Teen shot by neighborhood watch member

[Ωmega]

I already did post them here but if you're too lazy to read the whole thing then here's the direct link. Read through them, most of them are reporting black males engaging in "suspicious" activity. Not to mention the fact that in the 911 call he made the night he shot Travyon he said "They always get away with shit like this" and said under his breath "Fuckin' coons". I'm pretty sure YEM posted a link to that video.

I don't believe they ever were able to prove he said that. Recall reading CNN had audio analysts enhance the call and go over it and they weren't able to come to a conclusion that he said those words.


http://www.wtsp.com/news/article/246...er-racial-slur

[BigMattTheHobo]

Interesting post I read on Reddit

• If Zimmerman had been punched in the face repeatedly (claiming a broken nose) and had his head bashed into the pavement, then he would have marks on him. The cops that processed him would, by standard procedure, have worn gloves if there was blood present on his body. Here is a security video from the police station when he was processed: no gloves on the cops, and you can clearly see that he has no bruises or cuts on his face or the back of his head: http://abcnews.go.com/US/video/georg...lance-16024475
  
• Also, if Zimmerman shot Trayvon from the ground as he claims, with Trayvon on top of him, then he would have been covered in the kids blood, again requiring the cops to wear gloves. No gloves means no blood, which means he was a safe distance from the kid when he pulled the trigger.
  
• Lastly, when you punch someone your knuckles take damage from that impact as well: bruising, cuts, etc. The funeral director testified that he saw no injuries whatsoever on Trayvon's hands and knuckles: http://www.hlntv.com/article/2012/03...trayvons-hands
  

[The Shockmaster]

* He was treated on the scene for his injuries
* This isn't the movies, not every gun shot will cause a blood explosion
* Fuck the funeral director, only the coroner's opinion is relevant.

[BigMattTheHobo]

Yes, because EMTs can make blood, a broken nose and bruises disappear

* This isn't the movies, not every gun shot will cause a blood explosion

Blood comes out of wounds and is affected by gravity. If you shoot someone who is hovering over you, you're going to get blood on you.

* Fuck the funeral director, only the coroner's opinion is relevant.

To you.

[The Shockmaster]

Your coming to all these conclusions from low quailty video of zimmerman standing a good ways from the camera. Give me a break

[BigMattTheHobo]

It's obvious in the video he's not injured. And if it's obvious from a low quality video, it must really be obvious IRL

[The Shockmaster]

So obvious that the police noticed it and and noted his injuries in the police report, but this low quality video must have more credibility than the police do with you. They must be racist.

[BigMattTheHobo]

The video definitely has more credibility than that police department, IMO. I have absolutely no faith in that department, and no reason to, either.

[Ωmega]

The video definitely has more credibility than that police department, IMO. I have absolutely no faith in that department, and no reason to, either.

So you believe the alleged attack on George Zimmerman didn't happen at all or it happened and it wasn't as severe as claimed?

[BigMattTheHobo]

I don't know if it happened or not. I don't know how severe it was. I'm just saying, based on that low quality video, I, and I repeat, I, do not think Zimmerman was injured, or injured enough to justify killing a teenager.

[Ωmega]

Well, there was a witness that stated he saw Trayvon Martin on top of George Zimmerman and attacking him:

http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/dpp/new...erman-03232012

As to the extent of his injuries, I'm not sure. I heard he received medical attention the next day, so perhaps they'll come out with that information later.

[King Weenie]

here's where your 'logic' fails. there is no need to retreat from somewhere that you are not being threatened. if you are being threatened then the one condition that runs throughout the entire law to not retreat is already met. unless you're in the habit of retreating from places that you are safe...i guess, theoretically if you get bored at a party and leave, then you are retreating so the condition wasn't met.

I don't know if you're trying to play devil's advocate and failing, or are just an idiot. My logic does apply here because the threat was the fight, not him getting out of his car (remember??). I'm talking about Zimmerman's duty to retreat, which supersedes his ability to apply Stand Your Ground, seeing as how the conditions for not having a duty to retreat weren't met. Therefore, he had a duty to retreat before he had the ability to Stand His Ground. What aren't you understanding about this? The wording of the law indicates UNLESS certain conditions are present (they weren't, I already explained why earlier so go reread my posts before replying), then he has a duty to retreat. He clearly made no attempt to retreat and went straight to standing his ground. That's not legal self-defense.

you passed a test...that's capital. however, the law is written in such a way that no matter what there is one prevailing condition that wipes out any perceived duty to retreat. no matter what conditions aren't met, if you think you or another is going to be killed or injured you still have the right to defend yourself including deadly force. you're only applying the logical opposite equivalent to part of the ssue. if you're applying that logic to the 'no duty to retreat' then you have to apply the logic to the situation. see the logical opposite equivalent to a situation that you have no duty to retreat from is a situation in which you are not being threatened. if you are not being threatened then there is nothing to retreat from.

You seriously have no idea what you're talking about here. I didn't pass a test, I demolished one of our country's greatest indicators of logical acumen and reading comprehension. This mean I posses the same logic and comprehension skills as the lawyers who make and interpret these laws. Which means when I look at the way the law is written, I make the same logical conclusions any lawyer or judge would make. I applied the logical opposite because the wording of the law indicates that unless those conditions are met (once again, I already proved it could be strongly argued that they weren't met), then one has a duty to retreat before resorting to lethal force. There was no harm of death (the kid was unarmed) or injury that could lead to death (injury alone isn't enough to trigger Stand Your Ground, if a woman slapped you, could you kill her for causing you injury? No, it's the threat of impending death that triggers it). Clearly they were in a physical altercation, and since death was not imminent and there was no real threat of death to Zimmerman, he had a duty to retreat before he had the right to defend himself with a gun. When it comes down to it, he merely could have brandished the gun and that more than likely would have made Trayvon back off. No one needed to die here. Period.

trayvon couldn't be a victim of a pattern he was never a part of. a watch is supposed to report things they see. part of those things is a description. saying a black person is black isn't racist. now if he had reported successful black individuals loitering in the playground...that would be racist. some of the reports don't say anything about race. let's look at your link...46 examples of zimmermans calls...10 of them he reported black males. now two of those 46 are repeat calls about the trayvon thing. so that's 9 out of 45. 20% is not a pattern when 31% of that area are black.

what i find odd is how the reports said there was no neighborhood watch there...yet the police had set one up last Sept, the calls you link reference the neighborhood watch.

looks like trayvon was pretty good at being suspicious:

http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/T...144403305.html

Even if you do ignore the racist motive (which could easily be proven by any good prosecutor), the pattern of following, then getting out of his car to confront Travyon constitutes a pattern of action that can be deemed harassment. It's hard to see how suspiciously following someone in a car (think about it, you have to drive at maybe 5 mph behind someone who's walking to tail them), then to actually get out of the car and confront a person (once again, the previous phone calls at the very least exhibit extreme paranoia, if not racist intent, leading one to logically conclude that it was anything but a friendly conversation Zimmerman was having) that constitutes harassment. You can't argue this. His actions were clearly predatory and aggressive, and by the reports of Travyon's phone call he was clearly emotionally disturbed by the actions. All of that categorizes Zimmerman's actions as harassment. Whether you think it's a pattern or not doesn't matter, because in court it will be considered a pattern.

And as for your "look at how shitty of a kid Travyon was" link at the end, I'm just going to leave this here for you.

[Bee M]

Weiner:

It does not ' constitute a pattern of harassment'. You think you know things and you don't. You're wrong, period. And that link you posted is stupid and doesn't change what kind of 'kid' he was.

[JerryOnDrums]

You seriously have no idea what you're talking about here. I didn't pass a test, I demolished one of our country's greatest indicators of logical acumen and reading comprehension. This mean I posses the same logic and comprehension skills as the lawyers who make and interpret these laws. Which means when I look at the way the law is written, I make the same logical conclusions any lawyer or judge would make. I applied the logical opposite because the wording of the law indicates that unless those conditions are met (once again, I already proved it could be strongly argued that they weren't met), then one has a duty to retreat before resorting to lethal force. There was no harm of death (the kid was unarmed) or injury that could lead to death (injury alone isn't enough to trigger Stand Your Ground, if a woman slapped you, could you kill her for causing you injury? No, it's the threat of impending death that triggers it). Clearly they were in a physical altercation, and since death was not imminent and there was no real threat of death to Zimmerman, he had a duty to retreat before he had the right to defend himself with a gun. When it comes down to it, he merely could have brandished the gun and that more than likely would have made Trayvon back off. No one needed to die here. Period.

That about sums it up. I'm not sure what more anyone else needs to hear.

[Amaritudo]

It's looking less and less like a case of justifiable homicide and self-defense, and more like someone trying to protect the privileged son of a retired Virginia Supreme Court Magistrate Judge.

Whodathunkit.