Bloody new photo of Trayvon Martin's killer

reply to post by DZAG Wright


How about showing the entire diagram? You can locate it here - story with the more complete map

The attack took place just a few doors away from where martin was staying, as stated.

reply to post by DZAG Wright

Maybe you don't have much experience with police and being investigated, but I do

LMAO

I don't doubt that in the least! I'm sure your Public Defender did his best to help you, but it's more than obvious that you didn't listen to him. I reckon you've just proven that "ya can't fix stupid"!

Ho, Ho, Ho,.. and away I go...

Thanks! That's the best damn laugh I've had had in a long while!

See ya,
Milt

Originally posted by hellbjorn012

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by hellbjorn012

 

when someone is on top beating your head against the ground.
.

Your argument is based on trusting GZ 100%. Why do you put so much faith in this guy? Is he incapable of lying? Is he a saint?

You trust GZ on this, here is were we differ I think GZ LIED. I think he lied about his head being bashed against concrete. Once again and i have pointed this out numerous times the injury's do not match up with someones whose head is bashed against a concrete sidewalk numerous times.

The injury's look more like scratches.

Ask yourself this, if anyone's head is bashed against concrete a few times is it not reasonable that they would require medical attention, stitches or whatever? The skin on the back of the head is so thin would one not expect REQUIRED medical attention if it was forcefully bashed against concrete?

edit on 8-12-2012 by hellbjorn012 because: (no reason given)

I would have sworn I already went over this.....

NO, one would not necessarily need medical attention after such a thing. Two, Zimmerman GOT medical attention, on site. Three, the injuries look about right, when compared to a schoolyard fight I witnessed. Just because Zimmerman didn't wait until he was beaten unconscious before shooting doesn't mean he isn't telling the truth. The back of his head is covered in wounds on the picture. That takes a decent amount of force.

reply to post by DZAG Wright

So George Zimmerman didn't show any ignorance?

Do you really feel that you have any room to question George's intellect? I certainly don't!

See ya,
Milt

Originally posted by DZAG Wright

Originally posted by Jerk_Idiot
reply to post by DZAG Wright

 

Of course he wouldn't need the money if he just committed suicide right? Are you for that? It costs a lot to defend yourself in court. As to trusting the court by the way, what do you do when you no longer can? This case turned political when Z was called a white man. By the time it was straightened out that he was Hispanic it was already too late. There was to much politics involved. To many people had injected to much skin into the game to demonize him. They could no longer afford the chance of being seen as the idiots they are.

Z is a white man, he's white hispanic. I know his mother is hispanic, but what culture do they subscribe? Though his color really isn't the main issue. If it were a black man who had shot a kid and yelled SYG I would still think it should be investigated.

What sort of double standard is that? Most of the time, if someone is part white, and part something else, they are called the something else. ONLY when it comes to a possible criminal case does that change, and do they become "white".

By your above definition, that's a white guy sitting in the White House right now. His mother was white. He's an attorney )or former one?), so that's a "white culture", right? So, by that definition, he's white.

George is Hispanic. He looks Hispanic, he calls himself Hispanic, he has Hispanic blood in his veins, so he's Hispanic. His color should not be ANY part of the issue, though, and that you want to make it one shows why this is even a case at this stage.

.....and you said earlier that you didn't mention race....

reply to post by hellbjorn012


The assault charges were dropped, and the guy was an undercover cop that did not identify himself before getting into an altercation. link Zimmerman also filed a restraining order against his ex, which was granted. If you want to post such things, post ALL of the data, not half of it. Zimmerman also defended a black homeless man, and mentored two black children.

Martin was suspended three times, found in possession of a burglary tool and a lot of jewelry that wasn't his, defaces school property, was in possession of drug items, and was (from YT videos) involved in school fights. His Twitter page was filled with "gangsta"-type talk.

That's what people base their assessments on. Seems reasonable to me.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by BenReclused

 

Why don't you quote the entire law? Here's the part that is actually relevant:

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

[edit for brevity. --DJW001]

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

www.leg.state.fl.us.../0776/0776.html

edit on 9-12-2012 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)

Walking around in one's own neighborhood, trying to see what direction someone went, is not, by any stretch of the imagination, "provoking an attack".

I find it highly interesting how many people call George Zimmerman a "wannabe cop", but defend attacking someone because you think they might be a threat, and, in effect, playing cop. The hypocrisy is beyond ridiculous. Same sort of people, it seems, that condone Zimmerman potentially being attacked in prison, or condone making his life "hell" once he's acquitted.

Originally posted by BenReclused
reply to post by DJW001

 

Why are you so persistent in proving your ignorance? You don't need to be. Many of us are already well aware of that!

There is a reason why the legal system does not use the word "innocent," but prefers the term "not guilty." The connotation of the word "innocent" implies certainty about the motivations for an act.

Here is the proof that you are, once again, speaking from your ass:

Innocent typically refers to a finding that a criminal defendant is not guilty of the charges, but may also refer to a finding that a civil defendant isn't liable for the accusations of the plaintiff, such as being found not negligent in a personal injury case. It is synonymous with acquit, which means to find a defendant in a criminal case not guilty.

He admits it. He is, by any reasonable definition, guilty, not "innocent." A court might decide that the killing was justified due to circumstances of self-defense, but that does not make Zimmerman "innocent."

The LEGAL DEFINITION, that I quoted above, indicates that you haven't got a clue as to what you are talking about. I already knew that, though!

You should be more careful: THERE ARE TROLLS IN THE AREA!!!

See ya,
Milt

I repeat: There are reasons why the legal system uses the expression "not guilty" rather than "innocent:"

in·no·cent adjective \ˈi-nə-sənt\

Definition of INNOCENT

1
a : free from guilt or sin especially through lack of knowledge of evil : blameless
b : harmless in effect or intention ; also : candid
c : free from legal guilt or fault; also : lawful
2
a : lacking or reflecting a lack of sophistication, guile, or self-consciousness : artless, ingenuous
b : ignorant ; also : unaware
3
: lacking or deprived of something

www.merriam-webster.com...

Why are some people so keen to spread the "George Zimmerman is innocent" meme? It's not as though Zimmerman didn't actually kill someone.

reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

Walking around in one's own neighborhood, trying to see what direction someone went, is not, by any stretch of the imagination, "provoking an attack".

On the other hand, walking up to a stranger and saying "Hey! Punk!" is assault.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

 

Walking around in one's own neighborhood, trying to see what direction someone went, is not, by any stretch of the imagination, "provoking an attack".

On the other hand, walking up to a stranger and saying "Hey! Punk!" is assault.

First off, no comment to anyone is assault. Stuff and nonsense. Second, Martin was the first to confront, and his GF confirmed that with her statement.

If you think someone saying something you don't like is grounds to attack them, try it in front of a cop. Please.

reply to post by DJW001

Why are some people so keen to spread the "George Zimmerman is innocent" meme? It's not as though Zimmerman didn't actually kill someone.

He may still be innocent even if he killed someone. If someone is legally proclaimed "not guilty", it encompassess both "innocent" and "possibly guilty, but with reasonable doubt".

On the other hand, walking up to a stranger and saying "Hey! Punk!" is assault.

Nope.

reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

If you think someone saying something you don't like is grounds to attack them, try it in front of a cop. Please.

Exactly. Walk up to a cop and say "Hey! Punk!" What will he charge you with?

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by DJW001

 

Why are some people so keen to spread the "George Zimmerman is innocent" meme? It's not as though Zimmerman didn't actually kill someone.

He may still be innocent even if he killed someone. If someone is legally proclaimed "not guilty", it encompassess both "innocent" and "possibly guilty, but with reasonable doubt".

On the other hand, walking up to a stranger and saying "Hey! Punk!" is assault.

Nope.

At Common Law, an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact.

An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm. It is both a crime and a tort and, therefore, may result in either criminal or civil liability. Generally, the common law definition is the same in criminal and Tort Law. There is, however, an additional Criminal Law category of assault consisting of an attempted but unsuccessful Battery.

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

reply to post by DJW001


From your source:

The act required for an assault must be overt. Although words alone are insufficient, they might create an assault when coupled with some action that indicates the ability to carry out the threat. A mere threat to harm is not an assault;

So by your own source, walking up to someone and saying "hey, punk" is not an assault. Frankly, I dont understand how someone can consider that an assault, please enlighten me. Do you think you can punch someone that calls you a punk, or what?

reply to post by Maslo

So by your own source, walking up to someone and saying "hey, punk" is not an assault. Frankly, I dont understand how someone can consider that an assault, please enlighten me. Do you think you can punch someone that calls you a punk, or what?

Read carefully, please:

At Common Law, an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact.

Following someone around in a car can create apprehension. Getting out of that car and approaching someone can create the impression of "an imminent harmful or offensive contact." It is an overt action, especially if coupled with a threatening greeting like "Hey! Punk!" George Zimmerman is guilty of assault.

Of course you can't just punch someone who calls you a punk. That would be battery. Trevor Martin might be guilty of battery.

Here's the thing you need to wrap your head around. It is possible to be guilty of committing a crime innocently. Zimmerman may have thought he was doing the neighborhood a favor by assaulting Martin. He did it in all innocence. Nevertheless, he was guilty of assault. Martin may have thought that he was in danger of being physically attacked, and defended himself in all innocence by taking a swing at Zimmerman. Nevertheless, if that was the case, he would still be guilty of battery.

Now: why is it so important to you that Zimmerman be called "innocent?" Even he admits to killing Martin.

Originally posted by BenReclused
reply to post by DZAG Wright

 

Maybe you don't have much experience with police and being investigated, but I do

LMAO

I don't doubt that in the least! I'm sure your Public Defender did his best to help you, but it's more than obvious that you didn't listen to him. I reckon you've just proven that "ya can't fix stupid"!

Ho, Ho, Ho,.. and away I go...

Thanks! That's the best damn laugh I've had had in a long while!

See ya,
Milt

I guess this is an attempt at Ad hom attacks...., I must be on the righteous path!

See ya,
Deez

Originally posted by BenReclused
reply to post by DZAG Wright

 

So George Zimmerman didn't show any ignorance?

Do you really feel that you have any room to question George's intellect? I certainly don't!

See ya,
Milt

What does your opinion have to do with the question I posed to another poster?

See ya,
Deez

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

Originally posted by DZAG Wright

Originally posted by Jerk_Idiot
reply to post by DZAG Wright

 

Of course he wouldn't need the money if he just committed suicide right? Are you for that? It costs a lot to defend yourself in court. As to trusting the court by the way, what do you do when you no longer can? This case turned political when Z was called a white man. By the time it was straightened out that he was Hispanic it was already too late. There was to much politics involved. To many people had injected to much skin into the game to demonize him. They could no longer afford the chance of being seen as the idiots they are.

Z is a white man, he's white hispanic. I know his mother is hispanic, but what culture do they subscribe? Though his color really isn't the main issue. If it were a black man who had shot a kid and yelled SYG I would still think it should be investigated.

What sort of double standard is that? Most of the time, if someone is part white, and part something else, they are called the something else. ONLY when it comes to a possible criminal case does that change, and do they become "white".

By your above definition, that's a white guy sitting in the White House right now. His mother was white. He's an attorney )or former one?), so that's a "white culture", right? So, by that definition, he's white.

George is Hispanic. He looks Hispanic, he calls himself Hispanic, he has Hispanic blood in his veins, so he's Hispanic. His color should not be ANY part of the issue, though, and that you want to make it one shows why this is even a case at this stage.

.....and you said earlier that you didn't mention race....

No, the man in the WH is black because he self-identifies as being black. No, profession has nothing to do with race.

Does George speak Spanish, does he embrace his hispanic culture or did he always pass himself off as white? What does he mark his race on surveys and other demograph gathering documents? We may never know, but I doubt he was one of the hispanic guys who identified with being black!

I didn't mention race for some time in this thread. As I've already stated, I don't believe race had much to do with this tragedy either. It was a matter of a police wannabe going too far.

When I addressed race it was because someone else mentioned it...

reply to post by DJW001

Read carefully, please:

You take one sentence which can maybe be twisted to support your view if taken to the extreme and disregarding everything else, and ignore the rest where it clearly states that the action must be overt and words alone are not sufficient. There is a reason why the word "imminent" is there. Following someone in a car or approaching them with the words "hey, punk" is no assault. Raising your fist such that an attack is imminent is, for example.

Now: why is it so important to you that Zimmerman be called "innocent?" Even he admits to killing Martin.

Because someone who justifiably kills someone in self-defense is innocent by all criterions. By all we know, it is possible that Zimmerman is innocent, nor was he proclaimed guilty yet. And I am not making a claim that he is innocent, it is you who is making a claim that he cannot be reasonably called innocent. Which he can be.

reply to post by Maslo

Because someone who justifiably kills someone in self-defense is innocent by all criterions. By all we know, it is possible that Zimmerman is innocent, nor was he proclaimed guilty yet. And I am not making a claim that he is innocent, it is you who is making a claim that he cannot be reasonably called innocent. Which he can be.

A person claiming self-defense must prove at trial that the self-defense was justified. Generally a person may use reasonable force when it appears reasonably necessary to prevent an impending injury. A person using force in self-defense should use only so much force as is required to repel the attack. Nondeadly force can be used to repel either a nondeadly attack or a deadly attack. Deadly Force may be used to fend off an attacker who is using deadly force but may not be used to repel an attacker who is not using deadly force.

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

In your opinion, was Trevor Martin using deadly force?