of that call. Thanks though.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by valo403

We're discussing events that happened following the end of that call. Thanks though.

By that logic, the only event that we can really discuss would be the witness claiming he saw Martin on top of Zimmerman beating on him.

Everything else (myself included) is just imagination to back a theory.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Igottago

I think the bottom line is, the laws were correctly applied in this case. The legal process got it right.

But as a society, they have it so, so wrong. The laws themselves are illogical. Just more compelling evidence that Americans really need to rethink their relationship with guns. Its downright disturbing and borderline psychotic.

Totally unneccessary loss of a young life.

Their self defence laws are very similar to our own.

I agree though that the issue is gun control and carrying concealed weapons.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by valo403

I knew you would run to this, it's the easy out.

It's a question of proximate cause. Were Zimmerman's actions the proximate cause of the confrontation? I see absolutely no way that anyone can credibly answer no to that question.

I don't need you to spell out the evidentiary standard, we aren't talking about obtaining a criminal conviction here. As I said, we know what the law is, I am taking issue with the fact that it allows this to take place.

My point was your concept of causation was irrelevant, even if you qualify it with the word "proximate". Zimmerman is allowed to approach a stranger in his privately gated community. He's even allowed to do it in public. He hasn't broken a single law in doing so.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

By that logic, the only event that we can really discuss would be the witness claiming he saw Martin on top of Zimmerman beating on him.

Everything else (myself included) is just imagination to back a theory.

I'm lost.

He hangs up the phone and then at some point in the intervening time period the altercation occurs and eventually Martin winds up on top of Zimmerman, and is then shot. I'm discussing that intervening time period, the only account of which is Zimmerman's, as the only other possible account is that of a dead person. I'm not inclined to believe Zimmerman's story, nor would I be inclined to believe Martin's story had he been the only one alive.

I find it very hard to believe that following the conclusion of that call Zimmerman, who was described as having a hero complex, simply sat around waiting for the cops at which point he was jumped by Martin.

I don't find at all hard to believe that Zimmerman continued to search around, at which point he encountered Martin and the altercation took place.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by blankall

My point was your concept of causation was irrelevant, even if you qualify it with the word "proximate". Zimmerman is allowed to approach a stranger in his privately gated community. He's even allowed to do it in public. He hasn't broken a single law in doing so.

Where exactly have I argued otherwise?

Conversely, if he approaches a stranger in a private gated community, or in public, in a manner that causes that stranger to reasonably fear immediate harm they have not broken a single law in responding to that threat with physical force.

My position is that if you're going to be approaching people while armed, and then use that weapon in claimed self defense the onus showed fall upon you to prove the need to use deadly force, not upon the prosecution.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by valo403

I'm lost.

He hangs up the phone and then at some point in the intervening time period the altercation occurs and eventually Martin winds up on top of Zimmerman, and is then shot. I'm discussing that intervening time period, the only account of which is Zimmerman's, as the only other possible account is that of a dead person. I'm not inclined to believe Zimmerman's story, nor would I be inclined to believe Martin's story had he been the only one alive.

I find it very hard to believe that following the conclusion of that call Zimmerman, who was described as having a hero complex, simply sat around waiting for the cops at which point he was jumped by Martin.

I don't find at all hard to believe that Zimmerman continued to search around, at which point he encountered Martin and the altercation took place.

What are you basing this on though? You describing Zimmerman as a guy with a "hero complex" is no different than other posters describing Martin as a weed smoking thug. Neither characterization is relevant. All that's relevant is the evidence of what actually happened.

In either case, it's just an assassination of character. None of us know any of these people.