• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

Status
Not open for further replies.
"We think we should ignore Zimmerman's self defense claim and the physical evidence in this case because his wife filed a restraining order against him a while ago, and he once pushed a cop."

Sounds a bit silly. I doubt such a request would get you a search warrant from a judge, absent other evidence, for example.

Again, this is assuming there was actually nothing at the scene that countered the self defense claim.

If there's other evidence, then obviously that would change things.

Nice strawman. Of course Zimmerman's self defense claim shouldn't be ignored. None of the factors at play here should be, including his past actions.

Zimmerman is and should be presumed innocent until proven otherwise. I'm not claiming his guilt has been proven. I'm merely claiming there's a prima facie case to be made that he shot Martin maliciously and without reasonable grounds to fear for his life. That's all that would be needed to charge him with a crime. It would be up to a judge and jury to decide if he is guilty or not.

I also claim that the Sanford PD bungled the case by prematurely exonerating Zimmerman. If there's any silver lining, it's that the incompetence of the police chief has been brought to light and that he's been subsequently ousted.
 
merely claiming there's a prima facie case to be made that he shot Martin maliciously and without reasonable grounds to fear for his life.
I don't think that term means what you think it means. It certainly doesn't apply to this case.
 
An man armed with a gun stalks an unarmed teen. One of them has a criminal record history of violence, and the other doesn't. The one without a record history of violence ends up dead. The killer just happens to be the sole surviving witness. I'd say there's probable cause to dig a bit deeper into what's happened here.

To satisfy the nitpickers and hair-splitters.
 
That leaves the fantastic situation where you can follow someone you don't like, corner them and if you can provoke them into attacking you then you either beat them to a pulp or, if it turns out they're winning, shoot them.

Essentially, it's a licence to kill people who have short fuses.

Exactly. It concerns me that so many on here think murdering people because they have wear a hoodie is somehow okay just because they have paranoid fantasies about home invasion robberies.

If you would like, I can quote the entire SYG law if you would like. I can even link to it, so you can see for yourself how the law is written. Maybe then you'll stop making incorrect, and quite frankly, stupid statements like that.

Are you calling the prosecutor for Dade County stupid? Because that's exactly what he said about this law last night on the Ed Show. He fought against this law because he knew that psychopathic yahoo's would be out shooting people after provoking fights then invoking this law to make it all nice and legal.

And this law, according to those that pushed for it, was specifically written to make shooting people who look like they might engage in looting legal. I repeat: not people in the act of a crime just people who look like they might engage in a crime. Those were their words. That's why they included the language that deadly force was okay to use if you suspected the person was about to commit a felony property crime.
 
I have a friend who has been arrested for minor things. He's a bit of a hothead, which gets him into trouble. This does not mean that he is more likely to murder someone, nor would it cause me to assume he's guilty if charged with a felony.

More likely than...what?

Who would you rather cross paths with...a hothead with a gun, or an unarmed teenager otherwise minding his own business on a walk home from the candy store?

Yeah, I'm not sure if I understood this either. A "hothead" is someone easily provoked to anger or violence. So by definition a hothead is more likely to murder someone than someone who is not a hothead.
 
By the way the new social network meme surrounding this is to wear a grey hoodie to show solidarity in standing up to demented neighborhood watch volunteers. Sorry about the redundant phrase "demented neighborhood watch volunteers."
 
No convictions, no criminal record.

And credit card debt? Really?
There are two ways to define "criminal record".
A summary of an individual’s contacts with law enforcement generally computerized in the ncic. All arrests are noted with an explanation of the result including convictions (and sentences received), dismissals, not guilty verdicts, or bench warrant status.
So yes, really.
 
I don't think that term means what you think it means. It certainly doesn't apply to this case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prima_facie

In a murder case, this would include evidence that the victim was in fact dead, that the defendant's act caused the death, and evidence that the defendant acted with malice aforethought.

Victim is dead? Check. Defendant's act caused the death? Check. Malice aforethought? Not so cut and dried. But given what we know about Zimmerman stalking Martin with a gun and making statements that he didn't want him to get away, I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand.
 
Exactly. It concerns me that so many on here think murdering people because they have wear a hoodie is somehow okay just because they have paranoid fantasies about home invasion robberies.
Can you name a single one, or did you just pull that out of your anus? Statements like this sure make me doubt your other anecdotal stories, not that I needed more incentive for that..

Are you calling the prosecutor for Dade County stupid? Because that's exactly what he said about this law last night on the Ed Show. He fought against this law because he knew that psychopathic yahoo's would be out shooting people after provoking fights then invoking this law to make it all nice and legal.
The Dade prosecutor has no more knowledge of this case than you or I do.

And this law, according to those that pushed for it, was specifically written to make shooting people who look like they might engage in looting legal. I repeat: not people in the act of a crime just people who look like they might engage in a crime. Those were their words. That's why they included the language that deadly force was okay to use if you suspected the person was about to commit a felony property crime.
And I bet you will be providing no evidence for that claim either.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prima_facie



Victim is dead? Check. Defendant's act caused the death? Check. Malice aforethought? Not so cut and dried. But given what we know about Zimmerman stalking Martin with a gun and making statements that he didn't want him to get away, I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand.
If it was truly a prima facie case the onus would be on Zimmerman to show the evidence was in error, which it certainly is not.
 
Last edited:
If you are attacked by a stranger, you fight back in self defense and the assailant kills you in self defense, is that justifiable self defense?

Wouldn't that mean any person who is killed by their attacker and who was fighting back means the attacker was defending his/herself?

Just wondering in case it turns out Trayvon was justifiably fighting back. Would it have been assault for Zimmerman to touch Trayvon in the first place? Can you just physically detain anyone you feel like?
 
Um, there is a discussion of that witness and what the testimony means on the last two pages I believe.

And yes, it's entirely possible that a teenage weighing 80 lbs less (a 6'3" teenager apparently) got the better of Zimmerman in a fight. I don't know how many of these assault stories we have to go through before people stop believing that being 'smaller' means being no threat.

Between trained, fit, fighters, it does. A good buggun will always beat a good littlun.

However, a good littlun can batter the living bejesus out of a bloke twice his size if the big bloke doesn't know how to fight.
 
Zimmerman has no criminal record of shooting people. He barely has a record at all. There's nothing in his record that would cause me to think he deliberately shot Martin.

I have a friend who has been arrested for minor things. He's a bit of a hothead, which gets him into trouble. This does not mean that he is more likely to murder someone, nor would it cause me to assume he's guilty if charged with a felony.

Are the police allowed to use Zimmerman's record to detain him on an unrelated case? I don't know. I would think not.

I doubt you'd get a warrant because of someone's record on an unrelated matter, for example.


Zimmerman got into a physical altercation with a woman. He stalked her. Does that not cause you to think he's got a screw loose? Or is that normal behavior to you?
 
If you are attacked by a stranger, you fight back in self defense and the assailant kills you in self defense, is that justifiable self defense?
No, because as the perpetrator of a crime (assault in this case) you cannot claim self defense.
 
Zimmerman got into a physical altercation with a woman. He stalked her. Does that not cause you to think he's got a screw loose? Or is that normal behavior to you?
And as we all know no one ever lies in domestic dispute cases.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom