Jump to content
orangeeyes

George Zimmerman charged with 2nd Degree Murder

Recommended Posts

[quote name='Twitter' timestamp='1336859432' post='3178852']
apparently there were target practice print outs of Trayvon and they sold out in 2 days

what kind of fucked shit....
[/quote]

Yeah I heard about that too. Zimmerman's lawyer was like FUUU- how am I gonna get Zimmerman off if people keep doing this shit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twitter    2057
where did you read about it? I read it on hpost and apparently the people who bought it believed zimmerman shot a thug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Twitter' timestamp='1336860058' post='3178859']
where did you read about it? I read it on hpost and apparently the people who bought it believed zimmerman shot a thug
[/quote]

I saw it on HuffPo too. There was the video embedded where they interviewed the lawyer, and he was crying about getting a fair trial.

Yeh, they wouldn't say how many they had sold either. I have a feeling they'll be making another batch though if they sold out so quickly. When I heard about it I thought they'd have just a hoodie but they had iced tea and Skittles sticking out of his pocket.

I think we should lobby Skittles to sue the guy who sold it for using their product without their consent. Skittles has to be trademarked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twitter    2057
it was unwarranted imo and agreed on the skittles thing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Conspire    2391
[quote name='Tranqulity.' timestamp='1336840612' post='3178728']
kinda makes me wonder if conspire doesn't like black people.

just sayin'
[/quote]

Not sure if trollin, but I just don't have sympathy for people who get shot while attempting to kill another individual. Doesn't matter what their skin colour is.

^ that shit about the Trayvon target sheets is fucked.
  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+scuzzlebutt    23495
racist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
»Paxman    4776
[quote name='Terra' timestamp='1335541574' post='3166367']
[quote name='Ammit' timestamp='1335521863' post='3166220']
[quote name='Terra' timestamp='1335488248' post='3165813']
[quote name='Conspire' timestamp='1335481980' post='3165679']
[quote]]If you can give me more scenarios where Zimmerman would have been able to keep his gun concealed from Trayvon until the point that he was shot, then let me know, since I am honestly having a hard time coming up with any.[/quote]

Really? There's a lot of ways to conceal a weapon... And when the aggressor is using both his hands to beat your face in, yours are free to grab the gun from your pants, hoodie, the holster inside your jacket.
[/quote]
While yes there are a lot of ways to conceal a weapon, most of the time, the weapon would become visible during the fight, especially if you have the person pinned down, which is my point. While he may not have seen it before starting some physical contact, there's going to be a point where he'd see it, and probably think "oh shit, this guy was stalking me and he had a gun" and would try to incapacitate the guy.

[b]For the record, I don't believe Zimmerman should be charged with anything. What he did was legal in Florida as he felt threatened and had been getting beaten.[/b] However, my whole thing is that both parties are at fault here. Zimmerman didn't have to follow Martin, which him being overzealous is what caused the whole issue. Martin should not have turned around and confronted Zimmerman. But hindsight is 20/20. I can see the reasons both people did what they did. Zimmerman trying to protect his neighborhood by profiling someone he doesn't know, and Martin confronting the person who followed them are both normal actions given the circumstances. I'm just saying that there's reasons as to why both people took the actions they did, and what transpired had. My whole problem is the fact that it could have been avoided had Zimmerman just listened to the 911 operator, that was the action that lead to everything (which is why my comments seem to be primarily defending Martin, as Zimmerman is at fault for what he did that caused everything else to happen). Both people could have done a LOT of things differently over the course of what happened that would not result in Martin's death, but they didn't happen, and both parties are at fault for that. Its not unreasonable as to why they both took the actions they did though, as given the circumstances, they're responses almost anyone would have (not necessarily what each person would do), and obviously neither of them knew what the outcome would be.
[/quote]
The whole point of this case is that he was the instigator of the fight or whatever you want to call it, and thus his killing of Travyon was not protected by the Stand Your Ground law. The law only applies to the defender, not the aggressor, and according to what we know of the situation, Zimmerman was the aggressor in this instance when he started to stalk after Martin. In fact, if anything Martin has right to SYG, because the law states that you can attack/kill a person if you even feel threatened by them, Travyon would have been in the right to attack his unknown stalker.
[/quote]
Both parties could have claimed to feel threatened. And while I agree that him stalking Trayvon is what led to everything happening, that isn't directly starting the conflict. Both sides have valid points, and in each one both people could be considered to standing their ground, from their own perspective. Martin felt threatened by being followed so he confronted Zimmerman (legal). The fight occurred, and Zimmerman felt threatened for his life with Martin on him beating him up. In this whole thing, both parties end up being the aggressor, at different points, making both people feel threatened for their lives. I'm just thinking that the key thing is that Zimmerman didn't directly start the fight himself, and that why he's not considered to be aggressor for the entirety of it. Both people can be seen as standing their ground.

And this is also why the Stand Your Ground law is crap, since all you have to do is "feel" threatened to be able to use lethal force.
[/quote]

I'm sorry but how can someone feel threatened by someone walking? I don't exactly know the ins and outs of SYG, but unless it states you can help others being threatened (which in this case would be someone else in the neighborhood because he was skulking around looking suspicious) then he hasn't a leg to stand on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Medb    773
[quote name='Paxman' timestamp='1338351542' post='3194064']
[quote name='Terra' timestamp='1335541574' post='3166367']
[quote name='Ammit' timestamp='1335521863' post='3166220']
[quote name='Terra' timestamp='1335488248' post='3165813']
[quote name='Conspire' timestamp='1335481980' post='3165679']
[quote]]If you can give me more scenarios where Zimmerman would have been able to keep his gun concealed from Trayvon until the point that he was shot, then let me know, since I am honestly having a hard time coming up with any.[/quote]

Really? There's a lot of ways to conceal a weapon... And when the aggressor is using both his hands to beat your face in, yours are free to grab the gun from your pants, hoodie, the holster inside your jacket.
[/quote]
While yes there are a lot of ways to conceal a weapon, most of the time, the weapon would become visible during the fight, especially if you have the person pinned down, which is my point. While he may not have seen it before starting some physical contact, there's going to be a point where he'd see it, and probably think "oh shit, this guy was stalking me and he had a gun" and would try to incapacitate the guy.

[b]For the record, I don't believe Zimmerman should be charged with anything. What he did was legal in Florida as he felt threatened and had been getting beaten.[/b] However, my whole thing is that both parties are at fault here. Zimmerman didn't have to follow Martin, which him being overzealous is what caused the whole issue. Martin should not have turned around and confronted Zimmerman. But hindsight is 20/20. I can see the reasons both people did what they did. Zimmerman trying to protect his neighborhood by profiling someone he doesn't know, and Martin confronting the person who followed them are both normal actions given the circumstances. I'm just saying that there's reasons as to why both people took the actions they did, and what transpired had. My whole problem is the fact that it could have been avoided had Zimmerman just listened to the 911 operator, that was the action that lead to everything (which is why my comments seem to be primarily defending Martin, as Zimmerman is at fault for what he did that caused everything else to happen). Both people could have done a LOT of things differently over the course of what happened that would not result in Martin's death, but they didn't happen, and both parties are at fault for that. Its not unreasonable as to why they both took the actions they did though, as given the circumstances, they're responses almost anyone would have (not necessarily what each person would do), and obviously neither of them knew what the outcome would be.
[/quote]
The whole point of this case is that he was the instigator of the fight or whatever you want to call it, and thus his killing of Travyon was not protected by the Stand Your Ground law. The law only applies to the defender, not the aggressor, and according to what we know of the situation, Zimmerman was the aggressor in this instance when he started to stalk after Martin. In fact, if anything Martin has right to SYG, because the law states that you can attack/kill a person if you even feel threatened by them, Travyon would have been in the right to attack his unknown stalker.
[/quote]
Both parties could have claimed to feel threatened. And while I agree that him stalking Trayvon is what led to everything happening, that isn't directly starting the conflict. Both sides have valid points, and in each one both people could be considered to standing their ground, from their own perspective. Martin felt threatened by being followed so he confronted Zimmerman (legal). The fight occurred, and Zimmerman felt threatened for his life with Martin on him beating him up. In this whole thing, both parties end up being the aggressor, at different points, making both people feel threatened for their lives. I'm just thinking that the key thing is that Zimmerman didn't directly start the fight himself, and that why he's not considered to be aggressor for the entirety of it. Both people can be seen as standing their ground.

And this is also why the Stand Your Ground law is crap, since all you have to do is "feel" threatened to be able to use lethal force.
[/quote]

I'm sorry but how can someone feel threatened by someone walking? I don't exactly know the ins and outs of SYG, but unless it states you can help others being threatened (which in this case would be someone else in the neighborhood because he was skulking around looking suspicious) then he hasn't a leg to stand on.
[/quote]
It's not the walking part I was referring to that could make Zimmerman feel threatened. It was Martin beating him. If Zimmerman saw Martin walking and just pulled his gun and shot him, then yeah, he has no case because you can't feel threatened by someone walking. Zimmerman saw Martin, thought it was suspicious, followed him when he was advised not to. Martin felt threatened by being stalked (wouldn't you if someone you didn't know kept following you?), so he confronted Zimmerman. Somehow a fight broke out, Martin got the upper hand, Zimmerman felt threatened and shot Martin. At least as far as I can tell, that's how the events went down, so both parties had the right to feel threatened. Just to me, Zimmerman should be held accountable for the actions since it would never have happened if he just stopped following Martin like he was told not to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
»Paxman    4776
I guess we agree then. You can't start a confrontation, then feel threatened and shoot someone and get away with it on a technicality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Conspire    2391
[quote name='Paxman' timestamp='1338423905' post='3194860']
I guess we agree then. You can't start a confrontation, then feel threatened and shoot someone and get away with it on a technicality.
[/quote]

There's a difference between starting a confrontation and a physical altercation. If Martin had threatened Zimmerman in some non-violent way I'd be with you entirely. But Martin started beating Zimmerman's face in. I believe Martin started the physical altercation because that's what the evidence suggests.

It works both ways. You can't just be in a confrontation, start a physical altercation and expect the other person to not retaliate. If you escalate that physical altercation to a beat down, how can you blame the other guy for using his weapon?

I understand people are upset that Zimmerman started the altercation. They have every right to be. Zimmerman racially profiled Martin and that's why he started a confrontation. It's despicable to start a confrontation on these grounds. But is starting a confrontation illegal? Are you not allowed to talk to someone and demand answers? What about if you're the one and only member of the neighbourhood watch? Be upset at Zimmerman for being a racist. Fine. But realize that starting a confrontation does not mean you're planning on killing someone.

Maybe you should be angry at the fact that Zimmerman is allowed to carry a gun rather than being upset that he used it to defend himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
»Paxman    4776
You don't have the right to demand answers. One has the right to remain silent. You can talk to someone, sure. But I bet whatever Zimmerman said to agitate a teenager was not something very nice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Conspire    2391
[quote name='Paxman' timestamp='1338431778' post='3195008']
You don't have the right to demand answers. One has the right to remain silent. You can talk to someone, sure. But I bet whatever Zimmerman said to agitate a teenager was not something very nice.
[/quote]

I have a right to demand answers. You have a right to refuse.

I have no idea what Martin's character was like or why he began a physical altercation. Maybe Zimmerman was provoking him with racist comments or threats or maybe Martin just attacked him because he's a thug. Both situations and everything in between are in the realm of possibility. It's wrong for you to automatically assume Martin's an innocent kid and Zimmerman is a scheming murderer though, because I don't think you know them either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
»orangeeyes    11863
So how do you know Martin had no idea of Zimmermann having a gun until Zimmermann was forced to use it? And that's assuming he was forced to use it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Conspire    2391
[quote name='orangeeyes' timestamp='1338434968' post='3195083']
So how do you know Martin had no idea of Zimmermann having a gun until Zimmermann was forced to use it? And that's assuming he was forced to use it.
[/quote]

I have no idea whether or not Martin was aware of the gun. I don't think he was, because if you're attacking someone to prevent them from shooting you with a gun, why are you punching them in the face and slamming their head instead of trying to get the gun?

Is there a point at speculating about this though? Unfortunately there's no way to prove whether or not Martin knew if Zimmerman had the gun. Obviously if Zimmerman is threatening Martin with his gun I'm not defending Zimmerman in any way. But we can't prove it either way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Medb    773
[quote name='Conspire' timestamp='1338431264' post='3194999']
Maybe you should be angry at the fact that Zimmerman is allowed to carry a gun rather than being upset that he used it to defend himself.
[/quote]
I think this is what anyone who is actually looking to take away something from this whole ordeal is focused on.

Sure, the racism issue is bad, but racism is never going to go away, neither is profiling. So, its futile to expect that. But, the one thing that can be changed is that gun control could be stricter so you don't have random people being able to carry a weapon and being able to use lethal force for feeling threatened.

As for the case itself, I just put the blame on Zimmerman because he was the one who had started the confrontation, so it was his actions that had led to everything else that occurred. Normally, I wouldn't hold him responsible for that, but I do in this situation since he was advised not to keep following Martin, but proceeded to anyway. So anything after that point is on him, in my eyes. Nobody knows what actually went down except Martin and Zimmerman, and, unfortunately, only one of those people is actually able to tell the story, leaving a lot of room for bias. Meaning that we have to use the facts that we do have, which are: Zimmerman followed Martin when advised not to, a confrontation occurred, at some point a fight started and Martin got the upper-hand and was beating Zimmerman, Zimmerman felt threatened and shot Martin, killing him. Based on that alone, both parties have room to feel threatened at different points, so they both had a right to use force (based on the law) in order to defend themselves. And, I'm sure at a lot of different points, both people could have made their intentions clear, and nothing would have happened. Like I said though, I just put it on Zimmerman for not following the advice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cum    364
I personally feel as if people are focusing too much on this one instance of crime (however sad it may be) and not enough on the structural issues that caused this scenario to blow up. Sadly the whole case of the shooting is a "he-said she-said" case, except for one of them is dead.

I think more focus should instead be had on two points[list=1]
[*]Florida's stand-your-ground law is fucked up. This case simply brings this into the spotlight.
[*]The much-more-obvious (and much more provable) racism in this case: THE FACT THAT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT IGNORED THE CASE, HID THE FACTS, AND DIDN'T EVEN BEGIN TO INVESTIGATE IT! Regardless of whether Zimmerman is guilty or not, the fact of the matter is that whenever someone is shot, the police are obligated to investigate the crime. In this case they ignored it. Why? Quite probably because it was the word of a "white" man (even though he wasn't truly white) against the non-existent word of a black teenager. The structural racism that seems to exist within this community simply astounds me, and sadly it's a case that isn't being brought to light enough.
[/list]
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+rei+    34681
[quote name='Conspire' timestamp='1338432504' post='3195033']
[quote name='Paxman' timestamp='1338431778' post='3195008']
You don't have the right to demand answers. One has the right to remain silent. You can talk to someone, sure. But I bet whatever Zimmerman said to agitate a teenager was not something very nice.
[/quote]

I have a right to demand answers. You have a right to refuse.

I have no idea what Martin's character was like or why he began a physical altercation. Maybe Zimmerman was provoking him with racist comments or threats or maybe Martin just attacked him because he's a thug. Both situations and everything in between are in the realm of possibility. It's wrong for you to automatically assume Martin's an innocent kid and Zimmerman is a scheming murderer though, because I don't think you know them either.
[/quote]

I know that Zimemrman shot an unarmed kid, regardless of whether he was assaulting him that still makes him a murderer as far as I'm concerned.

Maybe not in the legal capacity as afforded by the incredibly Bright and Noble Florida Legislature, but it's murder by any more rational definition.
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+scuzzlebutt    23495
man fuck the stand your ground laws jury nullification power to the people when you oppress people they rise up in fiery anger
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Justin.    735
[quote]Imperfect self-defense: Allowed only in a limited number of jurisdictions int he United States, self-defense is a complete defense to murder. However, a person who acted in self defense with an honest but unreasonable belief that deadly force was necessary to do so could still be convicted of voluntary manslaughter or deliberate homicide committed without criminal malice. Malice is found if a person killed intentionally and without legal excuse or mitigation.[/quote]

Hopefully I'm not reading the above incorrectly, but it's like 2 a.m. so idgaf. Zimmerman will most likely get nailed for manslaughter, and will get roughly 5-25 years. Although, because of the above, if the prosecution can prove that Zimmerman acted with malice in this case, he can be convicted of the Murder in the Second Degree charge. Zimmerman isn't gonna get off without getting some sort of jail time. There isn't just one witness named "John" in this case. If you take the time to look up this case extensively, there's multiple "eyewitnesses". There's even a story about how the police tried getting a kid who was walking his dog to be a witness, but his mother had his statement recanted, due to the fact that the police were leading the boy on to say what they wanted. There's also the fact that Martin was on the phone with is girlfriend for roughly 18 minutes between the time he got his snacks until around 7:12. Then she called again and that's when Martin mentioned to her that someone was following him and she told him to run back to his father's fiancee's house. Which is the whole reason why he started running in the first place.

I'm tired as hell so I really don't want to go in depth some more, but, in my opinion, trying to argue that Zimmerman wasn't in the wrong is just completely wrong. Especially for the fact that he used his gun in self-defense because he couldn't fight back. Yet he's about 11 years older and 40 lbs heavier than Trayvon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gear    712
[url="http://sulia.com/post/trayvon-martin/b772b8f5-568e-40db-a152-b631538fa014/"]http://sulia.com/post/trayvon-martin/b772b8f5-568e-40db-a152-b631538fa014/[/url]
Finally, someone sees the truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dank Memeston    1716
What? ^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Conspire    2391
Regardless of whether or not you believe Zimmerman to be guilty or not you'd have to admit that Zimmerman is playing it incredibly stupid to do anything that could be seen as "getting around the system." That's only going to fuel the argument that Zimmerman had every intent of hurting Martin and was simply waiting until he had enough provocation to justify standing his ground.

Unbelievably stupid thing for Zimmerman to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Laser Cat    5611
Saw a random yahoo news article today about some fat white guy shooting a car full of black teenagers over music and, well, it reminded me of this whole shit (partly because the title of the article referenced it too...)

So, curious to see whats been going on with the case, I wiki it and read something the size of 5-angry Atem posts. Here it is for those too lazy to search for it:

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treyvon_Martin"]http://en.wikipedia..../Treyvon_Martin[/url]

I've heard about some revelations to this case, but after pretty much reading all of it in one sitting it really makes you think (not just about the case, but our justice system, the mentality of ourselves and other americans, etc). When I first heard about this case, I was outraged like everyone else that zimmerman wasn't being charged... but now I'm really not sure.

I guess I'm bumping this shit just to ask dgz: knowing the information we know now, has your opinion changed at all? Granted, there is still plenty of information still not available which could further support or dissuade Zimmerman's argument about self defense, but just with the information available NOW has your opinion or certainty of all this changed at all?

Also, for people not familiar with the "updates" to the case (even just some random facts about zimmerman's and martin's lives), try reading the wiki summary (again, by no means the end-all source but a decent reference guide to all the shit that's been going on).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Donnie    2189
I really think the stand your ground law is a bit ridiculous, you can basically go up to anyone, kill them, and say you thought they had a gun it's a bit ridiculous, even with witness it's about you thinking you're in danger as opposed to the actual presence of it.

The recent shooter, of the teen in the car, also leans back on the Stand Your Ground law I believe, I'm a firm believer that if you go looking for trouble with a gun, you're going to find it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×