Bonkleesha
Active Member
according to ur own statutes, you just caused me duress. im gonna sue, and you are guilty of harassment. booyah noob.
trayvan martin
- Thread starter UncleBuck
- Start date
according to ur own statutes, you just caused me duress. im gonna sue, and you are guilty of harassment. booyah noob.
smokeymcpotz
Well-Known Member
desert dude
Well-Known Member
Eye witness reports are conflicting, as well as not highly regarded in court. The evidence is that he killed Martin. I have already said that by Affirmative Defense, Zimmerman must himself prove that it was justifiable.
Not really conflicting at all. Both eye witness accounts are consistent with Zimmer's claims and the police/emt statements.
A neighborhood watchman (which was not known by Martin) who was told by dispatch not to follow him, but he did so while armed with a gun. His path (assumed path, if true) was clearly confrontational (he cut him off) thus making him the instigator.
1. Irrelevant, and probably inadmissible.
2. Zimmer had no duty to obey the SUGGESTION that he not follow Martin. Besides, it is not clear that he continued to follow Martin; he responded "OK" to the suggestion that he not follow, and a few seconds later in the conversation said he had lost sight of Martin at the very least implying that he had, in fact, stopped following Martin.
3. Zimmer was legally armed, so not an issue.
4. If you plan to argue that a "path" was confrontational, then good luck.
5. Zimmer was acting in good faith as a member of neighborhood watch. He has a legitimate reason for his actions.
If I were the prosecutor here is my case: we already know that he murdered Martin. We know that Zimmerman followed Martin, and eventually took a path that cut him off and instigated a conflict. We know that Martin was unarmed, headed to his Father's girlfriends house. We know that Zimmerman was armed, and that he had prior prejudice toward Martin when he said "They always get away with it" (obvious proof that he had already labeled him a criminal). We know that, while Zimmerman claims his head was being bashed into the concrete, they were in the grass. We know that Martin was face down.
1. "We" don't know any such thing. Murder is what you, the prosecutor, are trying to prove.
2. Potentially a good point, but seems easily rebuttable. The neighborhood had experienced multiple burglaries, he was exasperated with the burglars always getting away, i.e. when Zimmer said, "they" he was referring to the overall situation.
3. The scuffle started while they were on the sidewalk. TM punched Zimmer knocking him to the ground where he fell partially on the concrete and partially on the grass.
4. Martin was face down... so what?
We have: Intent (He followed him while armed) and motive ("They always get away with it"). We have the murder weapon, and the admitted shooter. You have conflicting eyewitness (Using 'eye' loosely) reports and a story with gaping holes.
I'd say if I were a prosecutor, while it may be tough, I could see conviction.
I don't think the prosecutor has a prayer of a conviction here.
Having said that, I fully expect Zimmer to be charged as there is simply too much moral outrage to resist. I guess we will get to see which of us is correct on the possibility of a conviction here.
Not really conflicting at all. Both eye witness accounts are consistent with Zimmer's claims and the police/emt statements.
A neighborhood watchman (which was not known by Martin) who was told by dispatch not to follow him, but he did so while armed with a gun. His path (assumed path, if true) was clearly confrontational (he cut him off) thus making him the instigator.
1. Irrelevant, and probably inadmissible.
2. Zimmer had no duty to obey the SUGGESTION that he not follow Martin. Besides, it is not clear that he continued to follow Martin; he responded "OK" to the suggestion that he not follow, and a few seconds later in the conversation said he had lost sight of Martin at the very least implying that he had, in fact, stopped following Martin.
3. Zimmer was legally armed, so not an issue.
4. If you plan to argue that a "path" was confrontational, then good luck.
5. Zimmer was acting in good faith as a member of neighborhood watch. He has a legitimate reason for his actions.
If I were the prosecutor here is my case: we already know that he murdered Martin. We know that Zimmerman followed Martin, and eventually took a path that cut him off and instigated a conflict. We know that Martin was unarmed, headed to his Father's girlfriends house. We know that Zimmerman was armed, and that he had prior prejudice toward Martin when he said "They always get away with it" (obvious proof that he had already labeled him a criminal). We know that, while Zimmerman claims his head was being bashed into the concrete, they were in the grass. We know that Martin was face down.
1. "We" don't know any such thing. Murder is what you, the prosecutor, are trying to prove.
2. Potentially a good point, but seems easily rebuttable. The neighborhood had experienced multiple burglaries, he was exasperated with the burglars always getting away, i.e. when Zimmer said, "they" he was referring to the overall situation.
3. The scuffle started while they were on the sidewalk. TM punched Zimmer knocking him to the ground where he fell partially on the concrete and partially on the grass.
4. Martin was face down... so what?
We have: Intent (He followed him while armed) and motive ("They always get away with it"). We have the murder weapon, and the admitted shooter. You have conflicting eyewitness (Using 'eye' loosely) reports and a story with gaping holes.
I'd say if I were a prosecutor, while it may be tough, I could see conviction.
I don't think the prosecutor has a prayer of a conviction here.
Having said that, I fully expect Zimmer to be charged as there is simply too much moral outrage to resist. I guess we will get to see which of us is correct on the possibility of a conviction here.
Bonkleesha
Active Member
desert dude
Well-Known Member
But you just can't bring yourself to do it because you see the obvious flaws in his argument?Id like to declare you the winner of this here debate lol GUD SHOW, GUD SHOW!!!!
Language is a tricky thing, my friend.
So, your driving down the road and someone gets pushed off the sidewalk and you run into them and kill them. Are you a murderer because it wasn't self defense?
That's ok though, about 90% of the people here don't even know what murder is, they just think murder is when someone kills another person. Period.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Murder requires malice aforethought.
smokeymcpotz
Well-Known Member
Hey im not your friend, Pal!But you just can't bring yourself to do it because you see the obvious flaws in his argument?
Language is a tricky thing, my friend.
LOL
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Poor diet (Skittles and sugared drink, exacerbated by a simply unholy absence of body fat) that led to an almost tweakerlike sense of invulnerability. The Texas-style "necessary right" defense is sounding better every second. cn
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
The dispatcher did not have the authority to issue Zimmerman a directive. Both knew that. Under the circumstances, "you don't need to do that" is the strongest formulation available, equivalent to the more cumbersome "I really do not recommend that course of action." From a dispatcher, "you don't need to do that" is not technically a directive (saving the face of both parties while this was still a noncriminal minor annoyance event) but imo, construing it as anything much milder than attempted strong suasion to disengage and let the pros handle it ... is a contortion. Unnatural.
What is forever lost is both the tone and content of whatever verbal exchange transpired between the principals. It is thoroughly precedented to ask the question listed above in such a way as to be provocative, inflammatory. It can be also asked in a soothing, conciliatory tone. We will never know.
I don't usually think warm thoughts about security camera video, but in this instance it could have saved 2700 posts. I am contemplating filing my own civil suit in this case for "internet pain and suffering" precipitated by this homicide. We could make it a class action! cn
desert dude
Well-Known Member
You could sue trayvon's estate. All those hoodie sales gotta be worth something?
Don't pin that on all cops. Its just that the 95 percent of the ones that do, make the other 5 percent look bad.do you mean to tell me (as well as cliffey and all the others people defending the police here) that cops sometimes lie and make up stuff to cover their asses or their buddie's asses?
i refuse to believe it. i believe cliffey is with me on this one. cops NEVER lie.
he hates turtles.
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
There's no need to be species-ist.
londonfog
Well-Known Member
soooooo you call 911 for help then you ignore what they tell you ...ok let's see how that plays at trail
londonfog
Well-Known Member
and yet you call for the ban of Bonkleesha.. hypocrisy anyone...typical
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
No I'm pretty sure they're selling tshirts and hoodies with his picture on them, they're also doing tshirts with Zimmerman with "Coward ass Cracker".
Guess its not racist cos they're not white tho, only white people are racist right?