yummy2tummy
Initiate Member
Joined: May 22, 2012 11:37:20 GMT -5
Posts: 51
|
Post by yummy2tummy on Jul 19, 2012 10:11:57 GMT -5
I've smacked DH on the arm and said "I'm gonna kill you" when he's being a smart ass. I guess he has the right to shoot me. Totally different.. geze.. I don't think Trayveon was kidding around, and being a fun guy.. do you?
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Jul 19, 2012 10:13:40 GMT -5
There is no evidence Martin said "you're going to die". There is only Zimmerman's claim Martin said "you're going to die". True, but you and I were not there, Zimmerman and Trayveon were. Once can speak, one cannot. But.. Zimmerman having the injuries he has, I tend to beleive him. He was defending his life.. if he doesn't walk from this, I will be surprised. I'll be surprised if he does walk. 911 specifically told him not to follow the kid & then he did. He was being weird & creepy & confrontational. He could have prevented the entire situation which would have made the self-defense completely unnecessary.
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,719
|
Post by midjd on Jul 19, 2012 10:16:27 GMT -5
You can instigate (I believe) - you just can't escalate. You slap someone on the back of the head and they immediately turn around and stab you - doesn't matter that you instigated the confrontation, it's still not self-defense on their part.
So even if - giving Zimmerman the benefit of the doubt - he was minding his own business and Martin came up and punched him - that STILL doesn't make the shooting self defense. And hearing "I'm going to kill you" doesn't necessarily make it self-defense, either.
|
|
movingforward
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 15, 2011 12:48:31 GMT -5
Posts: 8,358
|
Post by movingforward on Jul 19, 2012 10:16:50 GMT -5
I've smacked DH on the arm and said "I'm gonna kill you" when he's being a smart ass. I guess he has the right to shoot me. Totally different.. geze.. I don't think Trayveon was kidding around, and being a fun guy.. do you? I don't think Zimmerman was kidding around either following someone around in the dark with a gun. If some dude was following me (and apparently he was pretty close to get punched in the face) he would first be pepper sprayed and then kicked in the nuts. Does that give him the right to shoot me? Zimmerman caused this entire issue by being an arrogant dumb ass.
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,719
|
Post by midjd on Jul 19, 2012 10:17:05 GMT -5
I've smacked DH on the arm and said "I'm gonna kill you" when he's being a smart ass. I guess he has the right to shoot me. Totally different.. geze.. I don't think Trayveon was kidding around, and being a fun guy.. do you? I wasn't there, so I don't know. Were you?
|
|
movingforward
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 15, 2011 12:48:31 GMT -5
Posts: 8,358
|
Post by movingforward on Jul 19, 2012 10:18:16 GMT -5
Totally different.. geze.. I don't think Trayveon was kidding around, and being a fun guy.. do you? I wasn't there, so I don't know. Were you?
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Jul 19, 2012 10:19:10 GMT -5
I've smacked DH on the arm and said "I'm gonna kill you" when he's being a smart ass. I guess he has the right to shoot me. Totally different.. geze.. I don't think Trayveon was kidding around, and being a fun guy.. do you? Thing is, there's no evidence Trayvon made this threat. There's only Zimmerman's word, and that's not evidence. A broken nose and a cut on the back of one's head is evidence; however, it's evidence only of some sort of altercation, not a threat to life requiring self-defense. The cut on the head could as easily have resulted from falling to the ground after being hit in the nose, as opposed to having one's head beaten on the ground. We don't know. That's the point, as I see it. We simply don't know, so how in the heck are we to decide who's responsible? We can't.
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,719
|
Post by midjd on Jul 19, 2012 10:21:16 GMT -5
How do the injuries prove anything about what was said?
I'd sure as hell be claiming someone told me they were going to kill me if I was up on a murder charge, too. If a statement can't be proven and ONLY serves to benefit the person claiming the statement was made, what makes you assume it's credible?
|
|
Green Eyed Lady
Senior Associate
Look inna eye! Always look inna eye!
Joined: Jan 23, 2012 11:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 19,629
|
Post by Green Eyed Lady on Jul 19, 2012 10:22:20 GMT -5
I highly doubt anybody is every going to "know" exactly what happened. But? Twelve people are going to have to listen to the evidence and make a decision on what they "think" happened. Just like people are doing here. We are opining on what we "think" happened. There is nothing wrong with that and it is EXACTLY what is going to happen in the courtroom. The difference is, we are not, most likely, privy to the actual evidence that will be presented in this case. This may, or may not, make the decision on what we THINK happened a bit easier to make.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,309
|
Post by swamp on Jul 19, 2012 10:23:30 GMT -5
I highly doubt anybody is every going to "know" exactly what happened. But? Twelve people are going to have to listen to the evidence and make a decision on what they "think" happened. Just like people are doing here. We are opining on what we "think" happened. There is nothing wrong with that and it is EXACTLY what is going to happen in the courtroom. The difference is, we are not, most likely, privy to the actual evidence that will be presented in this case. This may, or may not, make the decision on what we THINK happened a bit easier to make. We are hearing and reading things that will not come into evidence, so we woudln't necessarily reach the same conclusion as the jury.
|
|
Green Eyed Lady
Senior Associate
Look inna eye! Always look inna eye!
Joined: Jan 23, 2012 11:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 19,629
|
Post by Green Eyed Lady on Jul 19, 2012 10:27:01 GMT -5
Agreed. That's what I said. But you can bet the selected jurors will have already heard and read what we have. Unless they are on a dessert island without any form of communication.
By the way? Has it been decided it will be a jury trial? I dont' know how that works. Aren't some trials just in front of the judge with him/her making the final decision? How does that work and how is it decided? Is it at the request of the defendant?
|
|
movingforward
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 15, 2011 12:48:31 GMT -5
Posts: 8,358
|
Post by movingforward on Jul 19, 2012 10:27:55 GMT -5
I highly doubt anybody is every going to "know" exactly what happened. But? Twelve people are going to have to listen to the evidence and make a decision on what they "think" happened. Just like people are doing here. We are opining on what we "think" happened. There is nothing wrong with that and it is EXACTLY what is going to happen in the courtroom. The difference is, we are not, most likely, privy to the actual evidence that will be presented in this case. This may, or may not, make the decision on what we THINK happened a bit easier to make. We are hearing and reading things that will not come into evidence, so we woudln't necessarily reach the same conclusion as the jury. Very true Swamp. For me though I wouldn't be able to get past the fact that Zimmerman pursued this guy setting this whole sad situation into motion and where are they going to find 12 people that don't know that. ETA: Actually I take that back as I have met a few people that don't seem to know what is going on in the world. I guess they might get those totally clueless people.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,309
|
Post by swamp on Jul 19, 2012 10:28:36 GMT -5
Agreed. That's what I said. But you can bet the selected jurors will have already heard and read what we have. Unless they are on a dessert island without any form of communication. By the way? Has it been decided it will be a jury trial? I dont' know how that works. Aren't some trials just in front of the judge with him/her making the final decision? How does that work and how is it decided? Is it at the request of the defendant? All felony trials are jury unless the defendant specifically waives his right to a jury in writing. Since it's such a fact driven case, the lawyer would be insane to go nonjury.
|
|
Green Eyed Lady
Senior Associate
Look inna eye! Always look inna eye!
Joined: Jan 23, 2012 11:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 19,629
|
Post by Green Eyed Lady on Jul 19, 2012 10:29:31 GMT -5
Agreed. That's what I said. But you can bet the selected jurors will have already heard and read what we have. Unless they are on a dessert island without any form of communication. By the way? Has it been decided it will be a jury trial? I dont' know how that works. Aren't some trials just in front of the judge with him/her making the final decision? How does that work and how is it decided? Is it at the request of the defendant? All felony trials are jury unless the defendant specifically waives his right to a jury in writing. Since it's such a fact driven case, the lawyer would be insane to go nonjury. Ok. Thank you. I didn't know how that worked.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Jul 19, 2012 10:35:18 GMT -5
I highly doubt anybody is every going to "know" exactly what happened. But? Twelve people are going to have to listen to the evidence and make a decision on what they "think" happened. Just like people are doing here. We are opining on what we "think" happened. There is nothing wrong with that and it is EXACTLY what is going to happen in the courtroom. The difference is, we are not, most likely, privy to the actual evidence that will be presented in this case. This may, or may not, make the decision on what we THINK happened a bit easier to make. Precisely. The jury will have all the evidence presented by both sides. We've got nothing but what we've read in the media.
|
|
Driftr
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 10, 2011 13:08:15 GMT -5
Posts: 3,478
|
Post by Driftr on Jul 19, 2012 12:33:37 GMT -5
True, but you and I were not there, Zimmerman and Trayveon were. Once can speak, one cannot. But.. Zimmerman having the injuries he has, I tend to beleive him. He was defending his life.. if he doesn't walk from this, I will be surprised. I'll be surprised if he does walk. 911 specifically told him not to follow the kid & then he did. He was being weird & creepy & confrontational. He could have prevented the entire situation which would have made the self-defense completely unnecessary. No. They didn't. Do we have to go over the transcript of the 911 call again?
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Jul 19, 2012 12:42:14 GMT -5
I'll be surprised if he does walk. 911 specifically told him not to follow the kid & then he did. He was being weird & creepy & confrontational. He could have prevented the entire situation which would have made the self-defense completely unnecessary. No. They didn't. Do we have to go over the transcript of the 911 call again? My bad. They said "we don't need you to follow him" according to Hannity anyway. If you want to put a link up to the 911 transcripts, go ahead. I am going off what was said on Hannity.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,865
|
Post by zibazinski on Jul 19, 2012 12:42:56 GMT -5
Casey Anthony got off, remember?
|
|
Driftr
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 10, 2011 13:08:15 GMT -5
Posts: 3,478
|
Post by Driftr on Jul 19, 2012 12:53:53 GMT -5
No. They didn't. Do we have to go over the transcript of the 911 call again? My bad. They said "we don't need you to follow him" according to Hannity anyway. If you want to put a link up to the 911 transcripts, go ahead. I am going off what was said on Hannity. Here's a link a forum where the unredacted 911 call can be heard in case you want to hear the background noise that you wouldn't hear on a transcript. When I listened it put some things into a different perspective for me. tickerforum.org/akcs-www?post=204717
|
|
movingforward
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 15, 2011 12:48:31 GMT -5
Posts: 8,358
|
Post by movingforward on Jul 19, 2012 12:58:17 GMT -5
I might would feel slightly sympathetic toward Zimmerman (and I do mean slightly because I still maintain he shouldn't have followed the kid) if he sounded even the least bit remorseful of what happened. He doesn't and still thinks he was in the right. Hell, I even felt sympathy for drunk driver who killed a guy I dated in high school because I could tell that he was truly sorry and it would haunt him for the rest of this life but anyone who says they wouldn't change how this whole scenario went down is not someone I can feel much for.
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 47,220
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Jul 19, 2012 13:01:51 GMT -5
The prosecutors fucked up Casey Anthony's trial. The jury made their decision based on the evidence they were given in court, not what the media was plastered all over the television. While it might not be one that I agree with the jury did their duty as they are supposed to.
I sure as hell know that if I am ever on trial I want the jury making decisions based on what they hear in court, not what Fox News and Nancy Grace tell them.
|
|
movingforward
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 15, 2011 12:48:31 GMT -5
Posts: 8,358
|
Post by movingforward on Jul 19, 2012 13:05:40 GMT -5
My bad. They said "we don't need you to follow him" according to Hannity anyway. If you want to put a link up to the 911 transcripts, go ahead. I am going off what was said on Hannity. Here's a link a forum where the unredacted 911 call can be heard in case you want to hear the background noise that you wouldn't hear on a transcript. When I listened it put some things into a different perspective for me. tickerforum.org/akcs-www?post=204717Hmmm... Okay... Didn't put anything in a different perspective for me.
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,719
|
Post by midjd on Jul 19, 2012 13:11:53 GMT -5
Exactly. It's the prosecution's job to prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If they fuck up - like they did with Casey Anthony, or OJ, or Phil Spector - the defendant goes free. Has nothing to do with guilt or innocence,.
If Zimmerman does walk, it won't be because he's innocent, it will be because the prosecution didn't sufficiently prove his intent to murder Martin.
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 47,220
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Jul 19, 2012 13:16:36 GMT -5
That's what Judge Judy always says "Not guilty does not mean innocent, it just means you walked".
|
|
Driftr
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 10, 2011 13:08:15 GMT -5
Posts: 3,478
|
Post by Driftr on Jul 19, 2012 13:18:49 GMT -5
Here's a link a forum where the unredacted 911 call can be heard in case you want to hear the background noise that you wouldn't hear on a transcript. When I listened it put some things into a different perspective for me. tickerforum.org/akcs-www?post=204717Hmmm... Okay... Didn't put anything in a different perspective for me. Before I heard the tape I had no idea that the 'we don't need you to do that' came after GZ had begun his pursuit of TM. I also didn't realize that you could hear what sounds like him stopping running as he said 'ok'. I also didn't have a good concept of how much time had elapsed between the time it sounds like he stopped running and the time the call ended.
|
|
movingforward
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 15, 2011 12:48:31 GMT -5
Posts: 8,358
|
Post by movingforward on Jul 19, 2012 13:18:47 GMT -5
That's what Judge Judy always says "Not guilty does not mean innocent, it just means you walked". I love some of the Judge Judy sayings. One of my favorites is "looks fade but stupid is forever."
|
|
Driftr
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 10, 2011 13:08:15 GMT -5
Posts: 3,478
|
Post by Driftr on Jul 19, 2012 13:20:09 GMT -5
Exactly. It's the prosecution's job to prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If they fuck up - like they did with Casey Anthony, or OJ, or Phil Spector - the defendant goes free. Has nothing to do with guilt or innocence,. If Zimmerman does walk, it won't be because he's innocent, it will be because the prosecution didn't sufficiently prove his intent to murder Martin. If Zimmerman walks it will be because he is innocent.
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,719
|
Post by midjd on Jul 19, 2012 13:23:25 GMT -5
Not guilty is not the same as innocent.
He killed a person. The BEST he can argue is self-defense, but that still doesn't make him "innocent."
|
|
Driftr
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 10, 2011 13:08:15 GMT -5
Posts: 3,478
|
Post by Driftr on Jul 19, 2012 13:29:02 GMT -5
Not guilty is not the same as innocent. Agreed. Agreed If he is found not guilty by reason of self-defense I think it does make him innocent.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,694
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Jul 19, 2012 13:31:20 GMT -5
There is no evidence Martin said "you're going to die". There is only Zimmerman's claim Martin said "you're going to die". True, but you and I were not there, Zimmerman and Trayveon were. Once can speak, one cannot. But.. Zimmerman having the injuries he has, I tend to beleive him. He was defending his life.. if he doesn't walk from this, I will be surprised. There is no evidence that Trayvon said that. Given Zimmerman's initial statement that he asked Trayvon what he was doing and got the You've got a problem or whatever answer deeply contradicts what the GF heard. I believe he's lying his ass off so he won't get convicted. The GF heard Trayvon ask first, "Why are you following me?" and instead of answering she heard Zimmerman ask "Why are you here?" or something similar. Next she heard sounds of a scuffle and the phone went dead. So if we believe the GF, had Zimmerman answered Trayvon's question instead of asking one of his own, would the scuffle still have happened? Fact: Zimmerman lied about the money gathered on the website for his bail hearing. Supposition: He lied to keep more of the money and have bail be low. Fact: Those that are caught in known lies tend to be considered less reliable in their testimony at trial than those telling the truth or not have been found to tell lies yet. (Think Paterno and the grand jury) Supposition: He's been lying about what was said to give him better odds of not going to jail. I wish we could see an objective view of the incident to know the real truth but that's not possible. Its possible the physical encounter went much as he said, its just as possible it wasn't as extreme as he says. While it apparently isn't stringent enough proof for the trial, I still think its more likely that the person screaming for help was Trayvon and not George. Just because his head apparently got knocked on the pavement doesn't mean he was the one on the bottom of the heap the entire time. For all I know he banged his head on the pavement shortly after he shot him so he'd have a good story. (And yes, some people would do something like this.)
|
|