Zimmerman vs. DMX - Boxing Match?

[notyou2]

How do you know with 100% certainty that Martin attacked Zimmerman first? You realize that most 17 year olds are intimidated by adults. The truth is most likely the other way around.

Because we know that Martin attacked Zimmerman, Zimmerman's busted up face and lacerations on the back of his head

and we know Martin was not attacked, the autopsy showed Martin's only injuries were to his knuckles, most likely caused by Zimmerman's face.

You are correct, it is not 100% certainty. But the evidence is clear enough for any reasonable person to made a reasonable judgement as to what extremely likely happened. It's also true that to say the opposite (zimmerman attacked Martin) would fly in the face of all the evidence.

Who was following who?

Who was accosting who?

Both those facts are known.

Most likely Zimmerman started it, Trayvon was winning it and Zimmerman shot him. I don't buy the self defence for a second, Zimmerman went looking for trouble, was losing a fight to a kid after Zimmerman started the fight, and then he upped the anti and unfortunately Trayvon paid with his life. Zimmerman should be in jail, the whole trial was a farce and a travesty of justice.

[john9blue]

can i just ask why leftists have such a need to insist that the black guy must be the victim here? i know your ideology is backwards but this time you're just blatantly ignoring all the evidence (which most of you pride yourselves on NOT doing).

if people like you didn't make such a huge deal out of a black man being murdered (it actually happens quite a lot, surprise surprise) then it would be an open and shut self-defense case. why are you so invested in the outcome being different than what it is?

i'm just fascinated by this whole case because of the way people like you respond to it. a random murder in florida isn't interesting except as a demonstration of the power of the mainstream media over feeble minds.

[notyou2]

can i just ask why leftists have such a need to insist that the black guy must be the victim here? i know your ideology is backwards but this time you're just blatantly ignoring all the evidence (which most of you pride yourselves on NOT doing).

if people like you didn't make such a huge deal out of a black man being murdered (it actually happens quite a lot, surprise surprise) then it would be an open and shut self-defense case. why are you so invested in the outcome being different than what it is?

Because he was a child and the other person was a self appointed vigilante adult looking for trouble where there was none. Why are you bringing race into it?

[john9blue]

Because he was a child and the other person was a self appointed vigilante adult looking for trouble where there was none. Why are you bringing race into it?

because race is the reason you and all the other crusaders care so much about this case. why not concern yourself with other murders?

[notyou2]

The only issue of race in this whole thing is racial profiling of black people by Zimmerman. I am a father and a grandfather. I could care less what race either of the people are. However, I believe Trayvon, a child, was killed by an adult vigilante. This is why this case pisses me off so much.

Also, John, I may be a "lefty" to you, but I am not in the eyes of most of the western world.

[john9blue]

The only issue of race in this whole thing is racial profiling of black people by Zimmerman. I am a father and a grandfather. I could care less what race either of the people are. However, I believe Trayvon, a child, was killed by an adult vigilante. This is why this case pisses me off so much.

the only reason this case reached your eyes and ears is because of a media-stoked race war.

seems like a david and goliath situation to me, considering trayvon was taller than GZ

Also, John, I may be a "lefty" to you, but I am not in the eyes of most of the western world.

i know that the world is full of idiots, it pains me every day (literally). you don't have to remind me.

[patches70]

The only issue of race in this whole thing is racial profiling of black people by Zimmerman. I am a father and a grandfather. I could care less what race either of the people are. However, I believe Trayvon, a child, was killed by an adult vigilante. This is why this case pisses me off so much.

Also, John, I may be a "lefty" to you, but I am not in the eyes of most of the western world.

haha, if a 17 year old "child" was on top of you beating your face in, you wouldn't fight back because he is a child?
You wouldn't defend yourself?
And if you would defend yourself, should you be charged with child abuse? Since you being a grandfather and all, are clearly an adult. And adults can't be going around beating up children, don't ya know.

Instead of being pissed off, you should probably think about and understand what legal self defense is.
I guarantee you, if you are somewhere that you are legally allowed to be (on the sidewalk, for instance), and someone has punched you in the face and is now on top of you and beating you, you will be completely justified in defending yourself in whatever means you can. To prevent further injury to yourself. In a lot of cases it won't even matter how it came to that situation either, so long as you didn't commit a crime.
And even if the attacker is 17, and even if the attacker doesn't like you for some reason (whatever it may be), you will be legally justified to defend yourself, so long as you haven't committed a crime to get yourself in that position.

Now, explain exactly what crime Zimmerman committed to negate a self defense defense in court?
For instance, you can't break into someone's house, the homeowner shows up with a gun, and you shoot him and claim self defense. Certainly, the homeowner would have shot you! You were defending yourself, except that you won't be able to use the self defense argument in court at all (though people have tried that line).
That action of you committing a crime negated any self defense argument you could make at that point, legally.

Some have been trying to explain these things to you people who still believe Zimmerman was guilty and that it wasn't self defense. Zimmerman did have a case. You may not agree, and that's fine, but that's why we have trials. You call the trial a farce, and in some ways it certainly was, but not at what you think.
Zimmerman should never have been charged with 2nd degree murder at all. I bet not even you think's Zimmerman committed 2nd degree, but hell you might if you don't know the difference between degrees of murder.
But for the rest of us who do know, it was unethical, immoral and a travesty that Zimmerman was charged such.

But since you don't believe Zimmerman had a case for self defense, you have to explain exactly what legal conditions negated Zimmerman's self defense argument. Please cite the actual law that Zimmerman broke. Because that's how the self defense argument gets negated. That or using force when force can be proven not to have been needed (such as shooting someone in the back as they are running away). I think it's pretty conclusive that Martin wasn't shot in the back*......


Anyway, cite the law Zimmerman broke if you would. That would give your POV some merit at least, as it stands now, you seem to be someone who is thinking purely on emotion and ignoring law and logic. The former is understandable, the latter two have no place at all in a court of law or determining one's guilt.....



*That brings to mind the recent "knock out game" attacks. If one of those attackers approached you and punched you hard as hell and knocked you to the ground and then started to run away, you wouldn't be able to pull you gun you happen to be carrying and shoot them as they ran away and claim self defense. Certainly the person committed a crime when they initially attacked you, but at the point they finished and were running away (likely laughing their ass off), one wouldn't be able to claim self defense if they shot the person at that point. You aren't preventing further injury to yourself at that point.
Which kind of sucks in a way I suppose, I'd be sorely tempted to shoot the bastard who did that.

[Phatscotty]

calling Trayvon a child is a bit out of place. I don't blame you though, the media only showed cherubic images of a far younger Trayvon Martin, in a way that caught you emotionally and remove the thinking cap. So the media sucked you in with a phony image.

You wouldn't be if the media showed current pictures instead of baby pictures





How, in your mind, could a 'child' do this to an 'adult vigilante'?



You just have to stretch so far from common sense, and it's the racism that makes people's mind up no matter what, even when based on total lies and propaganda. That was a major brainwash the media pulled off.

[thegreekdog]

^ how was GZ declared innocent if TM wasn't engaged in criminal action?

Zimmerman wasn't declare innocent and he certainly wasn't declared not guilty of lesser crimes. Maybe you want to rephrase your question. Something like: "How was self defense a proper defense if Martin wasn't engaged in a crime?"

you're right, i'm not that versed in legal terminology, which is partly why i asked.

so, do you have an answer to the question you posed?

There is a moral difference and a legal difference. Let's start with the legal part. Zimmerman was probably justified in shooting Martin after Martin attacked him. I think that's probably pretty straightforward, although I'm sure there is an argument that Zimmerman put himself in the situation for his life to be endangered in the first place. Which brings us to the moral issue.

Morally, what Zimmerman did was wrong. Yes, he was justified in defending himself. However, his self-defense did not occur in a vacuum (where Martin just randomly attacked him for no reason). Zimmerman followed Martin, was told by police not to continue following him, Zimmerman ignored the police dispatcher, was smacked around, and then shot Martin. I made a thing about Martin not being reasonable in his actions, but Zimmerman wasn't reasonable either. That's why I don't have any sympathy for Zimmerman and that is ultimately why I am disgusted by conservatives preening over the not guilty verdict. It's really disgusting.

An example of what I'm talking about is that I grab my gun, drive to West Philadelphia, and start following random people around until someone punches me in the face; then I shoot him. Was I acting in self-defense? Yes. Was I being a fucking idiot and asking for trouble? Also yes. Not something for my political supporters to be crowing about.

[john9blue]

Morally, what Zimmerman did was wrong. Yes, he was justified in defending himself. However, his self-defense did not occur in a vacuum (where Martin just randomly attacked him for no reason). Zimmerman followed Martin, was told by police not to continue following him, Zimmerman ignored the police dispatcher, was smacked around, and then shot Martin. I made a thing about Martin not being reasonable in his actions, but Zimmerman wasn't reasonable either. That's why I don't have any sympathy for Zimmerman and that is ultimately why I am disgusted by conservatives preening over the not guilty verdict. It's really disgusting.

An example of what I'm talking about is that I grab my gun, drive to West Philadelphia, and start following random people around until someone punches me in the face; then I shoot him. Was I acting in self-defense? Yes. Was I being a fucking idiot and asking for trouble? Also yes. Not something for my political supporters to be crowing about.

agreed, i'm not really a fan of zimmerman either but i do think this case is fascinating from a sociological point of view.

but you said earlier that martin was not a criminal, which makes me wonder how GZ could have been acting in self-defense. unless you meant that he was not a criminal before that night?

[Phatscotty]

^ how was GZ declared innocent if TM wasn't engaged in criminal action?

Zimmerman wasn't declare innocent and he certainly wasn't declared not guilty of lesser crimes. Maybe you want to rephrase your question. Something like: "How was self defense a proper defense if Martin wasn't engaged in a crime?"

you're right, i'm not that versed in legal terminology, which is partly why i asked.

so, do you have an answer to the question you posed?

Zimmerman followed Martin, was told by police not to continue following him, Zimmerman ignored the police dispatcher, was smacked around, and then shot Martin. I made a thing about Martin not being reasonable in his actions, but Zimmerman wasn't reasonable either. That's why I don't have any sympathy for Zimmerman and that is ultimately why I am disgusted by conservatives preening over the not guilty verdict. It's really disgusting.

Why you say Zimmerman ignored the police dispatcher?

[thegreekdog]

Morally, what Zimmerman did was wrong. Yes, he was justified in defending himself. However, his self-defense did not occur in a vacuum (where Martin just randomly attacked him for no reason). Zimmerman followed Martin, was told by police not to continue following him, Zimmerman ignored the police dispatcher, was smacked around, and then shot Martin. I made a thing about Martin not being reasonable in his actions, but Zimmerman wasn't reasonable either. That's why I don't have any sympathy for Zimmerman and that is ultimately why I am disgusted by conservatives preening over the not guilty verdict. It's really disgusting.

An example of what I'm talking about is that I grab my gun, drive to West Philadelphia, and start following random people around until someone punches me in the face; then I shoot him. Was I acting in self-defense? Yes. Was I being a fucking idiot and asking for trouble? Also yes. Not something for my political supporters to be crowing about.

agreed, i'm not really a fan of zimmerman either but i do think this case is fascinating from a sociological point of view.

but you said earlier that martin was not a criminal, which makes me wonder how GZ could have been acting in self-defense. unless you meant that he was not a criminal before that night?

He wasn't a criminal until he assaulted Zimmerman. So yeah, that's what I meant.

[thegreekdog]

^ how was GZ declared innocent if TM wasn't engaged in criminal action?

Zimmerman wasn't declare innocent and he certainly wasn't declared not guilty of lesser crimes. Maybe you want to rephrase your question. Something like: "How was self defense a proper defense if Martin wasn't engaged in a crime?"

you're right, i'm not that versed in legal terminology, which is partly why i asked.

so, do you have an answer to the question you posed?

Zimmerman followed Martin, was told by police not to continue following him, Zimmerman ignored the police dispatcher, was smacked around, and then shot Martin. I made a thing about Martin not being reasonable in his actions, but Zimmerman wasn't reasonable either. That's why I don't have any sympathy for Zimmerman and that is ultimately why I am disgusted by conservatives preening over the not guilty verdict. It's really disgusting.

Why you say Zimmerman ignored the police dispatcher?

Because he did. Note I did not say "order." So let's not get into semantics.

[oVo]

Nobody but Zimmerman knows who initiated this incident
or to be more exact, who assaulted who. You do not know
if Zimmerman started and finished this fight.

Zimmerman did not witness Martin committing a crime,
but considered him suspicious and stalked him.

Doesn't matter now, it's done.

[Phatscotty]

Zimmerman did not witness Martin committing a crime

How do you know that

[mrswdk]

Black people don't commit crimes, they just get framed by racist police and courts.

[oVo]

btw... Martin's other activities were not a jury's concern at trial,
just like Zimmerman's previous assault charges.

Still, it's history now. Martin's recent fuckup is a new problem
connected to old bad habits he has yet to shake.

Zimmerman may not realize how lucky he was to get off with no jail time in the Martin Death. I would have locked him up for a minimum of 2 years after finding him culpable for escalating that situation into an unnecessary use of deadly force. Their encounter should never have become life threatening to anyone.

[Phatscotty]

you don't know he is culpable for escalation

but what you say is like punishing a person for doing/saying something that made someone else physically assault them

I don't get you guys

[AndyDufresne]

No justice for Batmen.


--Andy

[Phatscotty]

It's pretty clear you guys think that since Zimmerman got out of his car means it's a green light for Trayvon to jump him and bash his head into the pavement

and everyone is ignoring that Trayvon was mostly scared because he thought he was being approached by a gay person, according to sworn testimony of Trayvon's gf

[oVo]

you don't know he is culpable for escalation

but what you say is like punishing a person for doing/saying something that made someone else physically assault them

No. I find him culpable for escalating the situation by (1) ignoring the advice of the police dispatcher, (2) following/stalking Martin, (3) engaging him at some point and (4) placing himself in a position where he felt the need to defend himself with a gun that he was carrying with that purpose in mind.

If you are in contact with local authorities who ask you to stand down and instead escalate the situation by your subsequent actions. Then you share the responsibility for the events that follow. To me that is close to the definition of culpable negligence and if I was a juror would hold you accountable for your actions and their consequences. I'm not looking to prove premeditated murder or manslaughter with no evidence or witnesses to support such a conclusion, just working with the only facts that are revealed in court.

[Phatscotty]

you don't know he is culpable for escalation

but what you say is like punishing a person for doing/saying something that made someone else physically assault them

No. I find him culpable for escalating the situation by (1) ignoring the advice of the police dispatcher, (2) following/stalking Martin, (3) engaging him at some point and (4) placing himself in a position where he felt the need to defend himself with a gun that he was carrying with that purpose in mind.

If you are in contact with local authorities who ask you to stand down and instead escalate the situation by your subsequent actions. Then you share the responsibility for the events that follow. To me that is close to the definition of culpable negligence and if I was a juror would hold you accountable for your actions and their consequences. I'm not looking to prove premeditated murder or manslaughter with no evidence or witnesses to support such a conclusion, just working with the only facts that are revealed in court.

you don't know that Zimmerman ignored the 911 dispatcher, I've already pointed that out. I've also pointed out there is evidence Zimmerman immediately obeyed the 911 dispatcher. That stops (1) in it's tracks, so there is no 2, 3, or 4.

[oVo]

you don't know that Zimmerman ignored the 911 dispatcher, I've already pointed that out. I've also pointed out there is evidence Zimmerman immediately obeyed the 911 dispatcher. That stops (1) in it's tracks, so there is no 2, 3, or 4.

If Zimmerman had complied with what the dispatcher recommended,
Martin would still be alive and no trial would have been necessary.

We do know Zimmerman ignored the 911 dispatcher, which is exactly
why all this idiotic bullshit occurred in the first place.

It might have all blown over too, if a UK Newspaper hadn't picked up
the story and run with it. The Florida press initially ignored the story
as if it was just a "common" incident.

[Phatscotty]

you don't know that Zimmerman ignored the 911 dispatcher, I've already pointed that out. I've also pointed out there is evidence Zimmerman immediately obeyed the 911 dispatcher. That stops (1) in it's tracks, so there is no 2, 3, or 4.

If Zimmerman had complied with what the dispatcher recommended,
Martin would still be alive and no trial would have been necessary.

That obviously isn't true, given Zimmerman did comply with the 911 dispatcher.

We do know Zimmerman ignored the 911 dispatcher...

source? I'm starting to suspect you are going all backwards on purpose. Either that, or you made up your mind as to what happened based solely on the race of the victim. Those are the only things I think can explain this, but feel free to show us what you base this baseless claim on.

[oVo]

So the 911 dispatch didn't say keep your distance,
police are on the way?

Did they recommend following him and engaging him
at the first opportunity?