Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

In my foreign land, murder is OKFollow

#102 Mar 21 2012 at 10:43 PM Rating: Excellent
******
49,740 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
Tasars have ALWAYS been known to be fatal options when used correctly, in one single short burst to drop the suspect. You are, after all, electocuting someone. They just have smaller odds of killing someone than a torso, head, or thigh artery gun shot. This is why tasers were introduced to be used as an alternative to shooting someone with a gun. Not to be used in any situation where you wouldn't use a gun.
I am stunned at how ... wrong all of this is. The odds are the same as death by wrist restraints, and most of the time the associated death from tasers is due to complications due to illegal drug use or preexisting heart disease. I've never heard of someone healthy and clean die from being tased. And no, tasers were introduced for the very specific reason to be used in situations where you wouldn't use a gun. Like riots or escaping suspects of violent criminals/suspects. The ... M29 I think the model currently used, has the stopping power of a standard issue M9 beretta, but causes a fraction of a fraction of the permanent damage.

Seriously, if the fatality rate was actually that high, would the method of certification the police and military use to allow them to carry and use tasers involve being shot with them first? A lot of the deaths associated with tasers are with people who are drugged out of their minds and violent, or have heart conditions. Sorry, but just the use of one isn't "excessive force" in any way possible.
Aripyanfar wrote:
So a police officer used an item they are supposed to use in situations they would previously use a gun in, to arrest a man with no weapon.
Again, that's not right at all. Not even close. It isn't "an item used in situations they'd use a gun in," the taser is the option you use in lieu of deadly force. It's what you use when you want to incapacitate someone, not kill them. It's, in fact, one step below deadly force on the Escalation of Force chart.

It wasn't excessive force. It was, as far as the case you linked to, a so far unfortunate incident. Calling it excessive force just marginalizes actual cases of real excessive force.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#103 Mar 21 2012 at 10:54 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,546 posts
Quote:
That's all I was saying. All we can say for sure is that those six recordings had to have all occurred within the last 6 months. We can't say when exactly, or how many more there are, or frankly anything else about them.


The article doesn't make a claim one way or the other, they could have all been in the same week, day or even hour. We don't know that is why it is arbitrary use of numbers. You are guessing. The point is, why bring it up if it is unsubsantiated. Recorded saying ******* **** is pretty much a bang on phrase associated to racism. Does it make this guy a racist itself, no. But him calling in 6 times is redundant, it could have been over a year or 2 years. It is a meaningless tidbit of information. It really makes no difference one way or the other.

Murder is murder and last I checked it was against the law to murder someone in cold blood, I can see this guy getting off though, simply due to lack of witnesses that have substantial evidence to the act.

But if it looks like **** and smells like ****, it is probably ****, and it makes no difference if he is racist or not.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#104 Mar 21 2012 at 11:05 PM Rating: Excellent
A guy resisting arrest and then running away, I'm not too upset about him being tasered. And also what lolgaxe said. I've never heard of tasers being used strictly as a replacement for guns. They might be able to be used instead of guns in some situations, which is great, but their application is certainly more broad then that.

Edited, Mar 22nd 2012 12:06am by Xsarus
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#105 Mar 21 2012 at 11:10 PM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
*****
15,952 posts
And there have been 500 taser deaths in the US because? You shouldn't taser someone before you know whether they have a heart condition or are on drugs, unless it's the same situation in which you'd pull out a gun.

Given the number of time police here and abroad taser suspects they specifically suspect are currently affected by drugs...which is a known cause of taser deaths...what do you think is going on with the practical use of tasers in the field?

In Oz they are supposed to be gun replacements, with the option to escalate to guns as necessary. In Oz, you also can't use a so-called lie-detector (a.k.a. stress detector) as evidence in court or any other legal situation. They are simply disqualified as having any scientific validity as lie detectors.

Edited, Mar 22nd 2012 1:14am by Aripyanfar
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#106 Mar 21 2012 at 11:26 PM Rating: Decent
******
49,740 posts
... Please, for the love of all that is holy, tell me that your entire argument isn't based on information you garnered off an HBO show. Please tell me that none of it is off that show.

Edited, Mar 22nd 2012 1:27am by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#107 Mar 21 2012 at 11:33 PM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
*****
15,952 posts
Nope. Not entirely sure what HBO do. Don't they do dramas?
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#108 Mar 21 2012 at 11:48 PM Rating: Excellent
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,646 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
... Please, for the love of all that is holy, tell me that your entire argument isn't based on information you garnered off an HBO show. Please tell me that none of it is off that show.

Edited, Mar 22nd 2012 1:27am by lolgaxe


Oz = Australia....
#109 Mar 22 2012 at 12:04 AM Rating: Good
******
49,740 posts
Sorry, I forgot Oz equals Australia. Anyway, to get back to this:
Aripyanfar wrote:
And there have been 500 taser deaths in the US because?
Yeah, over ELEVEN YEARS. If that's the argument to stop using tasers, then we should also remove all bathtubs and showers because in 2001 alone there were 341 cases of people drowning in them. Should we stop everything we do as human beings that causes more than 45 deaths a year? I'll be honest and say I can't think of a single thing that would be left. I could say we could just sit there, but there were 650 cases of people dying from falls involving bed, chair, other furniture ...

I'll grant you that tasers aren't a perfect solution, but, again, calling it's deployment in itself excessive is so far from the truth that it shocks me (I see what I did there) how delusional the claim is. Not only is it not the case, but there isn't even circumstantial evidence to support the claim, much less actual evidence.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#110 Mar 22 2012 at 1:52 AM Rating: Good
******
21,720 posts
Gbaji's a ******* idiot who has no real position in life and takes pleasure in arguing the edge case, regardless of subject or outcome, and the plain and simple truth is that this is probably a simple case of murder. Either way, I'm suddenly much less interested in arguing the case.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/22/justice/florida-teen-shooting/?hpt=us_c1

Any time ol' Al gets involved, it cheapens... everything, IMO.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#111 Mar 22 2012 at 5:59 AM Rating: Good
Gbaji wrote:
On the flip side though, the law was specifically written for cases like this
.

Not according to the Republican sponsors of the bill, nor the Executive Director of Florida carry, a gun's right group.

Quote:

"This law is for innocent, law-abiding citizens who are under attack by a perpetrator," Baxley told The Huffington Post. "Anyone who is out pursuing and confronting people is not protected by this statute."

"I think they need to go back and read the statute," Baxley said, referring to the Sanford Police Department.

Former Republican State Sen. Durell Peadon, another co-author of the law, said Zimmerman "has no protection under my law."

"They need to prosecute whoever shot the kid," Peadon told the Miami Herald on Tuesday.

Gun rights advocates also question the decision not to charge Zimmerman.

"I don't see why he hasn't been arrested," said Sean Caranna, executive director of Florida Carry, a gun rights group.

Zimmerman had no right to follow and confront Martin in the first place, Caranna noted.

"Being the neighborhood watch guy doesn't give you carte blanche to stop and question every guy you see walking down the street," Caranna said.


Gbaji wrote:
Loud voices shouting assumptions aside, we don't really know what went on that night. I don't think that those leaping to conclusions and launching into civil action are really helping matters either. Zimmerman was legally licensed to carry that gun. He was on a neighborhood watch patrol. The law was written to give people in that position the benefit of the doubt so that they aren't automatically arrested and charged in cases just like this.


See my previous response to why this law does NOT protect Zimmerman (thank jeebus).

Here's what we DO know went on that night:

- Zimmerman, the head of the neighborhood watch, was out patrolling the neighborhood when he saw Martin.
- Something about Martin's actions (walking & talking on his phone) or looks (black teenager wearing a hoodie) made Zimmerman think Martin was suspicious.
- Zimmerman contacted the Police's non-emergancy number, reported Martin as suspicious, & continued to follow Martin in his car against the instructions of the operator.
- Zimmerman got out of his car, a scuffle ensued with Martin, & Zimmerman shot & killed Martin.

Gbaji wrote:

Let the police do their investigation. I suspect there's more to this than we've heard so far.


I'd love to have some confidence in the police force in question, but it's kind of hard right now...

Facts: Zimmerman made a series of horrible decisions that lead to him killing Martin & the Police have @#%^ed up the investigation from the get go as they seem to have just taken Zimmerman's word that things happened how he said they did INSTEAD of thoroughly investigating what actually happened. Zimmerman @#%^ed up, the police @#%^ed up, & a 17 year old kid is dead and MAY not get justice because of it.

How is this situation NOT @#%^ed up Gbaji? If you wanna play devil's advocate so bad, how bout you start by telling me what Zimmerman & the Police did right.

Edited, Mar 22nd 2012 8:00am by Omegavegeta
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#112 Mar 22 2012 at 9:17 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,594 posts
I can't believe this whacko is still walking around free as a bird (probably with a loaded gun) after shooting down a child in cold blood.

It's scary that we're reverting back to barbarism - and that it's being so readily accepted. "Lol, i gots a gun i win, lol"

It's scary that there are gbaji's in this world that will make **** up that they have absolutely no idea about in an attempt to justify this action.

There is no excuse or reason or extenuating circumstance in the world that can be presented in this case that will elevate this action above anything but pure unadulterated murder.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#113 Mar 22 2012 at 9:58 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
10,795 posts
gbaji wrote:

The police took him downtown, questioned him, examined the evidence and made a determination that his story matched the evidence. They then decided not to pursue any charges against him and let him go. Which is precisely what the police are supposed to do.

Let me repeat (again) another part of a quote I already provided:

Quote:
Mr. Zimmerman’s claim is that the confrontation was initiated by Trayvon,” Police Chief Bill Lee said in an interview. “I am not going into specifics of what led to the violent physical encounter witnessed by residents. All the physical evidence and testimony we have independent of what Mr. Zimmerman provides corroborates this claim to self-defense.”


The police did not just take his word for it. They looked at "all the physical evidence" and "all the testimony" and found that it corroborated his story. What you (and many others) are doing is ignoring the physical evidence and looking only at a subset of the testimony, basing a judgment off of that, and then insisting that since the cops didn't see it the same way that they must be wrong, or incompetent, or something more sinister. It's you who are looking only at part of the picture and leaping to a conclusion.


Look at all the information out there, not just the stuff being shouted the most loudly. Be objective. It's not as simple as some are making this out to be. Let me be clear, I'm not precluding the possibility that Zimmerman is an evil racist who cruises around looking for black kids to hunt down and kill, but that just seems unlikely in this case. Why this kid? Why this night? I mean, it's possible he just snapped and went off on some crazed racist rampage or something, but you'd need more than just the facts of this case to make that claim.

Which is more likely? That a guy who lives in a mixed race community just out of the blue picked this one black kid out of presumably thousands he's seen walking around over the last year and decided to kill him. Or that Martin did something which gave him cause to suspect him, and then did something which made him believe his life was in danger? I've personally been accosted by neighborhood watch types in the past. And while I usually think that they're a bit overbearing and self-important, I've never fled from one, and certainly never got into a scuffle with one. I think that sometimes, people's own assumptions can make them do things which bring on these sorts of altercations. That can be said of Zimmerman's actions, but it can (and should) also be said of Martin's. The fact is that had he simply been walking along normally and hadn't tried to duck Zimmerman, and then hadn't run when Zimmerman found him again, he would be alive today.


The police took Zimmerman's word at face value without truly verifying his statement. They did a crappy investigation at the very outset. The detective sent was a narcotics detective, not homicide. They drug tested Trayvon Martin's body (because Zimmerman said he looked like he was on drugs in his call), but did not on Zimmerman (irrelevant but shows cops did not follow police procedure). They didn't even check Martin's phone. And it's LUDICROUS for you to say that it was Trayvon Martin's teenage girlfriend's duty to come forward with evidence when it's the police's job to initially run down the evidence they have on their hands. It's multiple witnesses that have come forward to say the police edited, twisted and manipulated their original statements.

Zimmerman took it upon himself to try to catch this kid who he believed was up to no good. Whatever scuffle there was, Trayvon Martin was trying to get away from a much larger man with a gun. I believe that Trayvon Martin believed that he was in a fight for his life and fought to get away. Trayvon was not using deadly force to injure Zimmerman in that context. After listening to the other 911 calls, Zimmerman shot that kid when he was screaming for help. Why didn't Zimmerman start hollering for help if he thought his life was in danger? He could have screamed at any time "Call the cops! Thief!" or something to that effect.
#114 Mar 22 2012 at 2:42 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
Omegavegeta wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
On the flip side though, the law was specifically written for cases like this
.

Not according to the Republican sponsors of the bill, nor the Executive Director of Florida carry, a gun's right group.

Quote:

"This law is for innocent, law-abiding citizens who are under attack by a perpetrator," Baxley told The Huffington Post. "Anyone who is out pursuing and confronting people is not protected by this statute."

"I think they need to go back and read the statute," Baxley said, referring to the Sanford Police Department.

Former Republican State Sen. Durell Peadon, another co-author of the law, said Zimmerman "has no protection under my law."


Gbaji wrote:
Loud voices shouting assumptions aside, we don't really know what went on that night. I don't think that those leaping to conclusions and launching into civil action are really helping matters either. Zimmerman was legally licensed to carry that gun. He was on a neighborhood watch patrol. The law was written to give people in that position the benefit of the doubt so that they aren't automatically arrested and charged in cases just like this.


See my previous response to why this law does NOT protect Zimmerman (thank jeebus).


And see my previous post where I responded to the exact argument you are making. Those guys are in CYA mode. The fact is that the law in question has been used in the past to prevent charges being filed in cases far less like a self-defense situation than this one. They can insist that this isn't what the law says, but the reality is that this is how the law has been interpreted and enforced by the police and the courts.

And frankly, some of those statements make no sense at all. Individuals are *already* allowed to use lethal force in self defense when "under an attack by a perpetrator". They didn't need a "stand your ground" law for that case. The law was written for cases where a person *could* have avoided conflict but choose not to. It is specifically applicable in cases where the individual is acting to protect his property (as opposed to just his own life). It was written to prevent arguments in court that since you could have stayed upstairs in your room and been safe, but choose to go investigate that noise downstairs and brought a gun with you, that you can't be charged with murder for shooting the invader.

That's what the law exists for. And it's absolutely applicable to a neighborhood watch member being allowed to confront someone on the private property of the association he's a member of if he believes that person is engaged in activity which may damage the property he and the rest of the home owners collectively own. And no amount of politicians attempting to back away from this particular case change that. He was on private property. He was a part owner of that property. The "stand your ground" rule directly applies in this case. How the **** can it not?

Quote:
Here's what we DO know went on that night:

- Zimmerman, the head of the neighborhood watch, was out patrolling the neighborhood when he saw Martin.
- Something about Martin's actions (walking & talking on his phone) or looks (black teenager wearing a hoodie) made Zimmerman think Martin was suspicious.
- Zimmerman contacted the Police's non-emergancy number, reported Martin as suspicious, & continued to follow Martin in his car against the instructions of the operator.
- Zimmerman got out of his car, a scuffle ensued with Martin, & Zimmerman shot & killed Martin.


I don't see anything that Zimmerman did that is wrong in that list. He did nothing that any homeowner is not legally allowed to do. Had Martin simply talked to Zimmerman like a normal person, instead of running (and according to Zimmerman, jumping him from behind at one point), Martin would be alive.

Quote:
Gbaji wrote:

Let the police do their investigation. I suspect there's more to this than we've heard so far.


I'd love to have some confidence in the police force in question, but it's kind of hard right now...


Mob rule in action. And you think this is the right way to determine guilt or innocence? Honestly?

Quote:
Facts: Zimmerman made a series of horrible decisions that lead to him killing Martin & the Police have @#%^ed up the investigation from the get go as they seem to have just taken Zimmerman's word that things happened how he said they did INSTEAD of thoroughly investigating what actually happened. Zimmerman @#%^ed up, the police @#%^ed up, & a 17 year old kid is dead and MAY not get justice because of it.


Those are not facts. Those are your conclusions. Conclusions based only part of the information and a lot of emotion. The fact is that Zimmerman did nothing which he did not have a right to do. It was Martin who made horrible choices that night, choices well out of the norm. I know that this is not a popular thing to say because everyone wants to feel sorry for the guy who died, but the fact is that he made a series of really dumb decisions which lead to him dying.

Quote:
How is this situation NOT @#%^ed up Gbaji? If you wanna play devil's advocate so bad, how bout you start by telling me what Zimmerman & the Police did right.


Zimmerman was within his right to pursue Martin. He was within his right to challenge his presence there. When Martin choose to run instead of explain his presence, Zimmerman was within his right to pursue him. When Martin attacked Zimmerman, he was within his right to protect himself, including the use of lethal force. When the police arrived on the scene, they correctly questioned Zimmerman, about 10 witnesses, and examined the physical evidence at the scene. They found that Zimmerman's account, and the physical evidence and most of the witness accounts all matched. The fact that about 3 witnesses (none of whom directly saw the event) did not match can be discounted because witness accounts *never* perfectly match up. Clearly, when two witnesses insist that they didn't hear any struggling or fighting, but there's evidence on both men of a physical fight, you can discount their claims.


The police had zero reason to think anything happened in this case other than what Zimmerman told them. Why would they? They followed the procedures and the law. But because that didn't result in an outcome that some wanted, we'll ignore what the law says, get a nice mob stirred up, and march around with the modern equivalent of torches and pitchforks and attempt to force the "justice" that the mob wants.

The police did it right. What's going on right now is mob justice. Which do you think is the better way to handle this?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#115 Mar 22 2012 at 2:53 PM Rating: Good
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,369 posts
gbaji wrote:
Zimmerman was within his right to pursue Martin. He was within his right to challenge his presence there. When Martin choose to run instead of explain his presence, Zimmerman was within his right to pursue him. When Martin attacked Zimmerman, he was within his right to protect himself, including the use of lethal force. When the police arrived on the scene, they correctly questioned Zimmerman, about 10 witnesses, and examined the physical evidence at the scene. They found that Zimmerman's account, and the physical evidence and most of the witness accounts all matched. The fact that about 3 witnesses (none of whom directly saw the event) did not match can be discounted because witness accounts *never* perfectly match up. Clearly, when two witnesses insist that they didn't hear any struggling or fighting, but there's evidence on both men of a physical fight, you can discount their claims.


I'm going to respond with an earlier quote of yours:

Quote:
Let the police do their investigation. I suspect there's more to this than we've heard so far.


I'm plenty in agreement with a lot of what you've said previously about being innocent until proven guilty, facts being largely unknown, defending ones self, let the courts decide, etc. But if you're going to start analyzing witness testimony and jumping to conclusions as well, sorry, but you're swimming back alone.

____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#116 Mar 22 2012 at 3:09 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,471 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
I'm plenty in agreement with a lot of what you've said previously about being innocent until proven guilty, facts being largely unknown, defending ones self, let the courts decide, etc. But if you're going to start analyzing witness testimony and jumping to conclusions as well, sorry, but you're swimming back alone.


Agreed. Gbaji started out reasonably enough here, I think. Keep him talking though, and eventually he'll fall back and entrench himself in a more biased position, which he seems to be doing as we speak. It's pretty common behavior from him.

I'll certainly advocate a reserved approach to the case. I think some people are shooting from the hip too quickly against Zimmerman with many accusations here. But I also think that Gbaji is now coming too readily to his defense (I wonder why?). There's a difference between "innocent until proven guilty" and "starting out wholly convinced of innocence and unwilling to accept other possibilities."

Edited, Mar 22nd 2012 5:10pm by Eske
#117 Mar 22 2012 at 3:10 PM Rating: Good
******
20,020 posts
If some unknown car had been following me slowly for 2-4+ minutes when it was dark, foggy, and rainy, you can sure as **** bet I'm going to be freaked the f*** out. Your first thought should be to GTFO of there, because the chances that your are in serious danger are not low at that point.

Especially if you are a black kid walking alone.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#118 Mar 22 2012 at 3:15 PM Rating: Good
****
6,471 posts
The only conclusion that I can take away from this case right now, from what we firmly know about the circumstances, is that there need to be measures in place to keep armed citizens from needlessly escalating a situation towards violence. I think it's clear that Zimmerman did that, at the very least.

Firearms can't be used to embolden people into rash decisions. Actions like that add volatility to a situation. I can envision myriad scenarios where two people **** heads, and one is armed, where in the heat of the moment mistakes are made on both sides and someone gets shot. In those cases, I don't think I can help but lay more blame on the person who introduced the gun into the situation.

Edited, Mar 22nd 2012 5:16pm by Eske
#119 Mar 22 2012 at 3:32 PM Rating: Excellent
***
1,877 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
If some unknown car had been following me slowly for 2-4+ minutes when it was dark, foggy, and rainy, you can sure as **** bet I'm going to be freaked the f*** out. Your first thought should be to GTFO of there, because the chances that your are in serious danger are not low at that point.

Especially if you are a black kid walking alone.


I know I would be hella nervous if some guy is following me while giving the stink eye the entire time.
____________________________
#swaggerjacker
#120 Mar 22 2012 at 4:08 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
Thumbelyna Quick Hands wrote:
The police took Zimmerman's word at face value without truly verifying his statement.


You know this for a fact? Or you're just repeating what a lot of people (who are also just repeating it) are saying? According to the police, they questioned around 10 witnesses in addition to Zimmerman and the examined the physical evidence. While the media is making a huge deal of a couple witness reports which after the fact appear to contradict or dispute Zimmerman's account, those witness statements are more about speculation than reports of what they actually saw.

It's a funny thing how perceptions change after an event occurs and people start comparing notes or assumptions. We start filling in the gaps with what we think is true, but that's not always what's actually true. For example, the 13 year old boy who was walking the dog? He reported that the person on the ground screaming was wearing a red shirt. He didn't see the shot. Another witness saw someone with a white shirt straddling someone with a red shirt beating him. Then the gunshot rang out. Then that witness saw the person with the red shirt standing over the person on the ground.

Zimmerman was wearing a red jacket. Martin was wearing a grey hoodie (certainly more white than red). The point is that all of the witnesses who actually saw the struggle agreed that it was the guy wearing red (which had to be Zimmerman) on the ground being beaten. He was also the one screaming for help, even if some reported that it sounded like a kid, it was him, not Martin. People fill in the blanks. They assumed that it must have been the younger person who was screaming. The 13 year old even reported (later) to the media that it was Trayvon on the ground in the red shirt. Why? Because by then he'd assumed that it was Trayvon being beaten, so he must have been the guy he saw on the ground wearing red.

But he wasn't. The police weren't biased by later media coverage and gap filling. They looked at the facts at the time. And they were pretty overwhelming. Multiple witnesses describing what could only have been Zimmerman on the ground being pummeled by Martin. Zimmerman with grass stains on his back. Zimmerman with a bloody nose and wound on the back of his head. All the physical evidence matched the witness statements at the time. What has happened is that witnesses have filled in the gaps and in the retelling to a media looking for a good story, end out presenting a completely false version of events.


The police did exactly what they should have based on overwhelming evidence that this was a self defense case.

Quote:
Whatever scuffle there was, Trayvon Martin was trying to get away from a much larger man with a gun.


You're filling in the blanks with that assumption though. You assume that Martin didn't do anything wrong, so you fill in rationales for what happened based on that. But what if you're wrong? What if Zimmerman's story that he didn't initiate a conflict with Martin is true? What if Martin attacked him from behind as he claims? What if it was Martin who was beating the crap out of Zimmerman, who then had no choice but to use his gun to defend himself?

Are you really sure of the story you've heard in the media? For example. Do you know how tall Martin was? Are you so sure that someone you've never met and never heard of before this last week is the darling angle required for these assumptions?

Quote:
I believe that Trayvon Martin believed that he was in a fight for his life and fought to get away.


Except that there are a number of witness reports which directly contradict that.

Quote:
Trayvon was not using deadly force to injure Zimmerman in that context.


Again, witness reports and physical evidence refute that.

Quote:
After listening to the other 911 calls, Zimmerman shot that kid when he was screaming for help. Why didn't Zimmerman start hollering for help if he thought his life was in danger? He could have screamed at any time "Call the cops! Thief!" or something to that effect.


According to him, he did. Are you sure who was crying for help? Were the witnesses sure? Again, perception is a funny thing. You assume it must be the younger guy calling for help, so you interpret what you hear within that context. But are you sure?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#121 Mar 22 2012 at 4:14 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
I'll certainly advocate a reserved approach to the case. I think some people are shooting from the hip too quickly against Zimmerman with many accusations here. But I also think that Gbaji is now coming too readily to his defense (I wonder why?). There's a difference between "innocent until proven guilty" and "starting out wholly convinced of innocence and unwilling to accept other possibilities."


I'm arguing against the assumption that the police must have botched their investigation because it didn't result in arresting Zimmerman (apparently). I'm also arguing that much of what is being presented to us in the media is *not* a full story with regard to what happened that night.

It's interesting, because as I dig up more and more stories, the pieces start to fall into place. Sometimes, it's one piece in one story (such as the 13 year old saying that the guy on the ground was wearing a red shirt). Then it's another (a witness saying that the person who was standing after the shot was the person who was on the ground being beaten before the shot). You start adding this stuff up and pretty soon it vastly outweighs the strong assertions being made by those who weren't there and the very non-definitive statements from a few witnesses after the fact to the media which allows for those strong assertions to be accepted. Meanwhile, some very clear information which is available (if you dig) is being just ignored by most people when they relate this case.


I suspect that when the full facts come out, there are going to be a whole lot of people who are owed an apology.

Edited, Mar 22nd 2012 3:17pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#122 Mar 22 2012 at 4:22 PM Rating: Good
******
20,020 posts
Quote:

Again, witness reports and physical evidence refute that.


Can you actually link me to an article that mentions these pieces of evidence? Because I confess none of the ones I read offer any evidence for Zimmerman's side of the story. This might just be me forgetting facts IIRC, the current stance of the police department was that they can't refute Zimmerman's claim, not that they have any particular reason to believe it.

And I agree with that system. Reasonable doubt is a very important system--it gets us closer to justice than anything else I can think of. But I haven't seen anything to confirm Zimmerman's story. In and of itself, not enough for me to call for an arrest. But compounded with the third-party testimonies we have seen, then it becomes problematic.

[EDIT]
Quote:
I'm arguing against the assumption that the police must have botched their investigation because it didn't result in arresting Zimmerman (apparently)


Well if that isn't a straw man, I don't know what is.

Edited, Mar 22nd 2012 6:23pm by idiggory
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#123 Mar 22 2012 at 4:27 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,369 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Well if that isn't a straw man, I don't know what is.


This.

Screenshot

____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#124 Mar 22 2012 at 4:28 PM Rating: Excellent
******
20,020 posts
Oh...

I was mistaken then.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#125 Mar 22 2012 at 4:36 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,369 posts
That's okay it happens.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#126 Mar 22 2012 at 5:17 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
Ok. first report (I've linked this before btw):

Quote:
Zimmerman had a damp shirt, grass stains, a bloody nose and was bleeding from a wound in back of his head, according to police reports.


From the same article (remember that this is what he's telling the media now):

Quote:
A neighborhood eighth-grader out walking his dog said his family also called 911.

“I saw someone lying on the ground, and I heard screaming,” said Austin, 13, whose mother asked that his last name not be published. “I don’t know that it was the person on the [ground] who was screaming, but to me it sounded like a kid who was crying. It was a yell for help, and I think it was Trayvon.”



From this article, a bit about Mary Cutcher:

Quote:
The time that we heard the whining and then the gunshot, we did not hear any wrestling, no punching, no fighting, nothing to make it sound like there was a fight," said Mary Cutcher, one of the callers.


But in the previously linked article, there's this:

Quote:
Lee released a statement Thursday disputing Cutcher’s account, saying it differed from what she originally told police, which she angrily denies.

Cutcher originally gave police a statement that matched Zimmerman’s account, said police spokesman Sgt. David Morgenstern.


Assuming that they have her testimony on tape or in writing, I suppose we'll eventually know who is correct. But it seems far more likely for someone to change the story slightly over time when retelling it to the media, then for police to do so (given that they're legally "stuck" with the actual original testimony).

Then, there's this link

Quote:
Another woman said a man in a 'white top' was on top of Trayvon.



According to the police report (you all read this right?). A relevant portion:

Quote:
As I walked in between the buildings, I observed a white male, wearing a red jacket and blue jeans. I also observed a black male, wearing a gray hooded sweatshirt, laying face down in the grass.

I asked the subject in the red jacket, later identified as George Zimmerman (who was original caller for suspicious person complaint), if he had seen the subject. Zimmerman stated that he had shot the subject and was still armed. Zimmerman complied with all of my verbal commands and was secured in handcuffs. Located on the inside of Zimmerman's waistband, I removed a black Kel Tek 9mm PF9 semi auto handgun and holster. While I was in such close contact with Zimmerman, I could observe that his back appeared to be wet and was covered in grass, as if he had been laying on his back on the ground. Zimmerman was also bleeding from the nose and the back of the head.


Then, there's this

Mostly just repeats what other sources have said, but there's this:

Quote:
Eyewitness account of Zimmerman being pinned on the ground and beaten by Martin, and crying for help. Eyewitnesses can be unreliable, but the account 100% corroborates with the police data.

Sounds to me like Zimmerman saw the witness and called for help, when the witness ran inside and instead called the cops (who were already en-route) Zimmerman shot.


So. The only person wearing red, with wounds to his nose and the back of his head, was also reported by witnesses to have been the one on his back, while the other person was on top of him. Despite (a few) people later incorrectly identifying them by name (and assuming that Trayvon was the one on the ground), the physical evidence in front of the police that night *can't* be wrong. None of the witnesses saw either person well enough to identify them, only their clothes. That, and the physical evidence was certainly enough to prove self defense.


Now, we can speculate about how the scuffle started, but we can't even get to that point if people are unwilling to look at more information than just that being repeated the most by those on one "side" of this issue. Look at all the facts. At the very least, these two were both in a fight and Martin was not automatically losing just because he was younger. He was a 6 foot tall 17 year old football player. Zimmerman was a 5'9 sorta plump guy in his late 20s. It's at least misleading to just assume that Martin *must* have been the one with the disadvantage in a physical fight here.

Edited, Mar 22nd 2012 4:19pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 52 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (52)