Trayvon Martin

[johnhannibalsmith]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Great grammar. And you complain about the grammatically correct, "It is what is"?

We surely are living in strange days.

Boxcar
P.S. And I didn't make any of those "stereotype stuff" comments. I think the cigar smokin' "black dude" did.
P.P.S. Yousall have a nice nite now, ya hear?

What are you smoking, skittles? Where you done git this complex that I thunked you says anything? You require a more literal expression that the pronoun I used was figurative and not actually referring to "boxcar. Boxcar."?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by johnhannibalsmith

What are you smoking, skittles? Where you done git this complex that I thunked you says anything? You require a more literal expression that the pronoun I used was figurative and not actually referring to "boxcar. Boxcar."?

Night school is going to get awfully crowded with just people on this forum. Now, if I could just figure out a way to profit from "yousall" dunderheads from referrals or something.

Boxcar

[TJDave]

Three things I didn't learn in Kindergarden:

1. Nobody starts a fist fight with a man holding a gun.

2. Nobody holding a gun starts a fist fight with his left hand.

3. Nobody who is winning a fist fight pulls a gun.

[bigmack]

Originally Posted by TJDave

Three things I didn't learn in Kindergarden:

1. Nobody starts a fist fight with a man holding a gun.

2. Nobody holding a gun starts a fist fight with his left hand.

3. Nobody who is winning a fist fight pulls a gun.

Now there's some sound thinking. I wonder why so many couldn't figure that out and hide behind "we don't know what happened."

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by TJDave

Three things I didn't learn in Kindergarden:

1. Nobody starts a fist fight with a man holding a gun.

2. Nobody holding a gun starts a fist fight with his left hand.

3. Nobody who is winning a fist fight pulls a gun.

Thank You.

1. It looks like common sense that Zimmerman had his weapon concealed.

2. Then somebody started the fight.

3. Then Zimmerman was losing and pulled his gun and killed Martin.

[boxcar]

George Zimmerman had bandages on nose and head after shooting, neighbors say

(CBS News) - According to his neighbors, George Zimmerman had bandages on his nose and head the day after he shot and killed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin on February 26th....

In a newly published report by Reuters, Zimmerman's next-door neighbor Jorge Rodriguez said that when he saw Zimmerman the day after the incident, "he had two big, butterfly bandages on the back of his head, and another big bandage...on the bridge of his nose," while he was talking to a police detective in his driveway. Rodriguez's wife Audria also said she saw the bandages and a third neighbor, who spoke only on condition of anonymity, said, "I saw two bandages on the back of his head, and his nose was all swollen-up."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_1...neighbors-say/

It's looking more and more that this should be an easy defensive gig for any lawyer with a half a brain in his head.

Boxcar

[JustRalph]

http://pjmedia.com/blog/walking-pape...man-affidavit/

And here with Levin

http://www.therightscoop.com/mark-le...degree-murder/

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by JustRalph

http://pjmedia.com/blog/walking-pape...man-affidavit/

And here with Levin

http://www.therightscoop.com/mark-le...degree-murder/

JR, I'd like your opinion, please, on this this paragraph, especially the bolded part which comes from your first link above:

This entire case hinges upon who started the confrontation and then escalated it into a deadly force event that left a young man dead. If the prosecution has evidence that Zimmerman indeed triggered the confrontation and initiated the struggle, then Zimmerman’s self-defense claim becomes much harder to support. If the events occurred as Zimmerman described it — with the confrontation initiated by Martin, the physical assault initiated by Martin, and Martin then escalating the fight to assault with a deadly weapon by attempting to smash Zimmerman’s head on the concrete — and the evidence supports Zimmerman’s claims, then we have a justified use of deadly force in self-defense.

I personally don't see any material difference between someone assaulting another person with a baseball bat, a wrench, a brick or on a fixed concrete slab. For example, what if two people are fighting, they're on the ground and come into very close proximity to a fire hydrant and one of the combatants takes it upon himself to slam his opponent's head into the iron fixture, would not such action be considered an assault with a deadly weapon? What would be the difference if the guy split the other fellow's skull with an iron wrench or on the fixed iron hydrant? What do you think?

The second important statement to this paragraph that I'd like to point out to everyone in general is the first sentence, which bears repeating:

This entire case hinges upon who started the confrontation and then escalated it into a deadly force event that left a young man dead.

I have constantly and consistently maintained this throughout this thread. But others here, such as LS, has said that Zimm bears all the responsibility for what has happened because he "initiated contact", as in he was the one who took it upon himself to follow Martin in the first place. Therefore, it's all Zimm's fault, according to this simple-minded thinking. If it weren't for Zimm, the kid would be still be alive today. And to be sure, there is a measure of truth in this, but it's not the whole truth -- not even close to it. If Martin initiated the physical assault, most especially after visual contact had been lost within those 93 seconds, then Martin bears the brunt of responsibility for his own death -- both legally and morally. In this scenario, it would have been Martin's feet that ran to evil! Going back to my analogy I used a few days ago, it would have been Martin taking the plunge into unknown waters of a jungle, being totally ignorant of what dangers might be lurking beneath.

Boxcar

[JustRalph]

Originally Posted by boxcar

If the events occurred as Zimmerman described it[/i] — with the confrontation initiated by Martin, the physical assault initiated by Martin, and Martin then escalating the fight to assault with a deadly weapon by attempting to smash Zimmerman’s head on the concrete — and the evidence supports Zimmerman’s claims, then we have a justified use of deadly force in self-defense.confrontation and then escalated it into a deadly force event that left a young man dead.[/b]

I don't disagree. But I still don't think he should have killed the kid. Being legally right and morally right are two different things. But I wasn't there. I wasn't getting my head pounded on the sidewalk or whatever. I think I could have escaped or avoided that situation. But then again........ maybe he couldn't.

If it were easy, this thread wouldn't exist. I can tell you this, this case could happen in ten different states and you could get vastly different charges in all. I can also tell you, in Ohio, this Zimmerman guy would be going away in a minute. Most Juries in Ohio are very liberal and they would throw the book at him.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by JustRalph

I don't disagree. But I still don't think he should have killed the kid. Being legally right and morally right are two different things. But I wasn't there. I wasn't getting my head pounded on the sidewalk or whatever. I think I could have escaped or avoided that situation. But then again........ maybe he couldn't.

If it were easy, this thread wouldn't exist. I can tell you this, this case could happen in ten different states and you could get vastly different charges in all. I can also tell you, in Ohio, this Zimmerman guy would be going away in a minute. Most Juries in Ohio are very liberal and they would throw the book at him.

Okay...so, in essence what we would have here is Martin bringing a "knife" to a fight wherein his opponent had a gun. And, yes, of course you're right about the moral and legal issues. Two very different things. But going on what little we do know at this time, it appears Zimm was okay on both accounts. I can now more clearly understand why the first DA didn't prosecute.

Boxcar

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Okay...so, in essence what we would have here is Martin bringing a "knife" to a fight wherein his opponent had a gun. And, yes, of course you're right about the moral and legal issues. Two very different things. But going on what little we do know at this time, it appears Zimm was okay on both accounts. I can now more clearly understand why the first DA didn't prosecute.

Boxcar

lost me with "knife"

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

lost me with "knife"

The "knife" was analogous to the weapon Martin actually used, i.e. the concrete.

Boxcar

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by boxcar

The "knife" was analogous to the weapon Martin actually used, i.e. the concrete.

Boxcar

huge stretch
now the lay of the land is analogous to to using a deadly weapon??

I could see that kind of logic if Tray intentionally shoved Zim into a piranha tank...

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

huge stretch
now the lay of the land is analogous to to using a deadly weapon??

I could see that kind of logic if Tray intentionally shoved Zim into a piranha tank...

Then you should be able to see it also when Martin, evidently, shoved Zim's head into concrete. You certainly would be able to see it if Martin had hit Zim upside with a brick, right?

Boxcar

[JustRalph]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Okay...so, in essence what we would have here is Martin bringing a "knife" to a fight wherein his opponent had a gun. And, yes, of course you're right about the moral and legal issues. Two very different things. But going on what little we do know at this time, it appears Zimm was okay on both accounts. I can now more clearly understand why the first DA didn't prosecute.

Boxcar

Sanford PD says they can prove that they were planning a request for it to go to a grand jury anyway.........but it blew up before they were done investigating.

If so, the context of this entire event is different than that portrayed by the media. What's new.......?