Zimmerman Medical Report Shows Broken Nose, Lacerations..."

[cordex]

Again folks, the important lesson - don't go chasing people in the night when armed.

Whatever the value or specific applicability of your other points, this is absolutely spot on.

[Tallpine]

don't go chasing people in the night when armed

Better to do it unarmed 


BTW, how come Martin is referred to by his first name while George is referred to by his last name ...?   

[MicroBalrog]

Better to do it unarmed 


BTW, how come Martin is referred to by his first name while George is referred to by his last name ...?   

Isn't Martin the kid's surname, and his first name is Travyon?

As a non-LEO, you shouldn't go chasing people at all, unless you actually witness them committing a serious crime like arson or murder or rape.

[Tallpine]

Isn't Martin the kid's surname, and his first name is Travyon?

Yes, but a certain poster (and some others following that example) is referring to one of the individuals in the incident by his first name and the other by his last name.  I  can't help but think that there is some sort of intent to make one of the individuals more of a "person" than the other 

[Jim147]

My surname is Sir Jim. Thank you Jethro.

It doesn't matter. The media always shows a smiling picture of one and a court appearance of the other.

jim

[Perd Hapley]

Better to do it unarmed  


BTW, how come Martin is referred to by his first name while George is referred to by his last name ...?  

Because when people hear "Trayvon," they presume the deceased is black. Zimmerman sounds like a white guy name. It sells much better, don't you know.

Thanks for pointing that out. I thought I had noticed that, too.

[T.O.M.]

mat, thanks for editing my fact statement.  Problem is that it doesn't help me clarify anything.  Stil unsure if it fits justified or not...

[MechAg94]

mat, thanks for editing my fact statement.  Problem is that it doesn't help me clarify anything.  Stil unsure if it fits justified or not...

I agree that we still don't know a whole lot yet.  I think my opinion is more a reaction to the media and others who seem to be trying to hang the guy or find any way they can to justify thinking he is guilty of murder.  I haven't seen near enough to prove that to me yet.  I guess I tend to side with the underdog.

[Tallpine]

I agree that we still don't know a whole lot yet.  I think my opinion is more a reaction to the media and others who seem to be trying to hang the guy or find any way they can to justify thinking he is guilty of murder.  I haven't seen near enough to prove that to me yet.  I guess I tend to side with the underdog.

Both sides seem to think that their own favorite is the underdog 

[De Selby]

mat, thanks for editing my fact statement.  Problem is that it doesn't help me clarify anything.  Stil unsure if it fits justified or not...

My own view is that the tapes place the burden on Zimmerman - they presumptively make out a homicide, where one person admitted on tape he was chasing someone else.  That someone else wasn't doing anything wrong.  Now that he's dead, it's up to Zimmerman to demonstrate why he should be the exception from the normal rule that if you cause a death, you pay the consequences.

This rule about confrontations is an important element of self-defence in civil society.  We should expect and demand the right to stroll peacefully through our public and private spaces without having to answer to an armed watchman just because the watchman feels like it.  I do expect that CCWers and fellow gun owners will be responsible enough not to chase kids around the neighbourhood, seeking out evil-doers on a hunch.

The gun-board sentiment towards Zimmerman has been mostly favourable from what I can see.  That sentiment erodes public confidence in gun owners, as I expect the non-gun owning public considers it their right not to be accosted by armed neighbourhood watchmen for no reason.  It thereby erodes the right to self-defence, which is now already under review in Florida because so many people found this shooting and subsequent lack of charges outrageous. 

Get-back for the OJ trial, which is regularly mentioned on these threads, is of absolutely no value to anyone.  I cannot see how this will end well for gun owners, and to be honest, if we as a community think it's okay to go chasing people with our guns because they "look suspicious", it probably should not end well for us.  We don't deserve it.

[roo_ster]

mat, thanks for editing my fact statement.  Problem is that it doesn't help me clarify anything.  Stil unsure if it fits justified or not...

Join the club.

OTOH, advocating something contrary the the lynch mob is usually a good thing on general principle.

It thereby erodes the right to self-defence, which is now already under review in Florida because so many people found this shooting and subsequent lack of charges outrageous. the usual scumbag race-hustlers went out in force and the lickspittle media lapped it up off of the pavement and vomited it into their reportage.

There you go.

[AmbulanceDriver]

Actually, the vast majority of the sentiment I've seen on gun boards (which has even been repeated on this forum more than once) is that Zimmerman was an idiot for getting out of his car, but that other than that we don't have enough information to either clear or convict.

As more information has come out, yes, the sentiment has shifted towards Zimmerman, mostly because the physical evidence that we've seen seems to support his statements.  

That being said, don't know *still* means don't know.  There's been a lot of supposition, a lot of inference, and a lot of discussion, but don't know really does still mean don't know.  

I honestly think that what you're seeing as 'favorable sentiment towards Zimmerman' is a matter of perspective.  If you know he's guilty, of course anything away from that view is going to seem favorable towards Zimmerman.  If you are of the camp that says, 'let's wait for, you know, actual *evidence*' then the whole "Zimmerman is guilty, fry is arse" sentiment gets a little tiring, because we get tired of saying, "Hey, let's wait for actual EVIDENCE, and let an actual COURT, with an actual JUDGE, and maybe even an actual JURY reach an actual VERDICT.".  

[erictank]

Because when people hear "Trayvon," they presume the deceased is black. Zimmerman sounds like a white guy name. It sells much better, don't you know.

Thanks for pointing that out. I thought I had noticed that, too.

Technically, 'George' isn't an especially-ethnic name either...

[HankB]

That being said, don't know *still* means don't know.  There's been a lot of supposition, a lot of inference, and a lot of discussion, but don't know really does still mean don't know.  

I honestly think that what you're seeing as 'favorable sentiment towards Zimmerman' is a matter of perspective.  If you know he's guilty, of course anything away from that view is going to seem favorable towards Zimmerman.  If you are of the camp that says, 'let's wait for, you know, actual *evidence*' then the whole "Zimmerman is guilty, fry is arse" sentiment gets a little tiring, because we get tired of saying, "Hey, let's wait for actual EVIDENCE, and let an actual COURT, with an actual JUDGE, and maybe even an actual JURY reach an actual VERDICT.".  

Exactly. For example, when someone posts

. . .  I expect the non-gun owning public considers it their right not to be accosted by armed neighbourhood watchmen for no reason.  

The response is "We don't KNOW that Zimmerman accosted Martin, let's see what the actual evidence says" There's still a gap where we don't KNOW what happened between the end of the 911 call (where the two had NOT interacted yet) and the eyewitness account of Martin beating on Zimmerman - which did not include the beginning of the encounter. The "We don't know" response is neutral - and the pro-Martin contingent is put off by neutrality when they know Martin is an angel who was ruthlessly murdered by a bloodthirsty white Hispanic racist.

Few here have said Zimmerman is A-OK; I've personally written more than once that based on public knowledge to this point, there is plenty of reasonable doubt - which is not the same as a proclamation of innocence. Additional evidence may eventually change that - but it hasn't up to now. If "let's reserve judgement until we KNOW what happened, based on actual evidence rather than extrapolation, assumptions, inferences, or the incendiary comments from the usual suspects" is seen as support for Zimmerman . . . so be it.

[makattak]

http://www.chron.com/news/article/Zimmerman-complained-about-Sanford-police-in-2011-3580679.php

More evidence of the danger of that devious mastermind, George Zimmerman.

An ENTIRE YEAR before shooting Trayvon Martin, he was complaining about police favoritism in the beating of a black man by a white boy.

It's obvious he needs to be up for murder 1 given how long he's been preparing the narrative to make him appear not to be racist!

[T.O.M.]

And all of this is why APS is the only forum I visit on a semi-daily basis.  Fight like hell for five pages, and no one has reorted to name calling (yet).  And, bottom line, everyone agrees that George (there, no Z this time.    ) made some bad choices along the way which may come back to bite us all in the butt as armed citizens.

It will be interesting as an attorney and magistrate to watch the trial in terms of the arguments made for self defense.  A tactic I've seen successfully used is for the defense to put up essentially no argument with the State's case regarding the homicide, and then bury the jury in evidence regarding the justification.  It works well if the defense attorney is able to convince the judge that much of the State's evidence should be kept out as irrelevent to the homicide charge.

[zahc]

Zimmerman, who claims the Feb. 26 shooting was self-defense, was initially not arrested. But after protests around the country and an investigation by a state prosecutor, he was charged.

I keep hearing this over and over again, like it's true. Am I missing something?

I thought he WAS arrested. And then he was not charged, and then released, but he was still arrested. I mean, I remember seeing video on the news where he had his hands cuffed behind his back, and everyone was trying to see if he had blood on the back of his head. Is that not "being arrested" now? Has the definition of "being arrested" changed, so that if you are eventually released, it never happened? Do police officers cuff you and take you to the station "just to have a chat", and that's not considered being arrested?

[nigmalg]

http://www.chron.com/news/article/Zimmerman-complained-about-Sanford-police-in-2011-3580679.php

More evidence of the danger of that devious mastermind, George Zimmerman.

An ENTIRE YEAR before shooting Trayvon Martin, he was complaining about police favoritism in the beating of a black man by a white boy.

It's obvious he needs to be up for murder 1 given how long he's been preparing the narrative to make him appear not to be racist!

I saw this on CNN this morning. Instead of discussion the inherent importance that Zimmerman fought for justice within the police department, they ran on the narrative they Zimmerman later "changed his story" and supported the department in a later email. They're insinuating that he only supported the department because of the decision not to charge him. It's a disgusting trick used to shift focus onto the most unlikely of possibilities in an effort to maintain the race controversy.

CNN again proving that their despicable behavior regarding this case isn't going away any time soon.

[De Selby]

http://www.chron.com/news/article/Zimmerman-complained-about-Sanford-police-in-2011-3580679.php

More evidence of the danger of that devious mastermind, George Zimmerman.

An ENTIRE YEAR before shooting Trayvon Martin, he was complaining about police favoritism in the beating of a black man by a white boy.

It's obvious he needs to be up for murder 1 given how long he's been preparing the narrative to make him appear not to be racist!

Yeah, I notice this - some folk really want this to be a race issue, so they can blame it on reverse racism.  I don't see that racism has anything to do with whether he committed the crime, which is mostly made out by the tapes.

I'm afraid to ask, but I will:  How on earth does the fact that George (No Z) immerman helped black people sometimes mean anything for this case???   He said on tape he thought the kid was suspicious and on drugs.  We know what he believed (and we know it was wrong) at the time this whole thing started.  I have no idea why we need to demean ourselves to the level of saying "but but but he has black friends!"

[Ned Hamford]

 It works well if the defense attorney is able to convince the judge that much of the State's evidence should be kept out as irrelevent to the homicide charge.

A favorite tactic of mine is to stipulate evidence from the opposing side into evidence along with whatever fact they were going to prove with it anyway.  In addition to having a much softer introduction and base fact phraseology, it robs the opposing counsel of their moment and more often than not, they then have no idea what to do.  It also helps cement my own side as being the ever reasonable one.  Also helps one be on the good side of judges who tend to like things moved along as efficiently as possible.  

I also find it amusing to think of being a nice/reasonable guy as a legal tactic.  

[makattak]

Yeah, I notice this - some folk really want this to be a race issue, so they can blame it on reverse racism.  I don't see that racism has anything to do with whether he committed the crime, which is mostly made out by the tapes.

I'm afraid to ask, but I will:  How on earth does the fact that George (No Z) immerman helped black people sometimes mean anything for this case???   He said on tape he thought the kid was suspicious and on drugs.  We know what he believed (and we know it was wrong) at the time this whole thing started.  I have no idea why we need to demean ourselves to the level of saying "but but but he has black friends!"

First, because he wasn't wrong. He said the kid was acting suspiciously and one explanation was that he could be on drugs. Walking around in the dark on an especially cold and rainy night is suspicious. (For reference, when someone uses the word "like" such as is found on the 911 tapes, that is often designating an analogy. "Like he's on drugs or something" doesn't indicate one believes he is on drugs but that is a possible explanation for the behavior.)

Secondly, given that the prosecutor in her charging statement explicitly states that Mr. Zimmerman "profiled" Mr. Martin, I would say that race is clearly an issue here.

[roo_ster]

Secondly, given that the prosecutor in her charging statement explicitly states that Mr. Zimmerman "profiled" Mr. Martin, I would say that race is clearly an issue here.

Also, it is very much at issue since the federales are trying to gin up some sort of civil rights case against GZ.

DS:
Did you miss the endless hours of race-baiting and rabble-rousing done about how a "white" man hunted down and killed a widdle black boy in cold blood?

“Trayvon is martyr, he’s not coming back, he’s a martyr, murdered and martyred,” said [Jesse] Jackson Sunday. “Now we must illuminate the darkness with the light that comes from the martyr.”

Jackson told the Los Angeles Times Friday that “blacks are under attack,” adding that “targeting, arresting, convicting blacks and ultimately killing us is big business.”

“No justice, no peace,” he told the paper.

[Jamisjockey]

Also, it is very much at issue since the federales are trying to gin up some sort of civil rights case against GZ.

DS:
Did you miss the endless hours of race-baiting and rabble-rousing done about how a "white" man hunted down and killed a widdle black boy in cold blood?

IMHO, the Obama justice department probably hopes that GZ is aquitted. Then, they'll go after him for depriving TM's civil rights. And it'll be all about how they're protecting the oppressed from mean middle class whitey.

[HankB]

. . . He said on tape he thought the kid was suspicious and on drugs.  We know what he believed (and we know it was wrong)  . . .

First, because he wasn't wrong. He said the kid was acting suspiciously and one explanation was that he could be on drugs. Walking around in the dark on an especially cold and rainy night is suspicious. (For reference, when someone uses the word "like" such as is found on the 911 tapes, that is often designating an analogy. "Like he's on drugs or something" doesn't indicate one believes he is on drugs but that is a possible explanation for the behavior.)

Secondly, given that the prosecutor in her charging statement explicitly states that Mr. Zimmerman "profiled" Mr. Martin, I would say that race is clearly an issue here.

As it turns out, autopsy results found drugs in Martin's system, and at the time, he was on suspension from school for a minor drug offense. These facts support the contention that Martin was a druggie. So when Zimmerman said that Martin was "suspicious" and walking around "like he's on drugs" he wasn't wrong at all.

[Tallpine]

As it turns out, autopsy results found drugs in Martin's system, and at the time, he was on suspension from school for a minor drug offense. These facts support the contention that Martin was a druggie. So when Zimmerman said that Martin was "suspicious" and walking around "like he's on drugs" he wasn't wrong at all.

Also, (according to his girlfriend) Martin put his hood up when spotted by Zimmerman - which sounds like suspicious behavior to me.

I must be wierd, because I don't hide my face and run when somebody notices me walking down the street.