White man shoots innocent black teen....

[Si modo]

I hope this ****** goes down and soon. At the very minimum, bring him in, book him, let him make bail, take away his gun liscence and put him on trial.

He won't be arrested. But, you haters will get a consolation prize. He'll be taken to civil court where a jury of women and apes will find him liable for a gazillion dollars.

Racist fucktard.

 

[Ariux]

What about a black Jew? Whereabouts on your hierarchy would that fall?

If the hispanic and the black are both Jews, then it comes down to just hispanic vs. black. But, that's not an issue here. Only one is a Jew, and that trumps hispanic vs. black.

 

[Salt Jones]

What about a black Jew? Whereabouts on your hierarchy would that fall?

If the hispanic and the black are both Jews, then it comes down to just hispanic vs. black. But, that's not an issue here. Only one is a Jew, and that trumps hispanic vs. black.

Sure Yidnar Jr, sure.

 

[Peach]

I hope this ****** goes down and soon. At the very minimum, bring him in, book him, let him make bail, take away his gun liscence and put him on trial.

He won't be arrested. But, you haters will get a consolation prize. He'll be taken to civil court where a jury of women and apes will find him liable for a gazillion dollars.

Racist fucktard.

Gotta agree Si; that was a sick post.

 

[yidnar]

What about a black Jew? Whereabouts on your hierarchy would that fall?

If the hispanic and the black are both Jews, then it comes down to just hispanic vs. black. But, that's not an issue here. Only one is a Jew, and that trumps hispanic vs. black.

Sure Yidnar Jr, sure.

he is hispanic !!! and I have lost three friends to robberies committed by shitskins !!!wont see that on the damn news !!

 

[Crackerjack]

What about a black Jew? Whereabouts on your hierarchy would that fall?

If the hispanic and the black are both Jews, then it comes down to just hispanic vs. black. But, that's not an issue here. Only one is a Jew, and that trumps hispanic vs. black.

Okay, thanks for clarifying.

 

[Peach]

What about a black Jew? Whereabouts on your hierarchy would that fall?

If the hispanic and the black are both Jews, then it comes down to just hispanic vs. black. But, that's not an issue here. Only one is a Jew, and that trumps hispanic vs. black.

Okay, thanks for clarifying.

Only ONE is dead, THAT trumps all other facts known.

 

[Crackerjack]

If the hispanic and the black are both Jews, then it comes down to just hispanic vs. black. But, that's not an issue here. Only one is a Jew, and that trumps hispanic vs. black.

Okay, thanks for clarifying.

Only ONE is dead, THAT trumps all other facts known.

Um ... yeah. Thanks for pointing that out.

 

[Ariux]

Okay, thanks for clarifying.

It's not very original. I cribbed an admissions policy at a nearby liberal University.

 

[The Gadfly]

So this incident happened on Zimmerman's front lawn?

Essentially yes. Gated communities in Florida contain private rights-of-way dedicated to an owners association with owner's holding fee to equal unidivided interest in the roads and common areas.

Zimmerman called the cops and should have left it at that, going in pursuit of a suspect is not in the job description of the neighborhood watch sorry.

Here, HG, is the single most troubling thing Zimmerman apparently did prior to the shooting. FOLLOWING and OBSERVING a suspicious person (preferably from a discrete distance, is OK; nothing wrong or criminal about that under the circumstances. HOT PURSUIT of a fleeing subject NOT know to have committed a felony (or any crime at all, in this case) is another matter entirely; there is NO good reason to do that, none at all. That still doesn't make Zimmerman guilty of a crime, in and of itself, but it most certainly does call into question both his judgment, and his state of mind at that moment (as does the racial epithet heard on the 911 tape).

The key question after that, is what happened next. Let's assume for the sake of argument, that Zimmerman caught up to Martin (I say "assume", because it's not clear to me that an older, heavier man (what would you guess Zimmerman weighs-if he's of average height, I'd guess 200-220), could run down an athletic 140 lb. 17 year-old , if the kid was running and had even a slight head start-think about that for a moment). After words were exchanged, who struck who first (or grabbed who first)? Do we know that?

That's the next key point, because IF Zimmerman made the initial physical contact, Martin could then have hit him in self-defense. IF Martin hit Zimmerman first, and continued to hit him, then Martin initiated the physical part, i.e.committed assault and battery, and Zimmerman's subsequent actions may indeed constitute self-defense.

Those are the first keys to what really occurred in this case. Until those questions are answered, this is either a case of self-defense, or a case of voluntary manslaughter (2nd degree murder, in some states, depending on statute.)

 

[The Gadfly]

If the hispanic and the black are both Jews, then it comes down to just hispanic vs. black. But, that's not an issue here. Only one is a Jew, and that trumps hispanic vs. black.

Okay, thanks for clarifying.

Only ONE is dead, THAT trumps all other facts known.

Close, but not entirely, Peach; there are a couple of other facts that have to be sorted out, before we know whether that death was a case of manslaughter, or self-defense; but it's pretty clearly one or the other.

 

[Ariux]

Here, HG, is the single most troubling thing Zimmerman apparently did prior to the shooting. FOLLOWING and OBSERVING a suspicious person

Following a suspect is natural, to prevent the suspect from getting away. Zimmerman could also have interpreted what the 911 operator said as instructions to follow, "Let me know if the guy does anything else..."

In any case, it would be tough to show that Zimmerman followed with any intent beyond tracking the suspect, or that he continued to follow after he was told not to.

Yes, then it comes down to he made physical contact first. A confrontation would have been by the suspect's choice, given that he could have out-ran Zimmerman. Zimmerman claimed he was hit from behind, and was bleeding from the back of the head, which also gives the benefit of the doubt to Zimmerman. And, I just don't see a man with a gun physically assaulting anyone.

But, I do see a young hothead attacking someone he thinks is following him.

Anyway, this case demonstrates the importance of shooting to kill, if you're shooting in self-defense. If the black survived the gunshot, he would claim that he was attacked first, and no liberal would doubt him. The evidence would be irrelevant.

 

[Ravi]

Here, HG, is the single most troubling thing Zimmerman apparently did prior to the shooting. FOLLOWING and OBSERVING a suspicious person

Following a suspect is natural, to prevent the suspect from getting away. Zimmerman could also have interpreted what the 911 operator said as instructions to follow, "Let me know if the guy does anything else..."

In any case, it would be tough to show that Zimmerman followed with any intent beyond tracking the suspect, or that he continued to follow after he was told not to.

Yes, then it comes down to he made physical contact first. A confrontation would have been by the suspect's choice, given that he could have out-ran Zimmerman. Zimmerman claimed he was hit from behind, and was bleeding from the back of the head, which also gives the benefit of the doubt to Zimmerman. And, I just don't see a man with a gun physically assaulting anyone.

But, I do see a young hothead attacking someone he thinks is following him.

Anyway, this case demonstrates the importance of shooting to kill, if you're shooting in self-defense. If the black survived the gunshot, he would claim that he was attacked first, and no liberal would doubt him. The evidence would be irrelevant.

I hope when you're in hell someone rapes you five times a day....with time for your wounds to recuperate in between, of course. And you think it's "the black."

 

[Peach]

Okay, thanks for clarifying.

Only ONE is dead, THAT trumps all other facts known.

Close, but not entirely, Peach; there are a couple of other facts that have to be sorted out, before we know whether that death was a case of manslaughter, or self-defense; but it's pretty clearly one or the other.

The statute might be interpreted as to allow DEADLY force only if an assumption of deadly force being used can be made. The kid had no deadly weapons, a frustrating case. That is why I posted read the entire Chapter, 766, Florida Statutes. I see 2nd degree murder as an option also. Other than that, I'll stay out the law online. Read Chapter 766 if you really interested.

 

[The Gadfly]

Here, HG, is the single most troubling thing Zimmerman apparently did prior to the shooting. FOLLOWING and OBSERVING a suspicious person

Following a suspect is natural, to prevent the suspect from getting away. Zimmerman could also have interpreted what the 911 operator said as instructions to follow, "Let me know if the guy does anything else..."

In any case, it would be tough to show that Zimmerman followed with any intent beyond tracking the suspect, or that he continued to follow after he was told not to.

Yes, then it comes down to he made physical contact first. A confrontation would have been by the suspect's choice, given that he could have out-ran Zimmerman. Zimmerman claimed he was hit from behind, and was bleeding from the back of the head, which also gives the benefit of the doubt to Zimmerman. And, I just don't see a man with a gun physically assaulting anyone.

But, I do see a young hothead attacking someone he thinks is following him.

Anyway, this case demonstrates the importance of shooting to kill, if you're shooting in self-defense. If the black survived the gunshot, he would claim that he was attacked first, and no liberal would doubt him. The evidence would be irrelevant.

Now, let's continue to follow the chain of reasoning I started earlier. We know Zimmerman had some sort of bleeding wound to the back of his head; so how did that injury occur? Let's look at the known facts: the scene of the final confrontation is a grassy area with a sidewalk running through it. We know the ground was wet, it had been raining (and was at the time). We have witnesses who saw Zimmerman on the ground, so he must have fallen, been knocked (or thrown) down by Martin, or tried to tackle Martin. Given that police noted grass stains on the BACK (but not the front) of Zimmerman's jacket, we can rule out the first and last alternatives since either of those would have had him falling forward, and there would have been obvious grass stains on the front of his clothing, including the front of his trousers as well as his jacket. None were noted . ( It's a pity the police did not photograph him on the scene, because that would settle the question). The most likely conclusion is that Martin knocked Zimmerman down. Did Martin hit Zimmerman from behind? Well possibly, but not necessarily; the injury could have come from either a direct blow from a fist, or from Zimmerman's head striking the ground, especially the sidewalk. There is thus no conclusive proof that Zimmerman's head injury had to have come from a direct blow from behind; his account of that is therefore not proven true, but not proven necessarily false, either. Once again the question of whether Zimmerman grabbed Martin before Martin struck him, or whether Martin struck first is still unclear, but of critical importance to the case..

So far the preponderance of the evidence tells us that Martin DID strike Zimmerman at least once, and likely more than once (there was blood on his face possibly indicating a second blow, perhaps more). It is also quite physically possible that Martin could have knocked Zimmerman down; while Martin was smaller, it's reasonable to suppose that he was younger and quicker than the older and bulkier Zimmerman, and he was large enough to have the strength to Knock Zimmerman down with a well-placed punch or two. So far neither self-defense nor manslaughter is proven.

The next question is the voice yelling for help on the 911 tape; is it Zimmerman, on the ground and under attack yelling for help, or is it Martin, after Zimmerman pulled his gun, but before the shot was fired. It could be ithere; Zimmerman's voice is not deep; it's relatively high pitched. Hopefully, forensic analysis of the 911 tape can determine whose voice we hear, and perhaps, what is being said. Pending that, there is no conclusive evidence.

Martin was found face down; was he shot in the back? There is a common misconception, (expressed by some posters here) that a person shot from the front will always fall backwards. so that if Martin fell on his face as found, he must have been shot from behind. Having shot a considerable number of men in combat, and seen even more shot in that situation, I can tell you that a man shot from the front may just as easily fall forward, and a man shot from behind can just as easily fall backward.. Sometimes an individual shot from in front will be thrown violently backward( the result of a reaction of the nervous system to the impact of the bullet, I'm told) but that does not happen all or even most of the time in reality, no matter what you may have seen in the movies. Here, we have to have the autopsy findings (which should be conclusive on this point. The fact that Martin fell face down proves absolutely nothing. Still no proof for either self-defense, or manslaughter.

 

[Ariux]

The statute might be interpreted as to allow DEADLY force only if an assumption of deadly force being used can be made. The kid had no deadly weapons, a frustrating case. That is why I posted read the entire Chapter, 766, Florida Statutes. I see 2nd degree murder as an option also. Other than that, I'll stay out the law online. Read Chapter 766 if you really interested.

The title is "Use of deadly force; presumption of fear of... great bodily harm."

 

[ABikerSailor]

Here, HG, is the single most troubling thing Zimmerman apparently did prior to the shooting. FOLLOWING and OBSERVING a suspicious person

Following a suspect is natural, to prevent the suspect from getting away. Zimmerman could also have interpreted what the 911 operator said as instructions to follow, "Let me know if the guy does anything else..."

In any case, it would be tough to show that Zimmerman followed with any intent beyond tracking the suspect, or that he continued to follow after he was told not to.

Yes, then it comes down to he made physical contact first. A confrontation would have been by the suspect's choice, given that he could have out-ran Zimmerman. Zimmerman claimed he was hit from behind, and was bleeding from the back of the head, which also gives the benefit of the doubt to Zimmerman. And, I just don't see a man with a gun physically assaulting anyone.

But, I do see a young hothead attacking someone he thinks is following him.

Anyway, this case demonstrates the importance of shooting to kill, if you're shooting in self-defense. If the black survived the gunshot, he would claim that he was attacked first, and no liberal would doubt him. The evidence would be irrelevant.

Hey stupid...............did you not hear the 911 call MADE BY ZIMMERMAN? The 911 operator TOLD HIM NOT TO FOLLOW THE KID.

Zimmerman already fucked up.

Too bad you can't see that you retarded sperm slurping colon jousting cock smoker.

 

[The Gadfly]

Only ONE is dead, THAT trumps all other facts known.

Close, but not entirely, Peach; there are a couple of other facts that have to be sorted out, before we know whether that death was a case of manslaughter, or self-defense; but it's pretty clearly one or the other.

The statute might be interpreted as to allow DEADLY force only if an assumption of deadly force being used can be made. The kid had no deadly weapons, a frustrating case. That is why I posted read the entire Chapter, 766, Florida Statutes. I see 2nd degree murder as an option also. Other than that, I'll stay out the law online. Read Chapter 766 if you really interested.

Peach, Thanks. This could turn on what court precedent in FL is on that. Here, precedent is generally that a reasonable fear of serious bodily injury is sufficient (along with the other required factors) to establish self-defense. The defendant does not have to prove he acted reasonably; the state must prove he did not. The key word here is "reasonable"; the standard for that is usually held to be ordinary common sense. Here, precedent says that while an assailant's use of deadly force of any sort is sufficient to establish reasonable fear, it is not REQUIRED in order to establish "reasonable" fear of serious bodily injuryThe presence of such factors as multiple assailants, an assailant much younger, larger and/or stronger than the victim, or having a substantial advantage over the victim and not exercising reasonable restraint (such as a continued beating of someone not effectively resisting) has been held to meet the statutory requirement. This last is somewhat murky, in the case of one-on-one altercations where lethal force was not being used by the aggressor The same may be true in FL (but note that any benefit of the doubt usually goes to the defendant, unless otherwise stipulated.)

Incidentally the crime I describe as voluntary manslaughter is, I believe, equivalent to the FL 2nd degree murder statute. i.e. homicide, not premeditated, but not justified, in which the defendant could reasonably have expected his actions might result in the death of the victim.

This case may well ultimately turn on whether the state can clearly prove that Martin struck Zimmerman with sufficient reasonable cause to fear serious bodily injury HIMSELF due to unlawful FIRST use of force By Zimmerman; ironically, that is whether Martin was acting in self-defense himself. An emotional case, to be sure but a difficult one for the state from a burden of proof perspective. If I were the prosecutor, could I indict Zimmerman, based on the facts we know? Possibly. Could I get a conviction on those facts? Highly doubtful.

 

[The Gadfly]

Here, HG, is the single most troubling thing Zimmerman apparently did prior to the shooting. FOLLOWING and OBSERVING a suspicious person

Following a suspect is natural, to prevent the suspect from getting away. Zimmerman could also have interpreted what the 911 operator said as instructions to follow, "Let me know if the guy does anything else..."

In any case, it would be tough to show that Zimmerman followed with any intent beyond tracking the suspect, or that he continued to follow after he was told not to.

Yes, then it comes down to he made physical contact first. A confrontation would have been by the suspect's choice, given that he could have out-ran Zimmerman. Zimmerman claimed he was hit from behind, and was bleeding from the back of the head, which also gives the benefit of the doubt to Zimmerman. And, I just don't see a man with a gun physically assaulting anyone.

But, I do see a young hothead attacking someone he thinks is following him.

Anyway, this case demonstrates the importance of shooting to kill, if you're shooting in self-defense. If the black survived the gunshot, he would claim that he was attacked first, and no liberal would doubt him. The evidence would be irrelevant.

Hey stupid...............did you not hear the 911 call MADE BY ZIMMERMAN? The 911 operator TOLD HIM NOT TO FOLLOW THE KID.

Zimmerman already fucked up.

Too bad you can't see that you retarded sperm slurping colon jousting cock smoker.

ABS, calm down. A dispatcher's advice is just that, advice, not a legal order that anyone must obey. The real first question, again, is did Zimmerman chase Martin when he apparently ran, without Martin having committed a crime? Even that is NOT criminal, but it IS poor judgement. THe main question, though, is what happened next. When Martin struck Zimmerman (it's reasonably conclusive that he did so) did he have sufficient LAWFUL cause to do so? Absent some major fact we don't know, that's what this case turns on (if it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Martin had lawful cause to strike Zimmerman.)

 

[Zoom]

By the way, the shooter was WHITE. By the way, we are post racial now that Obama is in the white house, remember?