[Bort]

bingy, on 15 July 2013 - 12:46 PM, said:

Depreciated,

Please tell me how someone can defend themselves against a gun when all they had available to them was their hands, feet, arms, legs, an energy drink, and a bag of skittles. This information was made widely available to the public.

Apparently by bashing the gun wielder's head into the pavement. It wasn't the most effective of tactics, but it might have helped.

So, what is so special about this case compared to the hundreds of others that are killed every year in the US?

[xclite]

depricated, on 15 July 2013 - 10:18 AM, said:

"The fact is that a gun vastly changes the power balance in a struggle, and he DIDN'T have anything to counter the gun that Zimmerman didn't have." THIS IS A BETTER ARGUMENT. That's a SOUND argument. That's logical and not based on emotion or sensation, nor does it draw up irrelevent information as if it's relevant.
I can't disagree with you there. A gun does vastly change the balance of power in a fight. So the question is, did Zimmerman reveal the gun prior to being attacked? If so, why did Martin attack? If not, is he to blame for being better prepared to defend himself than Martin was prepared to attack him? Is the threat of retaliation with deadly force NOT somehow a given consequence of attacking with deadly force?

And those are the questions that make this grey to me. I'm not convinced that Zimmerman is guilty of the crime of murder, and the prosecution did a piss-poor job of trying to prove that.

It could be that Martin just attacked and was beating the piss out of Zimmerman for being questioned. It could be that Zimmerman collared him and was being rough and got more than he bargained for, ending what he started by shooting Martin.

I think most people agree that if he'd just kept his ass in the car both parties would be better off, but leaving your car isn't a crime. Carrying a gun isn't a crime. And the determination that the shooting wasn't self defense is the only thing the jury could have decided, and there certainly wasn't evidence for that.

This post has been edited by xclite: 15 July 2013 - 08:50 AM

[atraub]

Did Zimmerman disobey the police? Yes.

• Is it illegal to disobey the police? Nope, it's a time honored tradition.

Should Z have been following TM? Probably not. But, I can understand his thinking. He got a little too close to believing he was law enforcement and made a dumb decision.

• Was that illegal? Nope

Should Z have been carrying a gun? I don't see why not. It's legal to carry a gun and a cop suggested he carry one when there was a loose pit bull in his neighborhood. There was a time where I had to go to an extremely rough part of town for reasons I rather not share, and you better believe I was armed.

Quote

The fact is that a gun vastly changes the power balance in a struggle, and he DIDN'T have anything to counter the gun that Zimmerman didn't have.

Yup. Who said it has to be a fair fight? Weapons are intended to give someone an unfair advantage, that's why we have weapons. If you think you're going to be murdered, take whatever unfair advantage you want. This is moot.

Was there evidence that Z got the crap kicked out of him? Yup, just look at his head post fight.

Was there evidence that TM got the crap kicked out of him? Aside from the bullet hole, nope.

Is there reasonable evidence that TM was on top of Z when he was shot? Yup, ballistics essentially confirms it. It was the same hoody that got him profiled that also shows he was on top.


Seems pretty open and shut aside from conjecture on the "what if's". But "what if's" without evidence are not a reasonable argument.

This post has been edited by atraub: 15 July 2013 - 12:57 PM

[supersloth]

i think it's pretty impossible to describe how incredibly discouraging and saddening and angry this makes me. i can't imagine how it must feel to have your own son put on trial in his own murder.

it's disgusting.

[atraub]

If Zimmerman hadn't shot TM, Zimmerman surely would have been on trial for his own murder.

EDIT: Instead of grieving parents it'd be a grieving wife and son.

This post has been edited by atraub: 15 July 2013 - 01:28 PM

[xclite]

Quote

Quote

The fact is that a gun vastly changes the power balance in a struggle, and he DIDN'T have anything to counter the gun that Zimmerman didn't have.

Yup. Who said it has to be a fair fight? Weapons are intended to give someone an unfair advantage, that's why we have weapons. If you think you're going to be murdered, take whatever unfair advantage you want. This is moot.

Come on, this is out of context. And maybe if you're afraid of being murdered, instead of packing heat and accosting people walking home from 7-11 you can wait for the police to show up.

Quote

Was there evidence that Z got the crap kicked out of him? Yup, just look at his head post fight.

Was there evidence that TM got the crap kicked out of him? Aside from the bullet hole, nope.

So winning a fight is grounds to get shot to death?

Quote

Seems pretty open and shut aside from conjecture on the "what if's". But "what if's" without evidence are not a reasonable argument.

The what happened when he got out of his car determines if Zimmerman is a murderer. We'll never know, it seems. Still, I think the verdict was right - there was no proof that it wasn't self defense.

This post has been edited by xclite: 15 July 2013 - 01:59 PM

[supersloth]

no, he wouldn't have. this isn't a case where if things were flipped they would be exactly the same. Trayvon was a black man in America who smoked pot and wore hoodies, and as such they spent time assassinating his character in his own death. You can't just ignore the racial implications that took place before the trial and after it. they matter, a lot.


edit: and just to clarify, i don't believe that george zimmerman should have been convicted based on the case of the prosecution. but there is no way that the way it happened should ever be categorized as justice.

This post has been edited by supersloth: 15 July 2013 - 02:08 PM

[jon.kiparsky]

So can someone explain to me how Zimmerman gets to say "self-defense" but Martin doesn't?

[creativecoding]

Because it depends on who attacked first.

[jon.kiparsky]

That's easy enough. Nobody contests the fact that Zimmerman started the altercation. So again, why are you all so willing to say that Zimmerman was defending himself, and Martin was not?

[xclite]

Well, obviously the guy with the gun is the only one who can claim self defense.

[atraub]

TM struck Zimmerman first. TM attacked first.

[farrell2k]

Anyone who believes that the wanna be cop with the gun was just minding his own business before he was "brutally attacked" has a fundamental disconnect with reality. It's clear that he was one of those gun-toting crazies who felt he could stalk, harass, and push around another "suspicious person" aka black person. It's beyond obvious that his story was completely made up. No one would walk away from 25 "slammings" of their head on concrete. Those wounds look like small guts one would get rolling around on a sidewalk, not having your head slammed against one.

This was a travesty of justice. This jury will go down in history as one of the worst, probably right behind The O.J. Simpson jury.

This post has been edited by farrell2k: 15 July 2013 - 06:21 PM

[atraub]

xclite, on 15 July 2013 - 04:57 PM, said:

Quote

Quote

The fact is that a gun vastly changes the power balance in a struggle, and he DIDN'T have anything to counter the gun that Zimmerman didn't have.

Yup. Who said it has to be a fair fight? Weapons are intended to give someone an unfair advantage, that's why we have weapons. If you think you're going to be murdered, take whatever unfair advantage you want. This is moot.

Come on, this is out of context. And maybe if you're afraid of being murdered, instead of packing heat and accosting people walking home from 7-11 you can wait for the police to show up.

There's nothing wrong with carrying a gun. Should he have followed TM? Probably not. Did he bring his gun because he thought TM was going to attempt to kill him? Probably not. He carried his gun because he always carried his gun when he did "neighborhood-watch-type stuff". Obviously, this was outside the scope of neighborhood watch, but it doesn't change the fact that he brought his gun because he rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it. There's no evidence he expected to use it.

Quote

Quote

Was there evidence that Z got the crap kicked out of him? Yup, just look at his head post fight.

Was there evidence that TM got the crap kicked out of him? Aside from the bullet hole, nope.

So winning a fight is grounds to get shot to death?

To end a ground-and-pound where the guy is also slamming your head on concrete? absolutely.

Quote

Quote

Seems pretty open and shut aside from conjecture on the "what if's". But "what if's" without evidence are not a reasonable argument.

The what happened when he got out of his car determines if Zimmerman is a murderer. We'll never know, it seems. Still, I think the verdict was right - there was no proof that it wasn't self defense.

Agreed.

farrell2k, on 15 July 2013 - 09:17 PM, said:

Anyone who believes that the wanna be cop with the gun was just minding his own business before he was "brutally attacked" has a fundamental disconnect with reality. It's clear that he was one of those gun-toting morons who felt he could stalk, harass, and push around another "suspicious person" aka black person. It's beyond obvious that his story was completely made up. No one would walk away from 25 "slammings" of their head on concrete. Those wounds look like small guts one would get rolling around on a sidewalk, not having your head slammed against one.

This was a travesty of justice. This jury will go down in history as one of the worst, probably right behind The O.J. Simpson jury.

If there was ANY evidence to support that claim, this case would have turned out very differently. The "25 slammings" was likely an exaggeration. Let's be honest, any ass beating seems worse in your mind than it really was.

This post has been edited by atraub: 15 July 2013 - 06:26 PM

[supersloth]

atraub, on 15 July 2013 - 07:08 PM, said:

TM struck Zimmerman first. TM attacked first.

you actually don't know this, because there is only one person on earth who knows the answer to this question, and his account is obviously the one that benefits him.

you don't get to simultaneously hold the position that a verbal account IS evidence and the physical evidence that a guy was fucking shot and is dead as not enough evidence. the only thing that was PROVEN, is that the prosecution failed to remove all reasonable doubt that zimmerman was guilty. that's fine, that's how the system works, and it's better than most. but if you think you were somehow provided PROOF that zimmerman was actually the one being attacked, you are wrong, you have been shown nothing of the sort.