A Complete Waste of Space

Well....ol HH does have a "poke you in the eye" style of writing....
However....basically, most of what he has commented on here is true, from a legal standpoint.

It's helpful to understand, from a legal standpoint, that a person does not have to sustain any particular
degree of assault or injury to use deadly force. The person has to be in fear of their life or another's.
That being said/understood...Next, you have to convince a grand jury that your actions, under the circumstances
were reasonable and prudent in defending yourself or another....and that, reasonably anyone else in a similar situation....would have acted like wise.

Everybody seems to get the "moral argument" here....to include HH.
This ain't the nation of islam...yet. Their laws don't apply.
What we have is a legal system and laws.

Folks who think like Nic....that another person beating the shit out of you?
Will let you live...not permanently fuck you up...cripple you for life?
That person will let you live....if'n you holler "calf rope", "kings x", "time out" or "ok, ok, I'm sorry"
Nic, you live in a dream world of fantasy...the good news is?
You're willing to bet your life on it....
Some folks won't.

Old Pudfark sez: " It's better to be tried/trialed by twelve, than be carried by six... "

whut this means Nic?
Is it better to be in a court of law with 12 jurors, than for sure be carried by six pallbearers....?

HappyHappy wrote:Soapy is on ignore as is Cuda.

Ya you've said that before.

We tell lies when we are afraid….afraid of what we don’t know, afraid of what others will think, afraid of what will be found out about us. But every time we tell a lie, the thing that we fear grows stronger. ~ Tad Williams

Pudfark wrote:Well....ol HH does have a "poke you in the eye" style of writing....
However....basically, most of what he has commented on here is true, from a legal standpoint.

We know that...

Zimmerman was patrolling on a Neighborhood watch FACT
Zimmerman was armed, FACT
Martin was walking in the neighborhood going to the store FACT
Martin was unarmed FACT
Martin ran when he saw Zimmerman following him FACT
Zimmerman chased after the Martin FACT
Zimmerman was told by the 911 dispatcher not to follow FACT
Zimmerman continued to chase Martin after being told not to, UNKNOWN
Martin turned and Attacked Zimmerman UNKNOWN
The Witness saw Martin and Zimmerman fighting with Martin on top FACT
The Witness went up stairs to call 911 FACT
Witness's called 911 about a scuffle FACT
Zimmerman shot and killed Martin FACT
Zimmerman was injured in the scuffle, UNKNOWN
Police arrive



IMHO this is a perfect storm, wrong place, wrong time, wrong conditions, A young man lost his life because of the circumstances, and for anyone to say that Martin "DESERVED" to get shot just is just Ignorant.

That's a very reasonable presentation of the the facts that are known and unknown.
Well done Cuda.

I especially respected and appreciated your last sentence.

"IMHO this is a perfect storm, wrong place, wrong time, wrong conditions, A young man lost his life because of the circumstances, and for anyone to say that Martin "DESERVED" to get shot just is just Ignorant."

I very much agree.

Here's the long and short of it.

The only two accounts of what happened come from Zimmerman and a witness who didn't see everything, and openly admits that it was hard to see details because it was dark. (and why did he stay silent for so long?)

The truth will come out when the forensics get released.
Gun powder residue. Blood splatter. The trajectory of the bullet wound... and so on.
The moment and situation the gun was fired will come down to science.

What needs to be determined is who provoked the altercation, and for what reason. And one of the participants is dead.
But given all the CURRENT information, it appears that Zimmerman refused to give up the "chase" even after being told not to continue following the boy. Zimmerman, by his own means, allowed the situation to escalate. He may have even been looking for it to happen. Had Zimmerman stopped following the boy when he was told to, it's likely that none of this would ever have happened.

By the way.... have you seen the video of Zimmerman in the police station?
He hardly looks like a man who has taken a vicious beating at the hands of a street punk!

I agree with much of what you stated R_D.

However, Zimmerman had no legal duty to comply with what the "Dispatcher" told him to do or not do.
That is no excuse, per se/say, for his continued actions and the end result?
Zman did have a duty and a responsibility to his neighbors and yes, he volunteered for it.
My professional opinion is that most folks, in the role of a "Community Watch" are good people.
Most of them don't know the law, though they "think" they do. They all, in my experience, have good
intentions. I don't believe that Mr. Zman is/was any different. I don't believe that he wanted to kill that boy.

Anybody who rightfully uses deadly force should expect to spend between quarter million-one million dollars on
defending themselves in the almost certain civil suits to come. This includes Cops. I know that for a fact.

No one has to take a beating first, in order to have the right to defend themselves.
It's up to a grand jury with jurisdiction to make that decision, not me or any of us.

Nobody likes the outcome of this particular event....for what is known at this moment?
I don't believe that a jury of Mr. Zimmerman's peers would ever convict him.

This is for you Cuda
God is the ultimate judge.
Which is why faith is so important.
That judgment will truly come.
So, life can move on and folks can move forward.

Pudfark wrote:Well....ol HH does have a "poke you in the eye" style of writing....
However....basically, most of what he has commented on here is true, from a legal standpoint.

It's helpful to understand, from a legal standpoint, that a person does not have to sustain any particular
degree of assault or injury to use deadly force. The person has to be in fear of their life or another's.
That being said/understood...Next, you have to convince a grand jury that your actions, under the circumstances
were reasonable and prudent in defending yourself or another....and that, reasonably anyone else in a similar situation....would have acted like wise.

Understandable, it's not how it works here but I understand the principle and I can't say it's wrong.

HOWEVER...

The guy chased Martin after being instructed not to, which means that HE provoked the situation which led to the fight, which led to the death of Martin. The guy is hence directly responsible for the death of Martin. It's not self defense, sorry. It's very different than, for instance, some situation where someone in his home shoots some thief that attacks him with fists or a knife when discovered. And even if he had not been instructed not to by the police, he still was responsible for starting the fight, since he chose to go after they guy, putting himself (and the other guy) at risk.

Everybody seems to get the "moral argument" here....to include HH.
This ain't the nation of islam...yet. Their laws don't apply.
What we have is a legal system and laws.

I put my moral judgement, and I understand that the laws there aren't like the laws here (your laws are much less manly than ours indeed), but still I rest my case. The vigilante chased Martin, so HE is responsible for whatever happened after that.

Folks who think like Nic....that another person beating the shit out of you?
Will let you live...not permanently fuck you up...cripple you for life?
That person will let you live....if'n you holler "calf rope", "kings x", "time out" or "ok, ok, I'm sorry"
Nic, you live in a dream world of fantasy...the good news is?
You're willing to bet your life on it....
Some folks won't.

If someone attacks me with even a knife I'd say it's game to shoot him with a nice little kimber custom, but if I chose to go after some dude, I should take responsibility for what happens next. I'm never going to go after someone because he jaywalks on the wrong garden, at the worst I'll ask him what he's doing here if he isn't supposed to, just to make him notice that I've seen him and if something weird happens I'll be able to testify I've seen him around... but I won't chase him and I certainly won't aim a gun at him.

Old Pudfark sez: " It's better to be tried/trialed by twelve, than be carried by six... "

whut this means Nic?
Is it better to be in a court of law with 12 jurors, than for sure be carried by six pallbearers....?

I did understand the first time.

Nic

nic wrote:The guy chased Martin after being instructed not to,

we don't know that. what the 911 call shows us is we DO KNOW that he chased Martin while he was on the phone talking to the dispatcher,

Zimmerman said, "he's running"

the dispatcher asked him "are you chasing him"

Zimmerman said "yes"

the dispatcher told him "we don't need you to do that"

Zimmerman said "OK"

and at that point the conversation ends. it would be an assumption from that point to say Zimmerman continued to chase him, we do not know for sure. it appears he might have, again we do not know for sure.

If you don't know what happened, WTF is HH on about saying the murder is justified?

(rhetorical question)

Nic

nicolas10 wrote:The guy chased Martin after being instructed not to, which means that HE provoked the situation which led to the fight, which led to the death of Martin.

Well how about Martin running one generally doesnt flee with out cause because they are up to no good, so that by its self would justify a pursuit.