Teenager shot/killed while Tweek's hero gets off free

[Plow]

While I don't think he's innocent, burden of proof is on the state. They have to prove against that, not the other way around.

the defense has to create "reasonable doubt"; in this case they have to convince the jury that a reasonable person would feel their life was in danger, they really haven't done so as every medical expert called has stated they didn't consider any of it life threatening and the best the defense could ever muster on those witnesses was "well but if it was way worse it could have been bad, right!?"

[Melena]

if i break into a construction site and hurt myself on hazardous material can i sue the construction team/site?

he put himself in the situation, self defense is not used for that stupid shit

We've had people sue and win for getting injured/shot/bit after breaking into someone's house. Your analogy doesn't work too well sadly.

[Niiro]

How are you so sure he "started a fight".

This is where you guys are jumping to conclusions.

Last I checked we here in America have the right to walk around and even ask someone what they are doing in the neighborhood without getting attacked.

^
People have trouble looking past what happened (which is only relevant as far as what the evidence proves) and what he's on trial for.

The trial isn't so much about whether he is responsible for the kid's death but about whether his known actions amount to any criminal responsibility.

It's obvious to say that Zimmerman acted irresponsibly, but whether or not he was criminally responsible is very hard to prove given that there's no evidence of what he or Trayvon said or did immediately preceding the physical altercation and the shooting. None of the hard evidence shows that he broke any law (disregarding the dispatcher's instructions is not a crime) and all we have is his account of what lead to the shooting.

Zimmerman could be a trigger happy racist pieces of shit, he could have gone off and brandished his gun and told Trayvon to freeze and threatened to kill him, but if there's no hard evidence that he started the fight or said anything that would be considered a crime then it's hard to pin anything on him.

[Kuya]

"we don't need you to do that" after asking him multiple questions about the direction he was headed.

Have you listened to the call? It sounds to me he was trying to keep an eye on him for when the officers arrived.

"let us know if he does anything else"
"he's running? which way is he running" (at this point zimmerman gets out of car)
"which entrance is he going towards?"

Regardless, following someone after a dispatcher says "we dont need you to do that" does not make a murder 2 case nor disprove his self defense case.

I'm not sure murder is what he did. But claiming self defense is laughable after he was told not to pursue. The truth is, he wouldn't have needed to defend himself if he had listened to the dispatcher. He engaged in reckless behavior that put his life in danger and cost martin his life.

Him pursuing martin doesn't imply murder, but i can see how a manslaughter conviction could stick.

[Meian]

Yeah if I was getting beat up in the dark by a guy who jumped me and I can't feel I can escape I'll be sure to take the time to assess if the attacker's words "you're going to die" (assuming these were said as mentioned by Zimmerman) were real and assess my current wounds while I am being attacked before resorting to deadly force /sarcasm

I haven't seen concrete evidence Zimmerman was the instigator considering the way the evidence is playing out the struggle. If all you are all going by is the possibility that Zimmerman pursued regardless of the dispatcher saying not to as enough evidence to prove guilt then you need to watch the trial. I'll let the others take the bait instead, I don't generally post in controversial things like this but this seemed pretty clear to me since I was watching but this is BG after all when it comes to heated stuff like this so I'll just end with this XD Anyone making judgment without watching the trial shouldn't really post said judgment JS, each person I know who has watched it has felt the state doesn't really have a case for this second degree murder charges and the opposite for those who haven't watched.

Whatever happens, can only hope its the truth but so far it looks Zimmerman won't get this second degree murder charge. Not crazy about the jury selection but hopefully that won't skew the result.

Stay classy all~

[Plow]

^
People have trouble looking past what happened (which is only relevant as far as what the evidence proves) and what he's on trial for.

The trial isn't so much about whether he is responsible for the kid's death but about whether his known actions amount to any criminal responsibility.

It's obvious to say that Zimmerman acted irresponsibly, but whether or not he was criminally responsible is very hard to prove given that there's no evidence of what he or Trayvon said or did immediately preceding the physical altercation and the shooting. None of the hard evidence shows that he broke any law (disregarding the dispatcher's instructions is not a crime) and all we have is his account of what lead to the shooting.

Zimmerman could be a trigger happy racist pieces of shit, he could have gone off and brandished his gun and told Trayvon to freeze and threatened to kill him, but if there's no hard evidence that he started the fight or said anything that would be considered a crime then it's hard to pin anything on him.

The problem is that all of that hinges on the idea that if you've got a gun you can do whatever you want and if you get yourself into shit you can shoot your way out np.

[Xajii]

Yeah if I was getting beat up in the dark by a guy who jumped me and I can't feel I can escape I'll be sure to take the time to assess if the attacker's words "you're going to die" (assuming these were said as mentioned by Zimmerman) were real and assess my current wounds while I am being attacked before resorting to deadly force /sarcasm

Don't be an idiot. "Getting beat up in the dark by a guy who jumped me" is clearly not the entire story, or potentially even the story at all.

I haven't seen concrete evidence Zimmerman was the instigator considering the way the evidence is playing out the struggle. If all you are all going by is the possibility that Zimmerman pursued regardless of the dispatcher saying not to as enough evidence to prove guilt then you need to watch the trial. I'll let the others take the bait instead, I don't generally post in controversial things like this but this seemed pretty clear to me since I was watching but this is BG after all when it comes to heated stuff like this so I'll just end with this XD Anyone making judgment without watching the trial shouldn't really post said judgment JS, each person I know who has watched it has felt the state doesn't really have a case for this second degree murder charges and the opposite for those who haven't watched.

Whatever happens, can only hope its the truth but so far it looks Zimmerman won't get this second degree murder charge. Not crazy about the jury selection but hopefully that won't skew the result.

Stay classy all~

Let me be clear: I am not arguing whether the State will be able to convict him. Unfortunately, I doubt that they will be - the hard evidence at the critical point in the altercation simply is not there. HOWEVER, if I'm on the jury, I think the surrounding information is enough to disprove self-defense.

To clarify, I agree with this post completely, most specifically the bolded

I'm not sure murder is what he did. But claiming self defense is laughable after he was told not to pursue. The truth is, he wouldn't have needed to defend himself if he had listened to the dispatcher. He engaged in reckless behavior that put his life in danger and cost martin his life.

Him pursuing martin doesn't imply murder, but i can see how a manslaughter conviction could stick.

[Cream Soda]

the defense has to create "reasonable doubt"; in this case they have to convince the jury that a reasonable person would feel their life was in danger, they really haven't done so as every medical expert called has stated they didn't consider any of it life threatening and the best the defense could ever muster on those witnesses was "well but if it was way worse it could have been bad, right!?"

eh, to each their own, but if I was sitting on the jury, you'd either have to swap me out for someone else and let me go home or we'd be sitting there for a long time. I wouldn't put anyone on the frying pan over circumstantial shit. Unless I knew w/o a doubt in the world that what the prosecution was presenting was fact, or with some extreme evidence (for example if he said he didn't fire the gun at all, his fingerprints on the gun would suffice for me, but there's no doubt on whether or not he fired), then I'm not throwing a guilty verdict on anyone.

That being said, I think he did it, but do I know, no, which is why I wouldn't throw him in on personal bias or w/o enough evidence to tell me for sure that's what happened.

[Niiro]

The problem is that all of that hinges on the idea that if you've got a gun you can do whatever you want and if you get yourself into shit you can shoot your way out np.

But you're saying this based on the assumption that he approached Trayvon in a way that would reasonably instigate a person to feel threatened enough to attack. Is it not possible that Trayvon overreacted and attacked him?

(also I'm not agreeing with the stand your ground law or the kind of thought behind it, but the law is what it is)

eh, to each their own, but if I was sitting on the jury, you'd either have to swap me out for someone else and let me go home or we'd be sitting there for a long time. I wouldn't put anyone on the frying pan over circumstantial shit. Unless I knew w/o a doubt in the world that what the prosecution was presenting was fact, or with some extreme evidence (for example if he said he didn't fire the gun at all, his fingerprints on the gun would suffice for me, but there's no doubt on whether or not he fired), then I'm not throwing a guilty verdict on anyone.

That being said, I think he did it, but do I know, no, which is why I wouldn't throw him in on personal bias or w/o enough evidence to tell me for sure that's what happened.

These are all reasons why you or anyone expressing opinions like you would never sit on a jury for a trial like this (unless the suspect was black*).

[Day]

Ok I'll try to explain my POV best I can and leave it at that because in the end, there's a vital piece missing that none of us will ever really know, but I'm just saying looking at the whole thing I don't see him getting convicted.

First of all, if Zimmerman was out for a fight or wanted to shoot someone up, why bother calling the police on a non-emergency call. You have to remember he was the neighborhood watch commander (lol), so he felt it was his responsibility to not only call the cops but to try to keep an eye on him until the cops arrived. It was raining, dude looked suspicious to him just walking around out and about his complex. He did his duty and called.

Listen to the call again, and try to keep an open mind. He does not sound hysterical, or even excited to be honest. Why did dude take off running in the first place? When he says he's running the dispatcher asks twice which way he is going before ADVISING that they didn't need him to do that. Zimmerman at this point knows cops are on the way, why would he go after him with the intent to shoot or even start a physical altercation?

There's testimony from the gym that Zimmerman went to that basically called him a pussy that couldn't throw a punch to get out of a wet paper bag, while on the other hand Trayvon was a football player with a history of fighting.

The testimony from Bagel-neck sure didn't help things.

All this with the forensic evidence that suggests Trayvon was on top of him when he fired the gun all leads me to believe that he won't be convicted.

What really happened? I'm not 100% but I'm inclined to believe his self defense story at this point. Color me racist I guess.

[Blubbartron]

Why would a call to the police and advice from someone without any authority change whether or not it was self defense? If you talk to someone to find out what they're doing, and they start to attack you, that's all that matters. Chances are Zimmerman didn't even pull out his weapon until he was lying on his back getting his head smashed into concrete, because what retard would attack a man who's pointing a gun at him? The only other scenario is that it's all staged, and that seems incredibly unlikely.

[archibaldcrane]

I just think it's an odd position to take that it's reasonable for Zimmerman to shoot Trayvon after being tackled or whatever, but it's unreasonable for Trayvon to tackle him.

[Xajii]

When he says he's running the dispatcher asks twice which way he is going before ADVISING that they didn't need him to do that. Zimmerman at this point knows cops are on the way, why would he go after him with the intent to shoot or even start a physical altercation?

Why would he go after him at all? Especially when advised not to.

There's testimony from the gym that Zimmerman went to that basically called him a pussy that couldn't throw a punch to get out of a wet paper bag, while on the other hand Trayvon was a football player with a history of fighting.

Exactly the kind of "pussy" who would get a gun and use that as a way of feeling superior if you ask me. Obviously that's just conjecture.

[archibaldcrane]

If you talk to someone to find out what they're doing, and they start to attack you, that's all that matters.

Your argument is that Trayvon had no reason to feel he was in danger, after this armed man was stalking him for 5-10 minutes at least.

[Xajii]

Why would a call to the police and advice from someone without any authority change whether or not it was self defense?

"without any authority" may be arguable but even so - it doesn't; it simply adds further credence to the idea that Zimmerman put himself in the dangerous situation that he ended up in with extensive reason NOT to do so and not holding him accountable for that at least to the extent of admitting it can't really be self-defense is BS.

Posters here keep mentioning his demeanor on the line and his "pussy" attitude re: the testimony but this shit does not add up. If I'm worried about a potentially dangerous person in my neighborhood I'm not going to fucking walk up to them when I've already made contact with the police, especially if I'm a pussy. The only thing that makes sense TO ME is that he was looking to start something.

[dejet]

if i break into a construction site and hurt myself on hazardous material can i sue the construction team/site?

he put himself in the situation, self defense is not used for that stupid shit

and to answer your question you might have a case for the person who owns the area. If spikes or whatever are left out in the open you could sue them depending. BS world but if you left something out that was dangerous there is a shot you are at fault.

I have never seen a case like it on a construction site, but there are some of people breaking into a house and getting hurt and then suing

[Day]

Why would he go after him at all? Especially when advised not to.

Listen to the call. The dispatcher asked him which way he went, this is when he gets out of the car. All the dispatcher said was "we don't need you to do that"[follow him] it is not a crime to ignore a dispatcher's advice and if you think this is the piece of evidence that will convict him, you are probably mistaken.

[Niiro]

Your argument is that Trayvon had no reason to feel he was in danger, after this armed man was stalking him for 5-10 minutes at least.

Did Trayvon know he was armed?

What did Zimmerman say to him when he caught up to him?

Courts don't convict based on what might have happened.

[Day]

Posters here keep mentioning his demeanor on the line and his "pussy" attitude re: the testimony but this shit does not add up. If I'm worried about a potentially dangerous person in my neighborhood I'm not going to fucking walk up to them when I've already made contact with the police, especially if I'm a pussy. The only thing that makes sense TO ME is that he was looking to start something.

He's neighborhood watch dude, cops were on the way, he didn't want to lose sight. Also he owned a gun, he probably didn't feel threatened until he was on the ground getting his ass beat. If you want to discuss if following him was the right thing to do or not then by all means, I think that's pretty obvious here with this 20/20 hindsight. It still doesn't negate his self defense claim.

[Day]

Just another little nugget for thought, when, before this case, was the last time you ever heard anyone called a "white-hispanic"? As soon as I heard that shit I knew where this whole thing was going.