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

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by valo403

I'm not sure what impact it would have had on this trial, it certainly would have changed it but I don't know that it changes the ultimate result. At the very least it would have put a greater onus on Zimmerman to show that his fear was reasonable, not on the prosecution to show that it was unreasonable.

There's no science to that, one person's fear for his life is another persons another day another fist fight. Unless you can get technology to go back and read my brainwaves when my head's being based into concrete you can't really quantify it based on a rule book.

I'm sure that Zimmerman being straddled by a bigger taller person who's tagging him MMA style while wanging his head into the concrete enough to cause injuries might have felt to Zimmerman and a lot of people to feel like his life is in danger.

Unless your going to define by law that he has to have 6 inch lacerations and at least one fracture which would be stupid.

Your talking about a higher burden, does that mean that I have to have my intestines hanging out. OR I have to see my eye on the sidewalk, or I can't count to 10 before I'm allowed the notion of defense or a feeling that my life is in jeopardy?

Originally Posted by valo403

Ultimately it's really not about changing the outcome of this trial, it's about a policy that asks people who decide to carry loaded weapons to take on a greater level of responsibility. Heck, I'd also be for something that allowed a person who was highly trained to be given greater deference due to their training. Like I said before, my biggest goal is something that causes guns to be treated much more seriously than they are now.

To me training is relevant to the point, I'm probably a bigger gun control nut then anyone on this board, because I have a belief that either guns should be in the hands of actual true experts like the police and military who have to go through stringent background checks, mental health testing and training before they even get their hands on a gun. But under the current system, the chances of getting those changes are zero.

I've always thought that the way to get around it is for people to have to have fire arm insurance in order to buy a gun, and the premiums would be hideously expensive, but the payouts would be into the millions for causing death. To help with the flow, in order to buy bullets you would need to show your insurance card.

To me, that gets around the 2nd amendment, gives you a proper registry that could be privately funded and probably keeps guns out of a lot of hands due to affordability issue.

You can still buy weapons but you have to have insurance first.

Just my two cents.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by valo403

I also really enjoy that little fantasy scenario you constructed at the end there. What's your evidentiary basis for that? Oh what's that? Nothing at all. Just as I thought. We all have our theories, try not to present them as fact.

Nothing at all? While I agree he shouldn't have presented it as fact, to say there was nothing at all to back it up is pretty asinine considering what the defense argued their entire case on and they got off based on it....

I do think he brought up another good point. Martin was on his phone, while I understand there's many reasons he may not have called 911 instead of his girlfriend to tell her about that "creepy ass cracker" looking at him funny this could have all been avoided if he did.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

There's no science to that, one person's fear for his life is another persons another day another fist fight. Unless you can get technology to go back and read my brainwaves when my head's being based into concrete you can't really quantify it based on a rule book.

I'm sure that Zimmerman being straddled by a bigger taller person who's tagging him MMA style while wanging his head into the concrete enough to cause injuries might have felt to Zimmerman and a lot of people to feel like his life is in danger.

Unless your going to define by law that he has to have 6 inch lacerations and at least one fracture which would be stupid.

Your talking about a higher burden, does that mean that I have to have my intestines hanging out. OR I have to see my eye on the sidewalk, or I can't count to 10 before I'm allowed the notion of defense or a feeling that my life is in jeopardy?




To me training is relevant to the point, I'm probably a bigger gun control nut then anyone on this board, because I have a belief that either guns should be in the hands of actual true experts like the police and military who have to go through stringent background checks, mental health testing and training before they even get their hands on a gun. But under the current system, the chances of getting those changes are zero.

I've always thought that the way to get around it is for people to have to have fire arm insurance in order to buy a gun, and the premiums would be hideously expensive, but the payouts would be into the millions for causing death. To help with the flow, in order to buy bullets you would need to show your insurance card.

To me, that gets around the 2nd amendment, gives you a proper registry that could be privately funded and probably keeps guns out of a lot of hands due to affordability issue.

You can still buy weapons but you have to have insurance first.

Just my two cents.

Of course there's no science to it, that's what I've been saying. You have to analyze the totality of the circumstances, and two situations will never be the same.

It's not necessarily a higher burden, but a shifted burden, and it can work both ways.

If we go on the assumption that Zimmerman, while armed, pursued and confronted Martin (admittedly no evidence of this so it's purely a hypo) I'd like to see the law force the burden of showing that the fear was reasonable onto the pursuer in some situations, in particular where there is no basis for believing that immediate pursuit or confrontation are needed to prevent injury/death of another. On the flip side, I'd welcome a law that allowed someone who had received extensive training to perhaps be given a decreased burden under certain circumstances.

I like the insurance argument, not sure it would clear the 2nd Amendment as it could be seen as being too big of a hurdle, but it's the kind of thing I wish would be implemented.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Nothing at all? While I agree he shouldn't have presented it as fact, to say there was nothing at all to back it up is pretty asinine considering what the defense argued their entire case on and they got off based on it....

I do think he brought up another good point. Martin was on his phone, while I understand there's many reasons he may not have called 911 instead of his girlfriend to tell her about that "creepy ass cracker" looking at him funny this could have all been avoided if he did.

So the word of a guy who gets pinched for murder if his story doesn't paint him the right way? Yeah I'm not buying that. The truth likely lies somewhere between the two extremes, which is usually the case.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by valo403

So the word of a guy who gets pinched for murder if his story doesn't paint him the right way? Yeah I'm not buying that. The truth likely lies somewhere between the two extremes, which is usually the case.

That's not the same as "nothing at all." The trial presented more than "nothing" to suggest that Martin could have been the attacker. Including not only the defendants account, but evidence like the injuries and the 911 call where he said he would stop and you hear him stop. Is that enough evidence to say for sure? Absolutely not. But to say nothing at all is teetering to the point of arguing for arguing sake. Which is too bad because you bring up solid points in a lot of your posts and then go and say things like there was no evidence Martin attacked him first....

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

That's not the same as "nothing at all." The trial presented more than "nothing" to suggest that Martin could have been the attacker. Including not only the defendants account, but evidence like the injuries and the 911 call where he said he would stop and you hear him stop. Is that enough evidence to say for sure? Absolutely not. But to say nothing at all is teetering to the point of arguing for arguing sake. Which is too bad because you bring up solid points in a lot of your posts and then go and say things like there was no evidence Martin attacked him first....

It's pretty easy to make an argument when the only person who can rebut it is dead. I'm sorry, but I give Zimmerman's account zero weight.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by valo403

It's pretty easy to make an argument when the only person who can rebut it is dead. I'm sorry, but I give Zimmerman's account zero weight.

I understand not taking his word as gospel, but then where is the weight given? The one witness who was caught lying several times? And still said Trayvon called him a creepy ass cracker? Sure she was the last person to talk to Trayvon, she has to be given some weight.

But what about the medical record of injuries that suggest it was possible Zimmerman was the person attacked? What about the initial investigators that were satisfied with Zimmerman's self-defense plea? What about the 911 call where he is told not to follow him and he says okay (and you can clearly hear him stop running)? Those don't get any weight? Those aren't at least some evidence to believe Zimmerman's account?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

I understand not taking his word as gospel, but then where is the weight given? The one witness who was caught lying several times? And still said Trayvon called him a creepy ass cracker? Sure she was the last person to talk to Trayvon, she has to be given some weight.

But what about the medical record of injuries that suggest it was possible Zimmerman was the person attacked? What about the initial investigators that were satisfied with Zimmerman's self-defense plea? What about the 911 call where he is told not to follow him and he says okay (and you can clearly hear him stop running)? Those don't get any weight? Those aren't at least some evidence to believe Zimmerman's account?

I'm not sure how any of those have any relevance.

His stopping running may, but again that doesn't tell us anything about what happened after he hung up. His injuries don't tell us anything about how the confrontation occurred, they tell us that he lost once it did. The self defense plea has nothing to do with how the altercation was initiated, it has to do with Zimmerman's response once it began. What from the witnesses testimony leads you to believe that Martin jumped Zimmerman?

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by valo403

I'm not sure how any of those have any relevance.

You're not sure how evidence to suggest Zimmerman account is truthful has relevance?

Originally Posted by valo403

His stopping running may, but again that doesn't tell us anything about what happened after he hung up. His injuries don't tell us anything about how the confrontation occurred, they tell us that he lost once it did. The self defense plea has nothing to do with how the altercation was initiated, it has to do with Zimmerman's response once it began. What from the witnesses testimony leads you to believe that Martin jumped Zimmerman?

When the state's witness investigator Serino was asked if he thought Zimmerman was telling the truth and he responded "yes" I found that pretty telling. What from the witness testimony leads you to believe that Zimmerman jumped Martin?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

You're not sure how evidence to suggest Zimmerman account is truthful has relevance?


When the state's witness investigator Serino was asked if he thought Zimmerman was telling the truth and he responded "yes" I found that pretty telling. What from the witness testimony leads you to believe that Zimmerman jumped Martin?

What relevance do any of the things you pointed to have to how the altercation began? His injuries don't. His 911 call doesn't. His successful self defense plea doesn't. Point me to evidence that is relevant to how the altercation began.

Nothing about the testimony leads me to believe Zimmerman jumped Martin, it would be pretty tough for such evidence to exist given that the only person who could provide it is dead. The thing is, I don't have to believe the extreme opposite of Zimmerman's account to be true in order to give his account no weight. As I said, the truth lies somewhere in the middle, and only one person knows it.

[DiracSpike]

I gotta back valo here with the Zimmerman story, elements of it are likely true but I'm sure he also exaggerated and omitted a few facts. The truth is always in the middle, and there couldn't be more incentive for him to lie and cover his a$$. Keeping in mind we don't know the whole story definitively the jury made the right call according to the letter of the law. But for someone who was supposedly beat within an inch of his life, the photos of Zimmerman don't look that bad, he apparently didn't even go to the hospital for stitches. Additionally, he killed Martin with one clean shot to the heart, I understand heat of the moment and every thing but couldn't he have shot him in the leg? It would have been easier...

[robaur]

When you are in a street fight, let me know when you have the time to rationally evaluate, and the best decision...it doesn't exist. if you think it does, then you haven't been in enough fights. Your animal instincts pretty much take over and its pretty much "kill or be killed" ideology.

According to Florida Law, Zimmerman did not do anything wrong, and thus, the correct decision is Not Guilty.

Now if you want to argue that the laws should be changed, go for it and have your opinion heard. If you are even suggesting that it was the wrong decision by the jury, then you have truly drunk the media propaganda and not paid enough attention to the facts of the case.

Zimmerman should not have gotten out of the car...but he did....and thats not illegal. you can't charge him for getting out of his car.

When Zimmerman was getting pounded on by Martin, he could have easily thought that Martin might have a knife on him, and he would get stabbed. When you are in a fight, you never know what the other person is carrying. This is just the proper advice, and thats why you dont pick fights or get into them because one day you will get your ass kicked badly.

It was just Martin's unlucky day...he messed with the wrong guy thinking it was still high school and got shot. Unfortunately, he got shot directly in the heart. Im pretty sure Zimmerman didnt even mean to do that.

"There is a difference between the law and what people think is fundamentally justice."

[DiracSpike]

I said the jury made the right decision by the letter of the law. Having said that I believe the law to be poorly worded and flawed, and the main culprit in this case to be American paranoia and love of guns. I was pointing out two factors, in addition to others, that I believe make zimmermans account less than 100 percent true.

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by valo403

What in the fata are you even talking about? Receiving training does not require that someone become invincible, it simply alters what becomes reasonable, and it also lessens the chances that lethal force will be required. I must be losing it to think that perhaps people who are licensed to carry firearms should be trained, absolute crazy talk right there.

I also really enjoy that little fantasy scenario you constructed at the end there. What's your evidentiary basis for that? Oh what's that? Nothing at all. Just as I thought. We all have our theories, try not to present them as fact.

Valo, your posts have gone seriously downhill the last month or so, you actually appear to be trolling this thread. You are now asking me for my evidentiary basis for my info? Do you realize the case has taken place and Zimmerman was innocent? The first prosecutor assigned the case declined, because that person agreed with the police that Zimmerman was telling the truth and there was no evidence to the contrary.

And by the way, Zimmerman used the gun for exactly what it was intended, to shoot a bullet. I am not sure what more training would have provided him.

I am actually expecting a full on online mental breakdown from you based on some of the stuff you typed up in this and some other threads the last few months.

[Canuck-Hater]

Viral hoodie photo is getting flack from MLK's niece.

http://news.yahoo.com/mlk-s-niece-on...164608597.html

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

I gotta back valo here with the Zimmerman story, elements of it are likely true but I'm sure he also exaggerated and omitted a few facts. The truth is always in the middle, and there couldn't be more incentive for him to lie and cover his a$$. Keeping in mind we don't know the whole story definitively the jury made the right call according to the letter of the law. But for someone who was supposedly beat within an inch of his life, the photos of Zimmerman don't look that bad, he apparently didn't even go to the hospital for stitches. Additionally, he killed Martin with one clean shot to the heart, I understand heat of the moment and every thing but couldn't he have shot him in the leg? It would have been easier...

People keep saying that. But go home, lie on the ground and have someone straddle your upper body. Its hard if not impossible to shoot someone in the leg. Now have that person bang your head off the ground a few times to disorient you.

If you choose like Valo to not believe the testimony of Zimmerman, that's fine, but the jury that was in the court room looking at the 200 pieces of evidence and all of the testimony believed him to be credible.

I think the difficulty is most of us followed this case from a distance and didn't watch every hour of the trial, all the witnesses etc.

But the jury deliberated for 16 hours and seemed to do a careful and credible job of executing their roles as jurors.

you had a witness that was involved in this case stating that Zimmerman was credible.

We'll never know what happened in the minutes between Zimmerman agreeing to stop pursuit and heading back to his car and the confrontation that occurred between Zimmerman and Martin.

But I guess both sides are going to create theories.

I choose to believe that a jury that was present through the whole trial and thought Zimmerman's story was credible is pretty telling.

[DuffMan]

America

Population - 316,000,000
Approximate population with mental health problems 25- 50 %
Guns - 250,000,000

[4X4]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

America

Population - 316,000,000
Approximate population with mental health problems 25- 50 %
Guns - 250,000,000

Well, since you posted it, it must be at least 25-50% true. No source necessary.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I choose to believe that a jury that was present through the whole trial and thought Zimmerman's story was credible is pretty telling.

And I chose to believe that a jury that was present through the whole trial and thought OJ Simpson's story was credible is also pretty telling.

Well, no I don't.

They make mistakes. We hear a hell of a lot of grumbling about how the justice system (both in Canada and the States) screw things up all the time. This time though, it's "the jury says so, so they must be right".

That being said, like everyone else here, I didn't watch every minute of the trial.

I know a few facts though -- that a dimwitted little turd who shouldn't have been carrying a rusty spatula, let alone a gun, was following a kid around because he thought he was "up to no good", and then he killed the kid with his trusty gun, and got off scot-free. And they gave him his gun back.

Perhaps the verdict did follow the letter of Florida law. I don't know. I'm as much as an expert on it as anyone here - which makes me a non-expert.

Would anyone feel safe with this Zimmerman clown living next door, knowing he was walking around with a gun in his belt? If he was my neighbor, I'd be concerned about wearing a raincoat while opening my car. He'd probably shoot me, tell everyone I punched him in the nose, and maybe that time he'd end up in the slammer, but I'd be dead and that wouldn't help me much.

[Boblobla]

Originally Posted by 4X4

Well, since you posted it, it must be at least 25-50% true. No source necessary.

I heard that 86.7% of all statistics were made up on the spot.