The Zimmerman/Martin Case - Page 6

MaxOfMetal · 05-06-2012, 11:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flint757

All I'm saying is Castle law in Texas will remain no matter what (probably) and California and New York will remain buttoned up with their gun laws. I suppose for teetering states it will have more weight so I partially take back what I said.

I was just looking from where he is coming from in terms of the who cares factor. Me personally I don't care in terms of new law legislation because like I said it will have little to no effect on gun legislation in Texas where I live, but I do care from a justice and curiosity perspective. I can say the national attention forces the judiciary branch in whatever state these events occur to actually do there job well and honorably. When the spot light is off a lot of the local judges in my experience could really care less about upholding the law. In a lot of cases they have a set opinion form past cases for all future cases the lower the profile and severity something is. (From my experience/knowledge base obviously)

Once again, I think you're being a little short sighted.

At one point in time, I to didn't care about legislation taking place outside my home state, but then, after school, I started moving. I've lived in four states now, and care much more about what laws other states are passing. The company I work for has offices and facilities in over a dozen states, who knows if, when, or where I might be shipped off to next.

It's easy to think you'll live in the same town or state for the rest of your life, and ten years ago that's how I thought, but you never know.

flint757 · 05-06-2012, 11:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaxOfMetal

Once again, I think you're being a little short sighted.

At one point in time, I to didn't care about legislation taking place outside my home state, but then, after school, I started moving. I've lived in four states now, and care much more about what laws other states are passing. The company I work for has offices and facilities in over a dozen states, who knows if, when, or where I might be shipped off to next.

It's easy to think you'll live in the same town or state for the rest of your life, and ten years ago that's how I thought, but you never know.

Valid point. I actually have no intention on living in Texas even within the next 10 years so I probably should pay more attention to laws outside of my state, but that is a lot of different info to digest since most legislation goes unpublished on a national scale.

Honestly could care less personally about gun legislation pro or against though. If I move it can't get much more open and available than where I live now and if it is tighter with gun laws then that's fine too since it only really matters if I intended to be a gun owner. I think I'd leave my guns with my pop's though since he's my hunting buddy anyways.

MaxOfMetal · 05-06-2012, 11:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flint757

Valid point. I actually have no intention on living in Texas even within the next 10 years so I probably should pay more attention to laws outside of my state, but that is a lot of different info to digest since most legislation goes unpublished on a national scale.

Honestly could care less personally about gun legislation pro or against though. If I move it can't get much more open and available than where I live now and if it is tighter with gun laws then that's fine too since it only really matters if I intended to be a gun owner. I think I'd leave my guns with my pop's though since he's my hunting buddy anyways.

In the internet age, there is no excuse to not be informed. All the info is a quick Google search away.

This isn't strictly a gun issue though, it's not that simple. A gun was used, and that's certainly a factor, but this same case could apply to a knife, bat, etc.

flint757 · 05-07-2012, 01:01 AM

Do you know every law in every state? Google or not I doubt it.

Yes I realize it isn't strictly a gun issue, but on a national level that will be all that is taken from it most likely. In the same state 2 similar situations one ending in a death the other not and 2 very different results are occurring. There is Zimmerman who used a gun and killed someone, almost got away with it (may still) and a woman who didn't shoot her husband who broke into her house (with a restraining order) and will probably go away for assault. So things really aren't as pervasive as you're making it seem if there is little correlation between something happening in the same state. Ignoring this last bit if you don't in fact know all laws and legislation happening in every state your first sentence is out of line because you are not following your own advice. If you do then congrat's

but I've got more immediate concerns involving my school, funding and local government agencies at the moment.

I am informed of national politic's and local/state politic's I doubt anyone on this forum knows everything going on in every state.

Explorer · 05-07-2012, 01:31 AM

Okay, since you just thought about people related to the gun aspect of this, let me advance this idea: There might be people who have been stopped wrongfully because they were driving or walking while a minority, or even just one of those who "get away" as Zimmerman put it, whatever you think he was referring to. (Any guesses?) There might also be people who only know people who have been stopped for something because they were either a minority or one of "those people" to whom Zimmerman referred in a non-determinate way.

So, there are likely people who relate to the situation the same way you did... and I'm not saying you're wrong to have related to what's been said from your perspective.

Are you saying it's wrong to relate to this based on their perspective?

flint757 · 05-07-2012, 01:41 AM

^^Is that directed at me because I don't see the relevance if so. When i was talking about the gun issue I was referring to any national level result. (law wise) This case will not change racial profiling across the nation because there have been worse instances of profiling that have in fact done nothing to resolve profiling.

And I was also merely stating that people do not know all laws in existence and that knowing only local, state and national politics does not mean I am short sighted or uninformed because that is all most people know. Some may know a couple states worth of laws, but certainly not all 50.

McKay · 05-07-2012, 02:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Explorer

I don't know if you read my previous post about the chronology of the two phone calls (Zimmerman with 911, Martin's girlfriend calling him), but your case is much different. Your guy wanted to get you to the police. Zimmerman hung up with 911 so the police wouldn't know what he was about to do.

That would seem pretty odd, considering he had just phoned the police.

Quote:

And, given the timing of the two calls, Zimmerman hung up right before starting a physical altercation with Martin... after the cops had told him to stop following Martin.

Where's your evidence?

Quote:

There is every indication that Zimmerman was looking to start physical shit, and was attempting to hide that from the police. His hiding his continued pursuit of Martin from the police is evidence of premeditation of his intending to start something. If not, there would have been no reason for him to hide his actions and his location from the police, and to tell police to go to a different location to meet him.

Nothing you just posted constitutes evidence of the sort.

Quote:

Sorry, but I don't see your "pub owner taking someone to police" and Zimmerman's "hide his own actions from the police" as the same thing.

I've chased down scousers (they run the drugs down here) that had taken my drummer's phone and were blackmailing him for money, threatening that they had his address and photos of his friends/family. During that time I was in and out of phone calls to the police. I didn't tell them everything I did and I deviated from what I told them I would do, including the way I pursued and followed the scouser and his girlfriend. It doesn't mean my aim wasn't to have them arrested.

If Zimmerman intended anything else why would he phone the police in the first place?

McKay · 05-07-2012, 02:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flint757

Have you tried restraining someone bigger and taller than you? Not easy and as far as I know he hasn't bee trained in any way to do so. Plus he chased him down because he thought he was there to steal which means he considered him dangerous/threatening. So what you are confirming is that Zimmerman wasn't intending to kill him, just incredibly stupid.

I didn't say he wasn't. Crafty concession there.

Quote:

It's like I said especially since he took the police out of the equation that he either was being dumb and not thinking his decisions through or he intended to kill him. A gun can make you pretty brave. In your mind it is a last resort, but if the dude has a physical advantage and you aren't trained in hand-to-hand combat or restraint training what are you really going to do other than get yourself in physical danger where your only option is to use the gun.

To answer your post, yes I've taken on people much bigger than I am. And in bigger numbers. Not to mention the fact that Zimmerman was a security guard. I know they train how to restrain someone here in those jobs. It would make you a pretty useless guard if you couldn't.

flint757 · 05-07-2012, 03:09 AM

He's an unofficial night watch not security guard. I've never met a trained night watch unless they were police officers to begin with, they don't train you. Honestly, the position is meant to have enough eyes on the street to have witness/call the police and the presence is just supposed to make it harder for crimes to be committed that is it. I don't recall what his day job was, but I'm pretty sure he wasn't a guard or police officer (maybe he was and that is in fact what you were saying

). My first point was merely stating that he is either dumb or a killer no middle road. He is clearly not as big of a badass like yourself.

Or were you in fact confirming that he is a daytime security guard? Have you ever met a mall cop? Most couldn't restrain a stool and they qualify as security guards and are not distributed weapons for their job. That does confirm to some extent that he is probably a failed police cadet (working security) though. Here in the states security is not a hard job, you rarely get training unless your a bouncer or profession security and most who qualify as security are either ex con or failed the police academy. My point proves nothing more than yours which is nothing because everything involved in this case including their personal behaviors/abilities is not well known to begin with. I just see little justification in his favor personally.

McKay · 05-07-2012, 03:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flint757

I just see little justification in his favor personally.

Neither do I, only I don't see all that much to condemn him either. The whole situation seems extremely overblown to me, Zimmerman shouldn't have gone after Trayvon in the first place but he still has a right to self defense, which is what he claims (and we can't disprove).

Whether or not that right was necessary is another story, and one nobody has enough details on to call. That's pretty much the only reason I'm playing devil's advocate here - people are jumping to all kinds of conclusions rather than trying to view it from both sides. I've been on both sides before and had someone attacked me and put me in a position where I felt sufficiently threatened I would use a firearm in self defense (providing it was legal, which it was). It's not as simple as people seem to think it is.

I need to move to Nothern Ireland.

flint757 · 05-07-2012, 03:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by McKay

Neither do I, only I don't see all that much to condemn him either. The whole situation seems extremely overblown to me, Zimmerman shouldn't have gone after Trayvon in the first place but he still has a right to self defense, which is what he claims (and we can't disprove).

Whether or not that right was necessary is another story, and one nobody has enough details on to call. That's pretty much the only reason I'm playing devil's advocate here - people are jumping to all kinds of conclusions rather than trying to view it from both sides. I've been on both sides before and had someone attacked me and put me in a position where I felt sufficiently threatened I would use a firearm in self defense (providing it was legal, which it was). It's not as simple as people seem to think it is.

I need to move to Nothern Ireland.

Yeah I don't think there is much dispute that under the law he is pretty much covered and will probably eventually go free. Even if what he did was illegal the "beyond reasonable doubt" would save his ass for sure.

Most of the dispute on this thread in particular is was he morally/logically justified in which I definitely think he wasn't.

MaxOfMetal · 05-07-2012, 05:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flint757

Do you know every law in every state? Google or not I doubt it.

Yes I realize it isn't strictly a gun issue, but on a national level that will be all that is taken from it most likely. In the same state 2 similar situations one ending in a death the other not and 2 very different results are occurring. There is Zimmerman who used a gun and killed someone, almost got away with it (may still) and a woman who didn't shoot her husband who broke into her house (with a restraining order) and will probably go away for assault. So things really aren't as pervasive as you're making it seem if there is little correlation between something happening in the same state. Ignoring this last bit if you don't in fact know all laws and legislation happening in every state your first sentence is out of line because you are not following your own advice. If you do then congrat's

but I've got more immediate concerns involving my school, funding and local government agencies at the moment.

I am informed of national politic's and local/state politic's I doubt anyone on this forum knows everything going on in every state.

Nowhere did I say that you needed to know all the laws. What I'm saying is that in this age of information we live in, keeping up on national news is far from difficult, and unless you only cherry pick the most sensationalized stories you'll see there is more news out there, especially when using various online news sources (hence the Google reference).

I know that just about every time there is major legislation being passed there is news about it. It might not be on every TV station, but it's usually in the Politics or Justice section on major news sites. Around the time WI was looking to pass CCL there were articles all over, not just local. I knew about it while living back in AZ, and before that, when living in FL I knew about the immigration laws looking to be passed.

All I'm saying is, keeping yourself relatively informed outside the "big stories" of the week isn't this herculean task.

Dig the attitude though.

SenorDingDong · 05-07-2012, 06:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Explorer

I don't know if you read my previous post about the chronology of the two phone calls (Zimmerman with 911, Martin's girlfriend calling him), but your case is much different. Your guy wanted to get you to the police. Zimmerman hung up with 911 so the police wouldn't know what he was about to do.

And, given the timing of the two calls, Zimmerman hung up right before starting a physical altercation with Martin... after the cops had told him to stop following Martin.

There is every indication that Zimmerman was looking to start physical shit, and was attempting to hide that from the police. His hiding his continued pursuit of Martin from the police is evidence of premeditation of his intending to start something. If not, there would have been no reason for him to hide his actions and his location from the police, and to tell police to go to a different location to meet him.

Sorry, but I don't see your "pub owner taking someone to police" and Zimmerman's "hide his own actions from the police" as the same thing.

I have to disagree with the majority of your statement, especially seeing as this section:

Quote:

There is every indication that Zimmerman was looking to start physical shit, and was attempting to hide that from the police. His hiding his continued pursuit of Martin from the police is evidence of premeditation of his intending to start something. If not, there would have been no reason for him to hide his actions and his location from the police, and to tell police to go to a different location to meet him.

Is opinion stated as fact.

The phone call ended at 7:13.

Martin's girlfriend called at 7:12.

The shooting was at 7:19.

If the attack happened right after Zimmerman got off the phone, as you've stated, we've either got a six minute fight (which is a considerable amount of time for an average struggle) or some other events taking place. Plus, factor in the fact that the prosecution is saying Martin ran, and Martin's girlfriend was on the phone with him during the call around the time Zimmerman said he was running and he was refusing to run on the phone with her, and there is a lot of gray area. Please don't state things like fact when they're not yet proven.

Explorer · 05-07-2012, 12:08 PM

Sorry 757, I apparently was coming down with a fever (still have it, and am home from work). I'd have to go back and re-read at some point.

----

Regarding the timing of the calls, I got the call chronologies from Wikipedia, which links where the sources are for the times. Is there a reasonable doubt as to those?

Zimmerman's call lasted four minutes, starting at 7:09 and ending at 7:13 with Zimmerman saying he didn't know where he was (remember, unofficial neighborhood watch who was supposed to know the neighborhood) asking 911 to call him back, and changing his mind about going to meet the officers at the mailboxes.

Martin's girlfriend called him at 7:12, and then the call ended with Martin getting shoved.

Unless you have something to the contrary, I'm assuming Zimmerman was the one who caused Martin's call to end, and given Zimmerman getting off the phone, and then the Martin call being dropped, I'd be greatly interested in hearing your assumptions as to whom Martin was addressing when he asked "Why are you following me?" just before the call ended.

No grassy knoll in evidence as far as I'm aware.

7:13. Both calls ended, Zimmerman's voluntarily, Martin's not. It doesn't matter what time the bullet was fired, for purposes of knowing when the calls ended, and of knowing what the two parties were doing.

If you combine those two chronologies, then you have to look for the reasonable answers for the reasonable doubts.

Why did Zimmerman say that this sort of person always gets away?

What did he mean by referring to Martin as a particular class of person?

Why did Zimmerman first agree to go to meet officers at the mailboxes... and then change his mind?

Why did Zimmerman, someone who supposedly knew the neighborhood (self-appointed neighborhood watch, no?), suddenly not know where he was?

If Zimmerman had been advised to not follow, why did he agree but then wind up following again?

Why did Zimmerman terminate the call... especially if he was in fear for his life?

How likely/reasonable is it to conclude that both calls ended around the same time just by coincidence?

How likely/reasonable is it to conclude that someone other than Zimmerman was the one to whom Martin spoke before his call was terminated by something physical?

To me, that's a chain of logic which follows from one link to the next. I'd be interested in hearing reasonable points (no grassy knolls) on the various parts.

flint757 · 05-07-2012, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaxOfMetal

Nowhere did I say that you needed to know all the laws. What I'm saying is that in this age of information we live in, keeping up on national news is far from difficult, and unless you only cherry pick the most sensationalized stories you'll see there is more news out there, especially when using various online news sources (hence the Google reference).

I know that just about every time there is major legislation being passed there is news about it. It might not be on every TV station, but it's usually in the Politics or Justice section on major news sites. Around the time WI was looking to pass CCL there were articles all over, not just local. I knew about it while living back in AZ, and before that, when living in FL I knew about the immigration laws looking to be passed.

All I'm saying is, keeping yourself relatively informed outside the "big stories" of the week isn't this herculean task.

Dig the attitude though.

Yeah sorry for being snippy I had just gotten in an argument with someone not an hour before so i was a little hot headed probably took some of that too personally for no reason. I apologize

It isn't hard you are correct, but even knowing current legislation doesn't help if you don't know where you're moving because chances are current laws and past legislation are going to affect you a lot more or just as much.
For the most part I try and keep up with politics relative to my interests and life where ever they may be occurring.

SenorDingDong · 05-07-2012, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Explorer

]

Regarding the timing of the calls, I got the call chronologies from Wikipedia, which links where the sources are for the times. Is there a reasonable doubt as to those?

Zimmerman's call lasted four minutes, starting at 7:09 and ending at 7:13 with Zimmerman saying he didn't know where he was (remember, unofficial neighborhood watch who was supposed to know the neighborhood) asking 911 to call him back, and changing his mind about going to meet the officers at the mailboxes.

Martin's girlfriend called him at 7:12, and then the call ended with Martin getting shoved.

Unless you have something to the contrary, I'm assuming Zimmerman was the one who caused Martin's call to end, and given Zimmerman getting off the phone, and then the Martin call being dropped, I'd be greatly interested in hearing your assumptions as to whom Martin was addressing when he asked "Why are you following me?" just before the call ended.

No grassy knoll in evidence as far as I'm aware.

7:13. Both calls ended, Zimmerman's voluntarily, Martin's not. It doesn't matter what time the bullet was fired, for purposes of knowing when the calls ended, and of knowing what the two parties were doing.

If you combine those two chronologies, then you have to look for the reasonable answers for the reasonable doubts.

Why did Zimmerman say that this sort of person always gets away?

What did he mean by referring to Martin as a particular class of person?

Why did Zimmerman first agree to go to meet officers at the mailboxes... and then change his mind?

Why did Zimmerman, someone who supposedly knew the neighborhood (self-appointed neighborhood watch, no?), suddenly not know where he was?

If Zimmerman had been advised to not follow, why did he agree but then wind up following again?

Why did Zimmerman terminate the call... especially if he was in fear for his life?

How likely/reasonable is it to conclude that both calls ended around the same time just by coincidence?

How likely/reasonable is it to conclude that someone other than Zimmerman was the one to whom Martin spoke before his call was terminated by something physical?

To me, that's a chain of logic which follows from one link to the next. I'd be interested in hearing reasonable points (no grassy knolls) on the various parts.

It most certainly matters when the gun was fired.

You would actually have a great point, if all three times--Zimmerman's call, Martin's call and the shooting--matched up. But for you to just assume that you know the course of events because you can do math is ridiculous.

See, you're doing what you tend to do a lot; taking a statement and making a long-winded rebuttal that has very little to do with what was actually stated. Your time-table is great--I had no arguments past the fact that, if Zimmerman was in the mindset of just going to "start physical shit" as you claimed, the times don't match up very well between the point when the calls end and when the gun is fired. Yes, this has a substantial impact on the case because it shows there was more to the case than you're "assuming." Namely, if Martin ran, there is no way in hell soft, fat 38-year-old Zimmerman would have caught him. So, what happened for six minutes after these phone calls? You're trying to tell me that for six minutes, they duked it out? Or that those six minutes don't matter because you can't find a math equation to figure them in? Come on.

I'm not going to pick apart your questions because, honestly, they have nothing to do with the post you responded to: I'm not questioning guilt, I responded to your time table and your assumptions.

Randy · 05-07-2012, 02:17 PM

Zimmerman is 28 and not overweight.

SenorDingDong · 05-07-2012, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Randy

Zimmerman is 28 and not overweight.

Sorry typo. And unless he has lost weight since he got his bond (very well may have--last time I saw any video of him) he was definitely overweight. Note I didn't say obese.

Explorer · 05-07-2012, 04:17 PM

Sorry, then. I jumped to all that because I thought the claim has been advanced that he hadn't gone after Martin with premeditation.

Assuming that it hasn't, then I'm not sure why the point was brought up that the shot was fired later than the calls ended. In that case, what are the objections to the timeline?

If the claim *has* been made that he wasn't acting with clear premeditation:

When someone hides a possible course of action from the police, or lies to them about one's location, a reasonable person would conclude that the liar/concealer is lying/concealing the facts because they know they are about to do something which they wish to hide. (Sorry to be so basic about it, but I just want us to be using the same assumptions).

If Zimmerman had said, "Oh, I found him. I'm at this location, which I know because I'm the unappointed neighborhood watch guy!," then that would be one thing.

He didn't. To me, that indicates he had decided to do something which he didn't want to inform the 911 dispatcher about. Classic premeditation. Given what happened next on Martin's call, a reasonable person would conclude that Zimmerman planned to jump Martin, and that's why he hung up just before interrupting Martin's call.

So... if anyone is arguing that there wasn't premeditation in the legal sense, I'd be interested in knowing why not. Not just a "Well, it wasn't premeditated because I don't want to believe it," of course. I'm hoping for something which not only includes Zimmerman going after Martin, and also Zimmerman feeling the need to get off the phone with 911, and his having concealed his location, and his not heading to the mailboxes.

And, if the argument isn't about premeditation at all... I'm not sure what is being argued in terms of my posts and conclusions. I'm slow that way, so please don't worry that I'll be offended if someone breaks it down the way I broke down all the points which lead to premeditation and an attempt to hide information and courses of action.

pink freud · 05-07-2012, 06:00 PM

This is really all just wanking.

The important thing is that the case has finally entered the legal system, and hopefully the system will prevail and he will meet whatever fate the evidence shows he should get, whether it be acquittal or conviction.

flint757 · 05-07-2012, 06:26 PM

Yeah all cases no matter how small or seemingly finished they seem should at the very least be reviewed by the judge. Police shouldn't have the authority to say any case isn't worth going to trial. That being said guilty or innocent they have practically nothing on him and even if they can make him seem guilty they can't do so beyond a reasonable doubt. Honestly I like that things are run this way like the mom who presumably killed her baby and was found not guilty. In that case they had no evidence either. Did she do it? probably, but that doesn't matter without concrete proof everything else is just conjecture.

engage757 · 05-08-2012, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaxOfMetal

Have you listened to kids these days? I hear far worse screaming into my ear when playing COD or Halo on XBox.

I guess I haven't!

Point is, he wasn't an angel or anywhere close, like this media circus is trying to paint the picture of. Far from it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Uncreator

Actually its not all that ignorant. Typically what he is saying is unfortunately the case a lot time, its a sad truth that has been observed enough in recent decades to create a pattern of unintentional "promotion of racism".

I do feel that there are many instances where people of a color other than white (not just black) tend to play that race card a bit carelessly.

But on topic, there is not a single reason why this case should get any national attention. There is quite literally nothing exceptional about this, far worse cases of injustice exist than this.

And this is really exactly what I was trying to say, simplified. There is no difference between this and the Lily Burke Killing, except in this case a Black person died at the hands of a white person, not vice versa. The race card is being played in an unremarkable case, it is being made a media circus, stirring up races further against each other, over what? A killing. The same thing happens ever 5 minutes anywhere on the planet. You guys can neg rep the .... out of me all you want, and blast me however much you want, but the truth is, I am 100% correct and so is Uncreator. this is an UNREMARKABLE CASE, and the media has used a race card for the ratings. No one gives a flying .... about Trayvon Martin and they certainly don't give one about Zimmerman. You don't, and I don't. And the only reason you know their names is because of a racial fueled circus to gain ratings.

engage757 · 05-08-2012, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaxOfMetal

At one point in time, I to didn't care about legislation taking place outside my home state, but then, after school, I started moving. I've lived in four states now, and care much more about what laws other states are passing. The company I work for has offices and facilities in over a dozen states, who knows if, when, or where I might be shipped off to next.

It's easy to think you'll live in the same town or state for the rest of your life, and ten years ago that's how I thought, but you never know.

I agree. Precedent is a hard thing to overcome no matter where you live. If one state does something, it makes it all the more realistic that another will consider and so on and so forth.

The Brady people are jumping for joy over this matter.

synrgy · 05-08-2012, 03:20 PM

Quote: