Trayvon Martin Video Shows No Blood or Bruises on George Zimmerman [W:1041]

[Kal'Stang]

with so many threads about this i didnt know where to put it....anyway ....


Crowds Smaller Then Predicted At Bayfront Trayvon Rally « CBS Miami

From your article...

“This is the time to become energized,” Parker shouted. “This is the time to take action. Trayvon Martin gave his life for this cause!”

The way this guy talks it sounds like Trayvon purposely went and got himself killed just so these 3,000 people could gather and protest something that half of them know only half the facts and the other half only know heresay and opinions and NO facts.

I've always hated statements like this. Martin was no saint that gave his life for ANYTHING. He is no martyr that was a part of a cause that died for that cause. He was killed. Plain and simple. He never wanted to die, much less for this supposed "cause" that wasn't even around when he was alive.

 

[Leo]

Which doesn't really make any sense. If things played out as Zimmerman said it did, it would certainly be illegal for Trayvon to assault him for simply approaching him - he would not be seen as the "instigator" in any juristiction. In any society, it would be Martin breaking the law. Where things differ is the proportionality of self defence, not who was in the wrong in the given hypothetical.

I was doubtful of how Zimmermans lawyer described the extent of the beating his client took in the beginning. A guy should or should not have a broken nose, not "probably" have one. A guy who supposedly had his head repeatedly bashed against the ground should be seeking immediate medical attention, not first aid with a further check up the next day. The video certainly supports the idea the "beating" he received was minimal, the may or may not be gash isn't even dressed.

I largely agree with what you have written. But remember that balance of probabilities employed by British jurisprudence? Irrespective of Zimmerman's claims, the likelihood that Martin physically attacked Zimmerman for simply approaching him, would not be considered high by most people (it is, of course, possible - but not probable). In addition to which, most reasonable people (of whom a jury is usually composed) might easily regard the initial approach as the first in a series of escalating events, which ended in the death of the 17 year old - thereby casting Zimmerman as the initiator of hostilities. Added to which are the very salient points you raise about the extent of Zimmerman's injuries, and how they might influence a reasonable person into thinking his life was in immediate and clear danger. Most people involved in a scuffle with an unarmed person of lighter build than themselves, would not genuinely fear for their lives, and would have some trouble convincing a British jury that they did.

But as I indicated in my post, I am not familiar with the laws which apply in various US jurisdictions - I can only really comment upon English Common Law, and British jurisprudence. The SYG laws of Florida, for example, appear counter to the entire British legal system. I am not saying they are right or wrong (legal right and wrong are dictated by the legal system concerned); I am merely indicating that I have no basis upon which to understand them.

 

[Excon]

Most people involved in a scuffle with an unarmed person of lighter build than themselves, would not genuinely fear for their lives, and would have some trouble convincing a British jury that they did.

Lighter does not mean weaker.

I didn't bring the video here, you did.

Of course I did. To show what you said to be inaccurate.
And what you said was inaccurate, and was wrong.
Like I said. If you want to start a topic to debate the video, I will be than happy to participate. But there is no reason to continue to clutter up this topic with it.

Now, I thought you were honest in admitting error. I guess it was selective or you were just playing tricks.

When I am wrong I admit it. But I am not wrong here. I am not mistaken and I am definitely not playing any tricks or lying.

Even though you are wrong, I can see you actually believe that you are not. That is why I wouldn't even think of calling you a liar.
So you can extend the same courtesy, or start a new topic where I will show you how wrong you are.

 

[joko104]

From your article...



The way this guy talks it sounds like Trayvon purposely went and got himself killed just so these 3,000 people could gather and protest something that half of them know only half the facts and the other half only know heresay and opinions and NO facts.

I've always hated statements like this. Martin was no saint that gave his life for ANYTHING. He is no martyr that was a part of a cause that died for that cause. He was killed. Plain and simple. He never wanted to die, much less for this supposed "cause" that wasn't even around when he was alive.

I suspect people in that neighborhood realize more than the media can convince them.

 

[joko104]

I largely agree with what you have written. But remember that balance of probabilities employed by British jurisprudence? Irrespective of Zimmerman's claims, the likelihood that Martin physically attacked Zimmerman for simply approaching him, would not be considered high by most people (it is, of course, possible - but not probable). In addition to which, most reasonable people (of whom a jury is usually composed) might easily regard the initial approach as the first in a series of escalating events, which ended in the death of the 17 year old - thereby casting Zimmerman as the initiator of hostilities. Added to which are the very salient points you raise about the extent of Zimmerman's injuries, and how they might influence a reasonable person into thinking his life was in immediate and clear danger. Most people involved in a scuffle with an unarmed person of lighter build than themselves, would not genuinely fear for their lives, and would have some trouble convincing a British jury that they did.

But as I indicated in my post, I am not familiar with the laws which apply in various US jurisdictions - I can only really comment upon English Common Law, and British jurisprudence. The SYG laws of Florida, for example, appear counter to the entire British legal system. I am not saying they are right or wrong (legal right and wrong are dictated by the legal system concerned); I am merely indicating that I have no basis upon which to understand them.

British law is nuts. I remember last year the case of the fellow that found a firearm in the trash, brought it in and call the police. They arrested him and found him guilty of illegal possession of a firearm because he had touched it and held it for the police.

 

[joko104]

Show us all the biased claims and evidence. I'll wait. :coffeepap:

EMS testimony would be allowed in court.

 

[Mya]

From your article...



The way this guy talks it sounds like Trayvon purposely went and got himself killed just so these 3,000 people could gather and protest something that half of them know only half the facts and the other half only know heresay and opinions and NO facts.

I've always hated statements like this. Martin was no saint that gave his life for ANYTHING. He is no martyr that was a part of a cause that died for that cause. He was killed. Plain and simple. He never wanted to die, much less for this supposed "cause" that wasn't even around when he was alive.

I am no expert in national american politics so my apologies.... and this is not written by be? like i wrote that article? this is a CBS Miami article.

I don't really care about this topic? I just thought that was interesting news.... that despise all the frenzy the crowds were smaller than predicted at Bayfront Trayvon Rally.... that's all... period.

 

[Kal'Stang]

I am no expert in national american politics so my apologies.... and this is not written by be? like i wrote that article? this is a CBS Miami article.

I don't really care about this topic? I just thought that was interesting news.... that despise all the frenzy the crowds were smaller than predicted at Bayfront Trayvon Rally.... that's all... period.

I think you misunderstood me. I never meant to claim that you wrote the article. When I said "from your article" I was just refering to the article that you linked. My apologies.

 

[Mya]

meh... no biggie

 

[American]

Haven't you ridden that strawman far enough? Good Lord, you owe him a saddle and a set of hooves by now :2razz:

Your claim that shooting someone to death is non-prosecutable -- when the shooter is known by police recording to have pursued the victim prior to the shooting, when said victim has not been identified by police as carrying a weapon, when said victim has not been shown to be committing any crime, when said victim was never on the shooter's property, when said shooter admits to shooting said victim -- based solely upon the word of the shooter, fails the reasonable person standard.

Now, given Zimmerman's alleged injuries, that -- in concert with the one eyewitness claiming Zimmerman was on bottom (if that holds up without contradiction) -- may be sufficient physical/third party proof to let him slip by under the aggressor clause of the SYG law (and I suspect it will, unless Zimmerman's side is found to be lying about the broken nose). However, even given all that, the lead Sanford PD investigator still wanted to charge Zimmerman -- meaning your argument is.... well, the end product of a bag of oats passed thru something worthy of a saddle and a set of hooves.

Happy trails (but watch where you step)

With you around, everyone has to watch where they step.

 

[American]

Lighter does not mean weaker.

Of course I did. To show what you said to be inaccurate.
And what you said was inaccurate, and was wrong.
Like I said. If you want to start a topic to debate the video, I will be than happy to participate. But there is no reason to continue to clutter up this topic with it.


When I am wrong I admit it. But I am not wrong here. I am not mistaken and I am definitely not playing any tricks or lying.

Even though you are wrong, I can see you actually believe that you are not. That is why I wouldn't even think of calling you a liar.
So you can extend the same courtesy, or start a new topic where I will show you how wrong you are.

Boy he sure looks a lot more grown up than the media shots we saw earlier. Must have been some reason the family's attorney wanted them to lie their asses off about how mature he looked. Why did they send in those shots of a 12 year old? Hmmmm?

 

[Caine]

Your claim that shooting someone to death is non-prosecutable -- when the shooter is known by police recording to have pursued the victim prior to the shooting,

Legal.

when said victim has not been identified by police as carrying a weapon,

Irrelevant

when said victim has not been shown to be committing any crime,

Irrelevant

when said victim was never on the shooter's property,

Irrelevant

when said shooter admits to shooting said victim

In self-defense.

-- based solely upon the word of the shooter, fails the reasonable person standard.

Without evidence disproving his claim to self-defense, it cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Now, given Zimmerman's alleged injuries, that -- in concert with the one eyewitness claiming Zimmerman was on bottom (if that holds up without contradiction) -- may be sufficient physical/third party proof to let him slip by under the aggressor clause of the SYG law

SYG means nothing in this case. It is a case of simple self-defense. You don't have to be at home to defend yourself.

However, even given all that, the lead Sanford PD investigator still wanted to charge Zimmerman -- meaning your argument is.... well, the end product of a bag of oats passed thru something worthy of a saddle and a set of hooves.

Detectives often want to try to prosecute rape cases when all the evidence available is the female rape victim's word against the male suspect's word. This happens all the time in situations where the victim and suspect are known to each other. However, more often than not, these cases are not prosecuted due to lack of evidence to contradict the male suspect's story that it was consentual.

I stated that story to say that....... Just because a detective wants to charge someone, doesn't mean the charge can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.



In fact, in many departments (mine included) Detectives are required by policy to present all felonies at the conclusion of investigation to the district attorney for a decision to bring charges, regardless of the Detective's personal feelings on the case. Its a way to moving the blame for inaction away from the Department and onto the District Attorney. (The 'politician' style police chiefs love this policy)

 

[Karl]

[...] Just because a detective wants to charge someone, doesn't mean the charge can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

So, in your mind, the police -- or the prosecuting attorney -- determine guilt and innocence. Interesting . . . . .

 

[Karl]

[...] In fact, in many departments (mine included) Detectives are required by policy to present all felonies at the conclusion of investigation to the district attorney for a decision to bring charges, regardless of the Detective's personal feelings on the case. Its a way to moving the blame for inaction away from the Department and onto the District Attorney. (The 'politician' style police chiefs love this policy)

More strawmen. Downright scary ones given your claimed profession.

The lead homicide investigator in the shooting of unarmed teenager Trayvon Martin recommended that neighborhood watch captain George Zimmerman be charged with manslaughter the night of the shooting, multiple sources told ABC News.

Trayvon Martin Investigator Wanted to Charge George Zimmerman With Manslaughter - ABC News

 

[American]

So, in your mind, the police -- or the prosecuting attorney -- determine guilt and innocence. Interesting . . . . .

You're putting words in his mouth. He didn't say that.

 

[Karl]

Now, given Zimmerman's alleged injuries, that -- in concert with the one eyewitness claiming Zimmerman was on bottom (if that holds up without contradiction) -- may be sufficient physical/third party proof to let him slip by under the aggressor clause of the SYG law (and I suspect it will, unless Zimmerman's side is found to be lying about the broken nose). However, even given all that, the lead Sanford PD investigator still wanted to charge Zimmerman [...]

[...] Just because a detective wants to charge someone, doesn't mean the charge can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

So, in your mind, the police -- or the prosecuting attorney -- determine guilt and innocence. Interesting . . . . .

You're putting words in his mouth. He didn't say that.

Not in those exact words, of course, but it is a reasonable interpretation of what he said, especially in light of his other comment "Without evidence disproving his claim to self-defense, it cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt" in reference to merely charging Zimmerman with a crime. And it -- determining guilt/innocence -- is exactly what the prosecutor in the Zimmerman case did:

But Sanford, Fla., Investigator Chris Serino was instructed to not press charges against Zimmerman because the state attorney's office headed by Norman Wolfinger determined there wasn't enough evidence to lead to a conviction, the sources told ABC News.

Trayvon Martin Investigator Wanted to Charge George Zimmerman With Manslaughter - ABC News

 

[MaggieD]

Not in those exact words, of course, but it is a reasonable interpretation of what he said, especially in light of his other comment "Without evidence disproving his claim to self-defense, it cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt" in reference to merely charging Zimmerman with a crime. And it -- determining guilt/innocence -- is exactly what the prosecutor in the Zimmerman case did:

Right. The prosecutor said, "This guy's innocent. We aren't pressing charges." /sarcasm

Your posts are rapidly deteriorating to the point of irrelevancy.

 

[Karl]

Right. The prosecutor said, "This guy's innocent. We aren't pressing charges." /sarcasm

Your posts are rapidly deteriorating to the point of irrelevancy.

Since your interpretation of what the prosecutor said is the effective result of the prosecutor's decision, your posts are improving

 

[Michael Johnson]

His "proof" is in his statement.

It is the prosecution's responsibility to show proof that his account of what happened is incorrect with evidence.

His statement is not in any way, "proof." It's just a statement from a killer who's alive, versus the victim who's dead.

Instead of criticizing others about laws, maybe you should brush up on them yourself.

 

[ric27]

which ended in the death of the 17 year old -

ok

Lets clear some misconceptions

People who believe that age somehow makes one less violent against you/ others are delusional..

Size - height and weight plus strength- has more to do with it than age, and attitude more than anything else.

And, yeah.....*Kids* can be vicious mother****ers.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

ok
Lets clear some misconceptions
People who believe that age somehow makes one less violent against you/ others are delusional..
Size - height and weight plus strength- has more to do with it than age, and attitude more than anything else.
And, yeah.....*Kids* can be vicious mother****ers.

You're taking exception to describing Martin as a 17 yr old?

 

[Kal'Stang]

Since your interpretation of what the prosecutor said is the effective result of the prosecutor's decision, your posts are improving

That wasn't her interpretation of the prosecutor...it was her impression of your hyperbolic post.

It happens every day in every police/DA office. If there isn't enough evidence to convict someone then they do not press charges. It is as simple as that. Do you really think that you know more about what will get a person convicted than a lawyer? And if they proceeded to charge every single person that they thought was involved in the commision of a crime regardless of how little evidence they had can you imagine just how clogged our court system would be?

Or would you just prefer that we just get rid of the whole "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" part of our justice system?

 

[Kal'Stang]

You're taking exception to describing Martin as a 17 yr old?

No, he's taking exception to people thinking that just because Martin is 17 years old that he is an innocent angel of a kid that couldn't possibly pose a threat to an adult. There are thousands of kids younger and smaller than Martin in juvi and adult prison because of them being violent and hurting and killing people...including adults.

 

[Eighty Deuce]

Well, with ABC's looking at the video again, and now enhancing it, we know that their original report, and the headline of this thread, was complete BS. A lie.

They admitted their mistake on Good Morning America today. There's a new thread with the truth about it now, but here's a couple articles:

Trayvon Martin: ABC enhances George Zimmerman video - Orlando Sentinel

New ABC Video and photo here: ABC NEWS: Enhanced Zimmerman Video Shows Injury to Head

 

[What if...?]

His "proof" is in his statement.

It is the prosecution's responsibility to show proof that his account of what happened is incorrect with evidence.

And the state still hasn't interviewed the party on the phone with Martin at the time of the event.

So the prosecution wasn't trying too hard to find evidence to confirm or refute Zimmermans story.

Seems to me that the revelation that a call was in progress DURING part of this thing would "prick up the ears" of people who are trying to arrive at the truth of what happened.

"What could possibly be learned from someone speaking to one of the parties immediately before the shooting" just doesn't seem like thorough police work.