Exclusive! First hand Witness: Trayvon Martin attacked Zimmerman Zimmerman Innocent Smoking Gun

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Stand your ground applies to unarmed people as well. If Zimmerman started it then Treyvon had right to use whatever force necessary to stop him. That would make Zimmerman a murderer.

If you read the entire law it protects the aggressor from an unreasonable escalation of force from the victim.

There is a reason why almost all states who used Florida's SYG laws as a guideline for their own castle doctrine laws stripped that part out.

So before you call a person a murderer shouldn't you know what the law says first? If not does that make you ignorant?

Respectfully people take the time to research before making an accusations that is not supported by the law itself.

reply to post by rebellender


That's bs. or are you actually claiming that you can assault someone, then kill them and just say "they went for my gun"?

reply to post by Xcathdra


But who is the victim? Who is aggressor?

Originally posted by steve95988

Originally posted by conspiracy nut
reply to post by steve95988

 

the only ruthless thug was zimmerman, driving around town with a loaded gun and one in the chamber. profiling innocent people. thats right tray was innocent he was not committing a crime, zim jumped the gun, literally. he should be punished if only to deter other idiots who want to play super hero. if you want to apprehend criminals become a cop.

sometimes u need to protect your community, the ones u love.... Look at trayvons recent behavior issues... also look at zimmermans injuries.... I hope this allows more people to confront these thugs... they will rob from us no more!

My heart breaks at the fact that apparently real men do not exist anymore.
You need a guy like George to run around shooting skinny kids to death to protect you?
Not me, thanks. I will take the skinny kids myself. I guess being a woman just makes me brave but unlike all you men, I am not afraid of skinny, unarmed kids.

You sounds scared #less of them.

reply to post by Xcathdra


he is guilty of his irresponsibility in the way he caused trayvons death by profiling him and following him for no reason and then killing him. no one would have died that night if zimmerman wouldnt have had a gun. and if you actually think trayvon could have killed him with his bare hands you're crazy, the cops would have been there and someone would have stopped the fight before the cops got there. fair one on one fights happen everyday and deaths are rare. i'm leaning towards a manslaughter charge for zimbo. i dont think it was premeditated but i think zimbos irresponsible actions led to trayvons death.
1. driving around the neighborhood in a gated community with a loaded weapon, against neighborhood watch protocol.
2 getting out of his truck to follow trayvon, again against neighborhood watch protocol, continuing to follow zimmerman after being told not to, this in my opinion along with his statements "f'in punks" and "these aholes always get away" shows the state of mind zimbo was in, he was inferring that trayvon was a criminal even though trayvon was not doing anything illegal.
3. i realize these are just opinions and may or may not be admissible in court, if they were i think they could make a case for manslaughter.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Stand your ground applies to unarmed people as well. If Zimmerman started it then Treyvon had right to use whatever force necessary to stop him. That would make Zimmerman a murderer.

If you read the entire law it protects the aggressor from an unreasonable escalation of force from the victim.

There is a reason why almost all states who used Florida's SYG laws as a guideline for their own castle doctrine laws stripped that part out.

So before you call a person a murderer shouldn't you know what the law says first? If not does that make you ignorant?

Respectfully people take the time to research before making an accusations that is not supported by the law itself.

If you choose to get out of your car, follow someone, and shoot them dead. That is murder. You can couch it in whatever the judge will eventually call it all you like but that will not change the fact that the kid was murdered. He was not killed by accident.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

But who is the victim? Who is aggressor?

That my friend is the problem... The law is flawed because it allows the suspect and victim to use the same law to protect their actions. Most SYG / Castle Doctrine laws makes no exception if a person is the aggressor for obvious reasons.

Florida Law does allow for it, and worse the burden of proof by a person invoking the law is preponderance of the evidence where as the PA must counter the invocation of the law using proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Exactly the reason other states have stripped that section out of their individual laws. It makes no sense, it sets the perception on the person involved and if evidence supports the person explanation the person is immune to prosecution - Civil and Criminal.

This is why the Zimmerman - Martin case is so jacked up.

Originally posted by conspiracy nut
he is guilty of his irresponsibility in the way he caused trayvons death

He is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, not the court of public opinion.

Originally posted by conspiracy nut
by profiling him and following him for no reason

It has not been established he racially profiled. Dropping the race part its not illegal to profile an individual based on knowledge of the area - including people who are not from there, continued presence of criminal activity, etc.
The second part is lawful and used by not only law enforcement, but many business's outside of law enforcement. The more familiar term is crime analysis which is the process of taking criminal activity in a section, breaking the crimes down by type, breaking suspect information down by type and targeting the results.

There is no law that prevents a person from following someone else.
There is no law that prevents a person from making contact with another person.
There is no law that prevents a person from calling 911 to report suspcious activity.

**ETA** - Since some people have been nitpicking let me clarify. For this situation, the above is true. Outside of this situation the above list has corresponding laws which usually involve actions like harrassment, stalking, domestic violence, abuse of the 911 system etc. Making the actions in the above list illegal would stem frm a person being found guilty of one of the crimes mentioned for outside situations (not this incident) **ETA**

Originally posted by conspiracy nut
and then killing him. no one would have died that night if zimmerman wouldnt have had a gun.

You dont know this and speculation is just hat and holds no weight in a court of law.
Zimmerman was in lawful possesion of a fire arm.

Originally posted by conspiracy nut
and if you actually think trayvon could have killed him with his bare hands you're crazy,

Please provide factual evidence to support this claim. I can direct you to many cases where an individual who appears at a disatvantage because of a size / weight / muscle difference was the victor, using their bare hands.

In religious realsm the comparison is David vs. Goliath, and regardless if its fact or fiction, the premise holds.

Originally posted by conspiracy nut
the cops would have been there and someone would have stopped the fight before the cops got there.

Again you don't know this. Speculation is just that, and usually occurs during closing arguments when both sides present their final summation to the judge or jury. Absent that hypotheticals can be used in court provided they are just that OR threy are asked by a lawyer to a person who is considered an expert in that area. To date the "expert" (lead detective) underminded the case by his answers to 2 questions.

legalities aside we dont know and will never know the outcome of your hypothetical and the evidence to date does not conclusively support that speculation.

Originally posted by conspiracy nut
fair one on one fights happen everyday and deaths are rare.

You would be surprised to be honest. Check the FBI database (UCR reporting) to see the number of deaths and the action that resutled.

Originally posted by conspiracy nut
i'm leaning towards a manslaughter charge for zimbo. i dont think it was premeditated but i think zimbos irresponsible actions led to trayvons death.

Going along with this I think the Manslaughter Charge had a better chance of being proven. I do not understand the 2nd murder based on the evidence to date that we have. Its possible the PA has a smoking gun, however from their results at the bond hearing im doubting that. The lead detective, according to reports / media, was pushing for Manslaughter so again, the PA going for 2nd made no sense.

Originally posted by conspiracy nut
1. driving around the neighborhood in a gated community

Is not a crime.. Zimmerman lived there.

Originally posted by conspiracy nut
with a loaded weapon,

is not a crime... Zimmerman was in full compliance with Florida CCW laws.

Originally posted by conspiracy nut
against neighborhood watch protocol.

Which again, is not a violation of any laws. It does not matter if it violates protocols, because the laws of the State of Florida are not subordinate to private entity protocols.

Originally posted by conspiracy nut
2 getting out of his truck to follow trayvon, again against neighborhood watch protocol,

Which is not a crime...

Originally posted by conspiracy nut
continuing to follow zimmerman after being told not to,

The Dispatchers are NOT commissioned officers so this is not a crime.

Originally posted by conspiracy nut
this in my opinion along with his statements "f'in punks" and "these aholes always get away" shows the state of mind zimbo was in, he was inferring that trayvon was a criminal even though trayvon was not doing anything illegal.

Please explain how you are getting from his comments to being specifically directed at Martin. It sounds nitpicky but its a valid question on the legal side. Since his comments were generalized, you (actually the PA) would need to make an argument Zimmerman was directly referring to Martin.

Originally posted by conspiracy nut
3. i realize these are just opinions and may or may not be admissible in court, if they were i think they could make a case for manslaughter.

Fair enough and Thank You for making this last comment. Opinions are fine, so long as we keep things in perspective. My personal opinion is Zimmerman created this entire chain of events, and the resulting bad decision ultimately resulted in Martins death. Even if Martin attacked him, zimmerman still set the ball in motion.

From a legal argument under Florida law and US Con Law, and based on the evidence to date, Zimmerman is innocent until proven guilty and was within the SYG law, regardless of what politicians / govornors state in the media (until a judge states otherwise).

Regardless of how we personally feel, we cannot abandon the law because it protects and individuals actions that we dont agree with. The proper action is for the legislature to reevaluate the law in question, as it should occur, instead of punishing a person who is protected by the law.

If we ignore the law in order to make an example out of Zimmerman, then we are nothing but hypocrites.

i just want to reiterate that i do not think this was a case of racial profiling. i do think zim profiled tray though. he profiled him for his perceived thug "ahole" "punk" image. he basically judged a book by its cover.

Originally posted by conspiracy nut
i just want to reiterate that i do not think this was a case of racial profiling. i do think zim profiled tray though. he profiled him for his perceived thug "ahole" "punk" image. he basically judged a book by its cover.

Being afraid to say 'racial profiling' when it possibly is, is part of the problem.

Young people are profiled more than older people as criminals. Black people more so. There should be no problem with asserting your point further, by stating that it is within the realm of reason to suggest that Travon's youth and his blackness contributed to Zimmerman's profiling.

Calling things out for what they are does not make the problem worse, it brings it to the spotlight. Just because people may accuse you of throwing the racism card out there is irrelevant.

Originally posted by conspiracy nut
i just want to reiterate that i do not think this was a case of racial profiling. i do think zim profiled tray though. he profiled him for his perceived thug "ahole" "punk" image. he basically judged a book by its cover.

I believe that you are correct on this point.

I believe that Zimmerman presupposed that Trayvon was a 'thug', more accurately, he thought he was a thief.

I know that it is not a good thing to do, but it is also legal to do. Good thing it is legal, since it is a human trait that we all share.

Your personal history of violence has no bearing on this case. I notice you failed to mention where you pulled out your gun and shot an unarmed teenager in your scuffles. But its irrelevant.

Just because he was injured does not prove he was justified in killing Trayvon and any injuries he may have sustained do not prove Trayvon started the altercation.

Yet another weak dismissal.

Of course personal history has bearing, it means you have real world experience, which if you speak to those that actually have some, you quickly understand why it's important and makes a difference. Not many aside yourself will argue this.

You're argument against me and others is that we're making assumptions, well of course we are, but we admit it, you speak as if you were there and have no more information available to you than anyone else, but while I can accept Zimmerman may be guilty, judging by the vast majority of your posts, you cannot accept he may be innocent. You ignore evidence, dismiss relevant possibilities quickly and always always always circle back to your own personal assumptions about everything, some have merit, but some I find ridiculous.

The reason so many disagree with you is because many of your arguments are just a little weak. If they were so convincing and didn't have so many holes, not many would argue it, but that just isn't the case. It's why you're frustrated and it's why others are frustrated trying to talk to you, I find you somewhat comical at this point, I know nothing will change your mind of Zimmerman's possible innocence anymore than some won't change their minds of his possible guilt. I don't have much use for either because I can't trust the judgement of someone that won't be open minded, not just say they're open minded, but demonstrate it, which you have not as far as I'm concerned.

The reason so many disagree with you is because many of your arguments are just a little weak. If they were so convincing and didn't have so many holes, not many would argue it, but that just isn't the case.

I've read almost the entire thread and that's absolutely true. I don't know where so many get the patience to keep trying with Pizzanazi, I genuinely don't think he's capable of seeing it other ways. Comes across a little inexperienced.

I'm sure he'll respond with something he believes perfectly dissects your post, that will once again result in most of us grinning and shaking our heads some more.

Assuming Trayvon used violence first, there is no way it could be justified as self-defense from his part IMHO. Following, really? Even if he thought he was threatened by being followed, running away and calling the police is the correct response, not turning around and outright physically attacking the follower first. The only justification for violence is direct violence, or immediate threat of direct violence without easy escape. Which simply following someone is not. So the whole point whether Zimmerman followed Trayvon is moot IMHO. The only question in this case, one which should determine who is guilty is who used violence or direct immidiate threat of violence first.

Following others is legal. Physically attacking others just for following you is not.

Originally posted by hoochymama
If someone pulled a gun on me for no reason I would try and beat his azzzz too.

Really? you would try to beat someone up who's pointing a gun at you?

That's just ASKING for getting shot.

If the gun was pointed at anyone before the fight, the fight would've never been able to happen to begin with.

Originally posted by Maslo
Assuming Trayvon used violence first,

Why would we do that?

Originally posted by Xcathdra

There is no law that prevents a person from following someone else.
There is no law that prevents a person from making contact with another person.

Actually there are a great many laws that do just that from privacy laws to restraining orders. I thought you used to play a cop on ATS? You would think a cop would know there are a ton of laws that can prevent me from following you.

Originally posted by LErickson

Originally posted by Xcathdra

There is no law that prevents a person from following someone else.
There is no law that prevents a person from making contact with another person.

Actually there are a great many laws that do just that from privacy laws to restraining orders. I thought you used to play a cop on ATS? You would think a cop would know there are a ton of laws that can prevent me from following you.

Haha. Now that is just silly. How do any of those laws apply to this case?

Try this. The next time you notice a person behind you for a couple of blocks, dial 911 and when the police arrive, ask them to arrest the person for following you. You will probably be the one that gets in trouble for wasting the time of law enforcement, as no law was broken.

Better yet, file for a restraining order. Tell the judge that this person followed you down the street for a couple of blocks.....once. He will most likely admonish you for wasting the time of the court.

To add:

Privacy laws? No one has any guarantee of privacy when they are in a public place.

Originally posted by butcherguy

Haha. Now that is just silly. How do any of those laws apply to this case?

I never said they did have anything to do with this case.
I am sorry but I am tired of people not smart enough to respond to what they read as if they read and understood it in this thread so I stopped after the first thing you got wrong and read no more.

Originally posted by LErickson

Originally posted by Maslo
Assuming Trayvon used violence first,

Why would we do that?

Well, I see people who defend Trayvon here argue that Zimmerman followed Trayvon, and that it would somehow invalidate this as a self-defense shooting, even if we assume Martin attacked first. I disagree - if Martin did not attack first, then sure Zimmerman is guilty, but if he did, then he is guilty, regardless of if Zimmerman followed him or not. Following someone is not threatening to the point that would give him a right to attack first.

Originally posted by LErickson

Originally posted by butcherguy

Haha. Now that is just silly. How do any of those laws apply to this case?

I never said they did have anything to do with this case.
I am sorry but I am tired of people not smart enough to respond to what they read as if they read and understood it in this thread so I stopped after the first thing you got wrong and read no more.

Ohhhhhhhhh!

Silly, silly ME then!

I thought we were talking about the case.

Don't I feel stupid now!