Trayvon Martin

[Bocefish]

Everybody is suddenly an expert and knows what happened, gotta love it. :lol: People feel and deal with pain in different ways. Just because there is no blood on Zim's shirt does not mean he didn't shoot while Tray was on top of him. That's what forensics are for, the angle and the distance will eventually be determined if a proper autopsy was done. If it was that easy to determine how the shooting took place, the officers would have called bullshit on the spot and arrested him.

Have you forgotten? That's exactly what the main officer on the scene tried to do...but was vetoed by a late night state's attorney.

I didn't forget. LEOs get outranked and/or overruled all the time, that doesn't prove corruption.

Corey said. “Remember, the prosecutor’s burden is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. We have numerous homicides where immediate arrests are not made. We have to have a reasonable certainty for conviction before we file charges.”

 

[Nordling]

Everybody is suddenly an expert and knows what happened, gotta love it. :lol: People feel and deal with pain in different ways. Just because there is no blood on Zim's shirt does not mean he didn't shoot while Tray was on top of him. That's what forensics are for, the angle and the distance will eventually be determined if a proper autopsy was done. If it was that easy to determine how the shooting took place, the officers would have called bullshit on the spot and arrested him.

Have you forgotten? That's exactly what the main officer on the scene tried to do...but was vetoed by a late night state's attorney.

I didn't forget. LEOs get outranked and/or overruled all the time, that doesn't prove corruption.

Corey said. “Remember, the prosecutor’s burden is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. We have numerous homicides where immediate arrests are not made. We have to have a reasonable certainty for conviction before we file charges.”

Then why say it? You SAID "the officers..."

 

[Bocefish]

Everybody is suddenly an expert and knows what happened, gotta love it. :lol: People feel and deal with pain in different ways. Just because there is no blood on Zim's shirt does not mean he didn't shoot while Tray was on top of him. That's what forensics are for, the angle and the distance will eventually be determined if a proper autopsy was done. If it was that easy to determine how the shooting took place, the officers would have called bullshit on the spot and arrested him.

Have you forgotten? That's exactly what the main officer on the scene tried to do...but was vetoed by a late night state's attorney.

I didn't forget. LEOs get outranked and/or overruled all the time, that doesn't prove corruption.

Corey said. “Remember, the prosecutor’s burden is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. We have numerous homicides where immediate arrests are not made. We have to have a reasonable certainty for conviction before we file charges.”

Then why say it? You SAID "the officers..."

Exactly, I said the officers couldn't tell how the shooting took place by the mere appearance of no blood on Zim's shirt. What's confusing about that?

 

[Jupiter551]

Exactly, I said the officers couldn't tell how the shooting took place by the mere appearance of no blood on Zim's shirt. What's confusing about that?

I guess, but you don't have to be Dexter Morgan to figure that if the kid was on top of him he'd have a fair amount of blood on him either from the entry or exit wound (if there was one)

 

[SweepTheLeg]

There's a difference between believing someone is innocent until proven guilty and going out of your way and say "that doesn't prove anything." When someone asks how he has the clear presence of mind to take out his gun and shoot after having his nose broken and head being repeatedly bashed into the pavement allegedly but yet have no signs of blood on him what so ever,it just comes off like nothing would ever be good enough to prove his being of guilty.

And so you laugh at everyone that laughs at the idea that the man with the gun, who went out of his own way to follow the kid, and got out of his car to continue doing so is the real victim in all of this.

 

[Anonymous]

I'm playing devil's advocate, so to speak, since everybody has deemed him guilty and I'm assuming he's innocent until proven guilty.

You're taking this devil's advocate stuff to the extreme though. Throughout this thread you've seemed determined to jump to Zimmerman's defense every time someone made a new post.

 

[Harvrath]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/ns/msnbc_tv-hardball_with_chris_matthews/#47034974
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/harvard-...arrest-affidavit-irresponsible-and-unethical/

Alan Dershowitz contends the Judge is gonna throw this case out.

 

[Bocefish]

Exactly, I said the officers couldn't tell how the shooting took place by the mere appearance of no blood on Zim's shirt. What's confusing about that?

I guess, but you don't have to be Dexter Morgan to figure that if the kid was on top of him he'd have a fair amount of blood on him either from the entry or exit wound (if there was one)

Keep in mind Tray had a sweatshirt on. Entry wounds don't bleed immediately and the force of a close shot from a 9mm could have pushed him back immediately. Even if it didn't, Zim would have likely shoved him off immediately after he shot.

There's a difference between believing someone is innocent until proven guilty and going out of your way and say "that doesn't prove anything." When someone asks how he has the clear presence of mind to take out his gun and shoot after having his nose broken and head being repeatedly bashed into the pavement allegedly but yet have no signs of blood on him what so ever,it just comes off like nothing would ever be good enough to prove his being of guilty.

And so you laugh at everyone that laughs at the idea that the man with the gun, who went out of his own way to follow the kid, and got out of his car to continue doing so is the real victim in all of this.

As far as the presence of mind to take his gun out... in a survival situation there is a crazy amount of adrenaline going through your body. He was bloodied at the scene before paramedics cleaned him up, it's even in the police reports. For all we know his red jacket was zippered and there's blood on that. There's no proof Zim followed Tray, even if he did that's not illegal.

I'm playing devil's advocate, so to speak, since everybody has deemed him guilty and I'm assuming he's innocent until proven guilty.

You're taking this devil's advocate stuff to the extreme though. Throughout this thread you've seemed determined to jump to Zimmerman's defense every time someone made a new post.

That's because it's all just speculation at this point. The physical evidence backs up Zim's claim of self-defense. There are dozens of various plausible scenarios, but I'm going solely on the facts. Yes, I think Zim is an idiot for getting out of his vehicle, but that does not prove he's the aggressor or didn't fear for his life at the time of the shooting.

 

[Bocefish]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/ns/msnbc_tv-hardball_with_chris_matthews/#47034974
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/harvard-...arrest-affidavit-irresponsible-and-unethical/

Alan Dershowitz contends the Judge is gonna throw this case out.

He's not the only law expert who thinks that going by what's in the affidavit alone.

 

[Jupiter551]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/ns/msnbc_tv-hardball_with_chris_matthews/#47034974
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/harvard-...arrest-affidavit-irresponsible-and-unethical/

Alan Dershowitz contends the Judge is gonna throw this case out.

Lol and Dershowitz has made his career successfully defending assholes who are clearly guilty and getting them off - not sure how that reflects on Zimmerman.

Interesting though that out of all the lawyers weighing in he's the only one so far to say it. Course, when he predicts something that doesn't happen everyone just forgets about it anyway.

 

[Harvrath]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/ns/msnbc_tv-hardball_with_chris_matthews/#47034974
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/harvard-...arrest-affidavit-irresponsible-and-unethical/

Alan Dershowitz contends the Judge is gonna throw this case out.

He's not the only law expert who thinks that going by what's in the affidavit alone.

The Affidavit of Probable Cause doesn't even list all the things necessary for 2nd Degree Murder.

 

[Jupiter551]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/ns/msnbc_tv-hardball_with_chris_matthews/#47034974
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/harvard-...arrest-affidavit-irresponsible-and-unethical/

Alan Dershowitz contends the Judge is gonna throw this case out.

He's not the only law expert who thinks that going by what's in the affidavit alone.

No one with any sense whatsoever believes that the content of the prosecution's case is outlined in the affidavit. Public exposure has done enough damage to this case - Corey is understandably keeping her cards close to her chest and not letting new evidence enter the public domain until it can be laid out in court.

The Affidavit of Probable Cause doesn't even list all the things necessary for 2nd Degree Murder.

What doesn't it list? Keeping in mind it is completely unnecessary to prove a crime in the affidavit of probable cause.

 

[Harvrath]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/ns/msnbc_tv-hardball_with_chris_matthews/#47034974
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/harvard-...arrest-affidavit-irresponsible-and-unethical/

Alan Dershowitz contends the Judge is gonna throw this case out.

He's not the only law expert who thinks that going by what's in the affidavit alone.

No one with any sense whatsoever believes that the content of the prosecution's case is outlined in the affidavit. Public exposure has done enough damage to this case - Corey is understandably keeping her cards close to her chest and not letting new evidence enter the public domain until it can be laid out in court.

The Affidavit of Probable Cause doesn't even list all the things necessary for 2nd Degree Murder.

What doesn't it list? Keeping in mind it is completely unnecessary to prove a crime in the affidavit of probable cause.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes...ing=&URL=0700-0799/0782/Sections/0782.04.html

(2) The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual, is murder in the second degree and constitutes a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

It is an Affidavit of Probable Cause, in this case Probable Cause that 2nd Degree Murder was committed. 2nd Degree Murder requires a depraved state of mind regardless of human life, the Affidavit does not contend Zimmerman was in that state of mind.

It is like this Affidavit was originally written for a lesser charge but they then decided to over-charge and was submitted their original affidavit for a lesser charge without many changes.

 

[Bocefish]

Methinks the prosecution is using the audio tapes where he says "These ********* always get away" towards the depraved, evil state of mind aspect. It's the only evidence they have that can even be remotely associated with that. It's a stretch, but they're grasping at straws.

 

[Jupiter551]

It is an Affidavit of Probable Cause, in this case Probable Cause that 2nd Degree Murder was committed. 2nd Degree Murder requires a depraved state of mind regardless of human life, the Affidavit does not contend Zimmerman was in that state of mind.

It is like this Affidavit was originally written for a lesser charge but they then decided to over-charge and was submitted their original affidavit for a lesser charge without many changes.

Yeah but as already pointed out, following someone, armed, provoking a confrontation then shooting them IS depraved state of mind. Shooting someone dead when NOT in fear for your life is depraved state of mind.

 

[Kradek]

Yeah but as already pointed out, following someone, armed, provoking a confrontation then shooting them IS depraved state of mind. Shooting someone dead when NOT in fear for your life is depraved state of mind.

Following someone in a public place is not illegal. If it were illegal, the profession of private investigation would be moot and paparazzi would ease to exist. Inadvisable in this case probably, but not illegal.

The part I bolded above is pure speculation. Who provoked what is the critical piece of missing information to the entire case. I think where most of the people reading the thread and people like Bocefish and myself part ways is that there seems to be an assumption that Zimmerman provoked Martin to attack or that Zimmerman shot him and then lied about the circumstances, neither of which is supported by evidence we've seen to date. Either of those premises may be true, we just don't know yet.

 

[Harvrath]

Yeah but as already pointed out, following someone, armed, provoking a confrontation then shooting them IS depraved state of mind. Shooting someone dead when NOT in fear for your life is depraved state of mind.

Following someone in a public place is not illegal. If it were illegal, the profession of private investigation would be moot and paparazzi would ease to exist. Inadvisable in this case probably, but not illegal.

The part I bolded above is pure speculation. Who provoked what is the critical piece of missing information to the entire case. I think where most of the people reading the thread and people like Bocefish and myself part ways is that there seems to be an assumption that Zimmerman provoked Martin to attack or that Zimmerman shot him and then lied about the circumstances, neither of which is supported by evidence we've seen to date. Either of those premises may be true, we just don't know yet.

The real evidence will be the crime scene, the timeline, forensics, autopsy and toxicology, the majority of which is not gonna be known until the trial takes place, if it even takes place.

This case could end with the defense filing a pre-trial motion for immunity under applicable self-defense laws including SYG. The Judge must entertain the motion, hear the case and decide on a preponderance of the evidence if Zimmerman was justified. If the Judge finds in the Defendant's favor, Zimmerman walks away from Criminal Charges and Civil Liability.

 

[Jupiter551]

Yeah but as already pointed out, following someone, armed, provoking a confrontation then shooting them IS depraved state of mind. Shooting someone dead when NOT in fear for your life is depraved state of mind.

Following someone in a public place is not illegal. If it were illegal, the profession of private investigation would be moot and paparazzi would ease to exist. Inadvisable in this case probably, but not illegal.

The part I bolded above is pure speculation. Who provoked what is the critical piece of missing information to the entire case. I think where most of the people reading the thread and people like Bocefish and myself part ways is that there seems to be an assumption that Zimmerman provoked Martin to attack or that Zimmerman shot him and then lied about the circumstances, neither of which is supported by evidence we've seen to date. Either of those premises may be true, we just don't know yet.

Right, but it also defies logic to suggest the teenager on his way home who was concerned about a strange guy following him suddenly turns around and attacks the follower - even more so when we KNOW the follower was armed and suspected the teenager was a criminal, one of the "assholes who always get away".

In the absence of facts you have to give the benefit of the doubt - but why give it to the armed vigilante and not the unarmed, dead teenager?

As for provoking the confrontation - we KNOW Zimmerman did because if he hadn't followed Trayvon (when told not to by the officer) the confrontation would never have occurred and Tray would have been at home watching the game by the time police arrived. Instead, he's dead.

Zimmerman isn't the victim here, regardless of what happened during the struggle this entire incident started and ended with him and his gun.

 

[Nordling]

I'm playing devil's advocate, so to speak, since everybody has deemed him guilty and I'm assuming he's innocent until proven guilty.

You're taking this devil's advocate stuff to the extreme though. Throughout this thread you've seemed determined to jump to Zimmerman's defense every time someone made a new post.

Exactly. And since this is neither a courtroom nor a college exercise, the only reason to play "devil's advocate" is to be actively "concern trolling." The beauty of chat rooms and message boards is that we can display our opinions openly without affecting the outcomes of external events. Why play the opposite side? Just for fun? We're talking about the unnecessary death of a 17 year old child. Devil's advocate in this discussion is very disrespectful of other members and certainly Trayvon's family--hopefully they don't ever see our blatherings.

 

[Bocefish]

I'm playing devil's advocate, so to speak, since everybody has deemed him guilty and I'm assuming he's innocent until proven guilty.

You're taking this devil's advocate stuff to the extreme though. Throughout this thread you've seemed determined to jump to Zimmerman's defense every time someone made a new post.

Exactly. And since this is neither a courtroom nor a college exercise, the only reason to play "devil's advocate" is to be actively "concern trolling." The beauty of chat rooms and message boards is that we can display our opinions openly without affecting the outcomes of external events. Why play the opposite side? Just for fun? We're talking about the unnecessary death of a 17 year old child. Devil's advocate in this discussion is very disrespectful of other members and certainly Trayvon's family--hopefully they don't ever see our blatherings.

If you think I'm trolling to be disrespectful, you're an idiot. What part of "I'm assuming he's innocent until proven guilty" is disrepectful? Just because I happen to have my own opinion and don't agree with the herd, does not mean I'm being a troll or disrepectful.

 

[Nordling]

I'm playing devil's advocate, so to speak, since everybody has deemed him guilty and I'm assuming he's innocent until proven guilty.

You're taking this devil's advocate stuff to the extreme though. Throughout this thread you've seemed determined to jump to Zimmerman's defense every time someone made a new post.

Exactly. And since this is neither a courtroom nor a college exercise, the only reason to play "devil's advocate" is to be actively "concern trolling." The beauty of chat rooms and message boards is that we can display our opinions openly without affecting the outcomes of external events. Why play the opposite side? Just for fun? We're talking about the unnecessary death of a 17 year old child. Devil's advocate in this discussion is very disrespectful of other members and certainly Trayvon's family--hopefully they don't ever see our blatherings.

If you think I'm trolling to be disrespectful, you're an idiot. What part of "I'm assuming he's innocent until proven guilty" is disrepectful? Just because I happen to have my own opinion and don't agree with the herd, does not mean I'm being a troll or disrepectful.

We ALL assume he's "innocent until proven guilty." That's the legal/courtroom side of the discussion. We don't need you or anyone else to remind us constantly. As far as "my own opinion," what is it? You said you're playing "devil's advocate." What IS your actual opinion? Devil's advocate means taking the opposite side from what you really believe? My question is, in this thread, why do that? Are you afraid some horrid thing will happen to the very fabric of reality because a group of mostly strangers are posting their personal opinions unless YOU somehow blunt them? That's arrogance.

 

[Bocefish]

As for provoking the confrontation - we KNOW Zimmerman did because if he hadn't followed Trayvon (when told not to by the officer) the confrontation would never have occurred and Tray would have been at home watching the game by the time police arrived. Instead, he's dead.

You KNOW he provoked the confrontation because he didn't listen to a dispatcher (who is not a law enforcement officer) that said "We don't need you to do that."?

You really think that kind of logic will hold up well in a court of law?

 

[Bocefish]

I'm playing devil's advocate, so to speak, since everybody has deemed him guilty and I'm assuming he's innocent until proven guilty.

You're taking this devil's advocate stuff to the extreme though. Throughout this thread you've seemed determined to jump to Zimmerman's defense every time someone made a new post.

Exactly. And since this is neither a courtroom nor a college exercise, the only reason to play "devil's advocate" is to be actively "concern trolling." The beauty of chat rooms and message boards is that we can display our opinions openly without affecting the outcomes of external events. Why play the opposite side? Just for fun? We're talking about the unnecessary death of a 17 year old child. Devil's advocate in this discussion is very disrespectful of other members and certainly Trayvon's family--hopefully they don't ever see our blatherings.

If you think I'm trolling to be disrespectful, you're an idiot. What part of "I'm assuming he's innocent until proven guilty" is disrepectful? Just because I happen to have my own opinion and don't agree with the herd, does not mean I'm being a troll or disrepectful.

We ALL assume he's "innocent until proven guilty." That's the legal/courtroom side of the discussion. We don't need you or anyone else to remind us constantly. As far as "my own opinion," what is it? You said you're playing "devil's advocate." What IS your actual opinion? Devil's advocate means taking the opposite side from what you really believe? My question is, in this thread, why do that? Are you afraid some horrid thing will happen to the very fabric of reality because a group of mostly strangers are posting their personal opinions unless YOU somehow blunt them? That's arrogance.

Now I'm not only disrepectful, but arrogant too, awesome! If you go back and read what I said about playing devil's advocate, maybe you'll notice the part that is now highlighted and underlined. More jumping to conclusions.

 

[Nordling]

I see. All one needs do is make a statement, and add "so to speak" to it and suddenly it becomes cool. Am I reading you correctly?

If I say to SOMEONE, "you're a dirtbag, so to speak." How does that alter the insult?

If I say, "i'm doing laundry, so to speak," how does that alter what I'm really doing?

 

[Bocefish]

I see. All one needs do is make a statement, and add "so to speak" to it and suddenly it becomes cool. Am I reading you correctly?

If I say to SOMEONE, "you're a dirtbag, so to speak." How does that alter the insult?

If I say, "i'm doing laundry, so to speak," how does that alter what I'm really doing?

Since you got your panties all bunched up over the phrase "devil's advocate, so to speak'' and jumped to the conclusion that because I said that, I'm being disrepectful. How about explaining your reasoning why that one term is so inflammatory?

a devil's advocate is someone who, given a certain argument, takes a position he or she does not necessarily agree with, for the sake of argument. In taking such position, the individual taking on the devil's advocate role seeks to engage others in an argumentative discussion process. The purpose of such process is typically to test the quality of the original argument and identify weaknesses in its structure, and to use such information to either improve or abandon the original, opposing position. It can also refer to someone who takes a stance that is seen as unpopular or unconventional, but is actually another way of arguing a much more conventional stance.

 

[Nordling]

Dude. This isn't a freshman class about debate tactics.

It's a discussion about an incredibly sad story of a young man's death. Emotions are high, understood. But why play games? Using special "methods" to spark debate is not necessary here; opinions are flying without that crap.

Just tell us what you really think, Thanks!

 

[Bocefish]

Dude. This isn't a freshman class about debate tactics.

It's a discussion about an incredibly sad story of a young man's death. Emotions are high, understood. But why play games? Using special "methods" to spark debate is not necessary here; opinions are flying without that crap.

Just tell us what you really think, Thanks!

OK, I'll spell it out for you... When I said playing devil's advocate, SO TO SPEAK, it meant "not literally," but since it seems that I am the only one emphasizing the facts and taking the position that he may not be guilty, it feels like I am playing devil's advocate. I didn't think it was all that confusing.

 

[Paulie Walnuts]

He doesn't have to be proven guilty, he confessed. He's guilty.

They just have to decide to what degree of what charge he is guilty.

 

[Nordling]

Dude. This isn't a freshman class about debate tactics.

It's a discussion about an incredibly sad story of a young man's death. Emotions are high, understood. But why play games? Using special "methods" to spark debate is not necessary here; opinions are flying without that crap.

Just tell us what you really think, Thanks!

OK, I'll spell it out for you... When I said playing devil's advocate, SO TO SPEAK, it meant "not literally," but since it seems that I am the only one emphasizing the facts and taking the position that he may not be guilty, it feels like I am playing devil's advocate. I didn't think it was all that confusing.

Oh, thanks! Now it's totally clear! When you said you're playing "devil's advocate so to speak," it means I'M NOT REALLY PLAYING DEVIL'S ADVOCATE? Is that it? Do I have it correct this time? I guess there's some confusion since NO ONE accused you of playing devil's advocate, literally, virtually, drunkenly, really, or eerily...

...so why mention that term at all?

Now we can all rest securely in the belief that indeed you, for some reason, are taking Zimmerman's side, since that's how it SEEMS. And no, you are NOT "emphasizing the facts" as opposed to the rest of us, who are reciting from Harry Potter books. Your opinions are no better than anyone else's--you can quit pretending to be posting from some self-delusional position of superiority.

 

[Bocefish]

Believe whatever you want, speculate all you want, jump to every conclusion you want. If it has to come down to sides, yes, I am currently leaning towards Zimmerman's side because that's where the factual evidence is pointing.