I mean from the testimony of Jeantel, the neighbor who said the guy in the red was trying to get away before he saw the guy in red on the bottom and the guy in black on the top, the forensic witness, and 911 calls (yes, there was two of them, one at the beginning and one when Martin confronted Zimmerman which is the one that caught the scream for help).
If you paid attention to the trial, you will see that the forensic evidence supports Zimmerman's account and not the alternative concepts put forward. I have no idea why you think that is not creditable or the jury failed because of it. the guy who testified about the forensic evidence is one of the leading professionals on the subject in the field. He pretty much wrote the book on it. No one challenged his credentials or his interpretation of it.
I'm assuming you are talking about the 12 year old picture verses the 16 or 17 year old pic. How he looks today is very relevant to the situation. It doesn't make him a certain type of person, but it does create a scenario in which he is perceived.
If your doctor looked 12 years old and was telling you that he needed to operate, you would have a lot less confidence in his abilities then if your doctor looks 35 or 40 years old. Now instead of doctor, suppose someone is threatening to beat your ass, which do you take more seriously, the 12 year old or the 35 year old?
I had a cop push me once. I filed a complaint and he claimed in his response that he put his hands up about chest high and made a stop signal with them. I failed to stop and ran into them with enough force that I fell backwards.
So maybe Zimmerman was trying some martial arts style where you use your head to damage someone's fists?
I know, that doesn't work well. The right verdict happened here. It's a long and sad story. It is ripe with mistakes made by both sides, but it was not murder.
No, Martin was not standing his ground under the law. The law says you need to be attacked first in order to stand your ground. Someone following or stalking you is not enough on it's own unless they enter or are trying to enter your dwelling, residence, or vehicle.
Also, the law only allows you to meet force with force ( unless the force places you in fear for your life) if you are not in one of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle.
So in short, if following was all that was happening, Martin responding with force is not standing your ground under the law.
I don't think the Martins can do a wrongful death suit. I don't have time to look it up but I think the stand your ground law specifically denies the civil suits if someone is acquitted. Or at least that is what I remember talking about when the law was first passed. Part of the history of the law had to do with someone who fatally shot an intruder who was in his child's room and after being cleared of wrong doing, ended up going bankrupt and losing everything because of a slew of civil trials that followed.
Assaulting a person is not really defending yourself unless you have reason to believe you are about to be assaulted yourself.
The prosecution claimed Zimmerman had a duty to retreat but that same duty applied to Martin too. Martin had a phone, he could have called the police and said someone is following me. He could have tried to lose Zimmerman, but instead, he went to confront the cracker ass cracker or whatever racial slur his friend he was on the phone with said he said before hanging up to put Zimmerman in his place.
From what I can tell with the court testimony, Martin attacked Zimmerman because he was following him. Martin was never defending himself. It also appears that Martin went out of his way to find Zimmerman and surprise him as Zimmerman lost sight of him just before Martin came from behind. That is all supported by court testimony. Martin simply was not defending himself.
I doubt club gitmo would have them spinning. George Washington found traitors in his army and sent the Citizen to criminal court where he was eventually found not guilty and let go. But the other, the foreigner who conspired with him, was promptly convicted in a military tribunal and executed as efficiently as possible.
That somewhat appears that at least one founding father thought more of citizens then foreigners and that the constitution protected citizens.
All he has to do is change his name and move to a new location. Most applications do not ask if you have been accused of a felony. Anyways, it seems his wife made more money then he did so it will probably be the same in the future.
He doesn't know. sadly in today's age, anything you don't agree with is racist. It's because they cannot support their opinions with facts and reality and need to limit the conversation to menial flaws of the person you disagree with instead of the context of the actions or disagreement.
there is a growing group of people who simply cannot debate ideas and have to shut the debate down in order to preserve their view points. The GP is one of them.
When Martin is on trial, Zimmerman can be described as the victim. Oh wait, thanks to George Zimmerman, Treyvon Martin is dead.
So Martin's acts of aggression against Zimmerman have no place in the discussion over whether or not Zimmerman was justified in fearing for his life and using lethal force because Martin is now dead?
That makes exactly no sense and if you were to stop and think about this analytically instead of emotionally, you would see your error.
f Zimmerman can't prove he was actually injured with real physical evidence, or his own testimony, why would you add this material? It would be encouraging the jury to speculate as to what Martin did based on unrelated character matters would actually tend to cause us to distort the truth with unwarranted speculation. It's already standard legal practice to exclude such evidence due to it being prejudicial. Or did you not know that?
Zimmerman doesn't have to prove he was injured. This is not a trial concerning whether Martin receive the proper punishment or not, it is a trial to determine the mental state of Zimmerman at the time he defended his life by taking another life. If an MMA fighter attacked you, would you be in more or less dear for your life then if your brother attacked you. How about some random joe on the street who is in the same shape as you verses one who is in better physical condition.
This is what it is all about- the state of mind Zimmerman had and whether or not he caused himself to be in that state of mind. showing that Martin was not some 12 year old boy who loves his momma is very important in showing that the fear Zimmerman had was real.
Let's say you see somebody in the dark at night, you don't recognize them, but you shoot them by claiming self-defense. It doesn't matter if it's Jack the Ripper, Count Dracula or any other such well-known entity, you shot them unprovoked, and putting their character into question would not serve justice.
This is very true. However, say that person was in your house saying he was going to rape and kill your wife or kid or guests, it very much becomes pertinent to the situation if he has done it before. Remember, this isn't about someone minding their own business and getting shot, this is about someone who eventually was attacking and winning in a fight and getting shot. It's a lot different then just shooting someone who you don't recognize in the dark. Anyways, the claim of innocence in this case surrounds the fact that Zimmerman was in a position where he feared his life would end due to someone being on top of him and slamming his head to the ground. Showing that the person claimed to be doing that has a pattern of aggression or being capable of fighting oppoents larger then himself goes directly to whether or not Zimmerman could have reasonably though his life was in danger when he was on the receiving end of that aggression.
You want to expose the truth of the situation? Then you realize how easy it is for information to distort it, and why sometimes it's important to not consider stuff that's actually causing prejudice to show up. It's really easy to find truths that support a lie.
That's correct which is why I said the to use the information to sort the facts out.
Sorry, but I'm going to demand Zimmerman stand by his own words, not use unrelated matters to which he had no knowledge or awareness to bolster his case.
Hogwash. That is complete insanity- the cops don't do this, why should Zimmerman be limited to it? I mean seriously, when a kid goes missing, one of the first things they do is check out the nearby sex offender list. When the cops are looking for suspects in a bank robbery, they look at people who have robbed stores or people. If someone fits the description and is arrested for the crime, that prior is brought up during trial.
The state also proved Zimmerman was on top while martin was on the bottom when the shot was fired.
I think you have that wrong. The prosecution was trying to say that when the shot was fired, there was a distance between the two that would have allowed Zimmerman to retreat instead of shooting. Expert witnesses in the field of forensics say the evidence matches Martin being on the top of Zimmerman and the gun being between 2 and 4 inches with the muzzle touching his shirt. The muzzle touching the shirt is what clinches it as gravity would cause the shirt to fall away from the body. This is how the gun was X inches away but touching the shirt, in a position of being over top of someone, the shirt falls away from the body towards the gun which was held by the person on the ground and under the one shot.
I'm not sure where or how, but there is a lot of misinformation out there about this. I know the mass media has already been caught doctoring the 9/11 recordings to make things sound different then what happened. They have posted pictures of Martin at age 12 instead of 17 in attempts to gain sympathy or whatever for him. We have documents declaring the US government being involved and aiding protesters for some reason. It is as if there is a concerted effort to cause a problem at the ending of this trial in order to push some political agenda or something.
I will say that photographs of a kid holding a gun and text messages telling him to not get into any more fights is evidence that it is not just some kid with a pack of skittles.
The prosecution was trying to present this as if Trayvon was some innocent 5 year old with a box of candy who was gunned down by a racist while minding his own business. The complete picture is that this kid was 17, more then capable of fighting, more then capable of putting Zimmerman in a position in which he feared gross bodily harm and death.
The evidence is that a person losing a fight to this kid could actually be in fear while being attacked by the kid.
Which victim? Both Zimmerman and martin were victims at one point in the ordeal.
And thank you for demonstrating why that should be excluded, because absent any actual physical evidence of that occurring, you are speculating, which means the victim is being judged by you, with no ability to defend himself from your accusations.
Because he's dead.
I don't necessarily disagree with this. However, what is seemingly lost in all this is that Martin, without physical provocation, attacked Zimmerman.
We do need the ability to investigate patterns of behavior whether someone is alive to defend against them or not. This is already law and standard practice. It allows us to find pertinent facts that can support or disallow a claim for or against someone. The problem is in determining what are facts and speculation and what has bearing with the case at hand. President Bill Clinton had this crop up on him where his pattern of behavior because contention during a deposition in a lawsuit brought against him for sexual harassment.
Now you want Zimmerman to be able to fabricate a story about Martin using such prejudicial material?I'm not the GP but I'll answer anyways. It is not about fabricating something, it is about exposing the truth of the situation. If someone who attacked you but later died of cancer, you would still be able to introduce the pattern of him being arrested and charged for assault 15 other times as evidence to support your story. Similarly, if the guy was a professional fighter and has a reputation of punching harder then normal and dominating people, then it would go along with the state of mind you were in while being attacked. Now lets assume that when trying to escape this attacker, you took a bicycle or jumped in a car that had the keys in the ignition and drove away to safety. The fact you were in fear of your life can excuse those criminal acts, the only difference here is that someone was shot and killed in the process.
He can sue for slander. Also, at will states do honor employment contracts and there may be something within the employment contract that could allow him to sue.
I'm sure ten or twenty-thousand scientists working in this area would be delighted to be enlightened by you.
Actually, they will enlighten you if you listen to what they say without blinder on. There will be nothing I can point you to either if you refuse to do that.
omg, you really fell for that? Look, dumbo, you were the first one in this discussion using the word retard, so up yours.:-)
lol.. You better look again. The post I replied to was the first one in this discussion I made.
You see, this is what I am talking about with blinders, you don't even care what the truth is, as long as you can construe something to match your predetermined mindset. You specifically did it here and anyone can hit the parent buttons and see that. You have proved my point better then I could ever articulate it. Good job.
Everyone wants local storage. The non-technically minded folks just don't know it. The only drivers towards cloud storage are marketing hype, marketing hype, and more marketing hype. "Cloud" is the new "E-".
I had an application that had a cloud option and someone convinced the CEO he needed it. So we go through the hassle of migrating the data for it and first week out, the internet goes down for 3 days. Construction site cut some lines. So we got a redundant connection and have it fail over. Only the static IP is different now so the certificates need to be swapped out when it goes to the other internet source. Not a big deal.
I lost the account to someone who underbid me. A storm came through and dropped a tree on the side of the building, they had to relocate temporarily. I get a call asking me to help with this and of course I did so (while charging a premium). Creating new certificates and getting the app working was the first and easiest thing to do. One server with local data was damaged in the move. It took 2 days to get everything moved and wired and 26 terminals wired with about 10 hours being dedicated to restoring local data and binging up the damaged server. They were finally able to work again.
Both have advantages and disadvantages and both can be shown to be the best way. In the situation I described, outside of the 10 hours repairing a server, neither had a compelling advantage. If you have a reason- like it does what you want it to do, then use whatever fits that purpose. For me, the redundant internet connection and paying someone to transfer files is reason not to go cloud. Others might not mind.
Safer from what? Hackers? The NSA? I think yuo aer confusssed.
From data loss. No more "my computer died and now I lost 20 years of digital photos along with all the letters written to my now dead grandmother".
Corporations are not some magical creature that can act completely on their own. People need to be present and people do those acts. Those people, at least in a modern justice system, are the ones who get punished- not invisible ideas binding them together as a legal entity.
and on that note, Corporations do get convicted all the time. They pay fines as a corporation when they do. This usually happens when the blame cannot be squarely placed on someone acting inside the corporation.
Sigh.. It's like the blind leading the blind here. The "changing" effects of the sun are not included in any of the climate models currently mature enough to claim proof or predictive evidence of global warming. The amount of changes are less understood then you seem to think and the changing sun actually creates multiple effects on other systems like cloud formation that feed into the loop. All in all, it is not well understood as it pertains to climate. It's more like a static number that only gets corrected after the fact.
As for calling people idiots and retards, I'm reminded of pigs wallering in the mud. They do it for a reason (no sweat glands) and I think you and the op have reasons for the comments you make (theological) that places you both into the idiot and retards category.
Slashdot Mirror
I know a lot of creationist and they don't say that at all.
Perhaps someone told you they said that and without checking, you assumed it was true that all of them say that?
It's a good thing we are not talking about today's politics and are talking about the founding father's reactions to today's events.
I mean from the testimony of Jeantel, the neighbor who said the guy in the red was trying to get away before he saw the guy in red on the bottom and the guy in black on the top, the forensic witness, and 911 calls (yes, there was two of them, one at the beginning and one when Martin confronted Zimmerman which is the one that caught the scream for help).
If you paid attention to the trial, you will see that the forensic evidence supports Zimmerman's account and not the alternative concepts put forward. I have no idea why you think that is not creditable or the jury failed because of it. the guy who testified about the forensic evidence is one of the leading professionals on the subject in the field. He pretty much wrote the book on it. No one challenged his credentials or his interpretation of it.
I'm assuming you are talking about the 12 year old picture verses the 16 or 17 year old pic. How he looks today is very relevant to the situation. It doesn't make him a certain type of person, but it does create a scenario in which he is perceived.
If your doctor looked 12 years old and was telling you that he needed to operate, you would have a lot less confidence in his abilities then if your doctor looks 35 or 40 years old. Now instead of doctor, suppose someone is threatening to beat your ass, which do you take more seriously, the 12 year old or the 35 year old?
I've had them ask if I have ever been arrested before. Just not if I was ever accused of a felony.
I had a cop push me once. I filed a complaint and he claimed in his response that he put his hands up about chest high and made a stop signal with them. I failed to stop and ran into them with enough force that I fell backwards.
So maybe Zimmerman was trying some martial arts style where you use your head to damage someone's fists?
I know, that doesn't work well. The right verdict happened here. It's a long and sad story. It is ripe with mistakes made by both sides, but it was not murder.
No, Martin was not standing his ground under the law. The law says you need to be attacked first in order to stand your ground. Someone following or stalking you is not enough on it's own unless they enter or are trying to enter your dwelling, residence, or vehicle.
Also, the law only allows you to meet force with force (
unless the force places you in fear for your life) if you are not in one of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle.
So in short, if following was all that was happening, Martin responding with force is not standing your ground under the law.
Didn't you know the "Justice" system has been replaced with the "Just us" system?
I don't think the Martins can do a wrongful death suit. I don't have time to look it up but I think the stand your ground law specifically denies the civil suits if someone is acquitted. Or at least that is what I remember talking about when the law was first passed. Part of the history of the law had to do with someone who fatally shot an intruder who was in his child's room and after being cleared of wrong doing, ended up going bankrupt and losing everything because of a slew of civil trials that followed.
Waring shots are all the notice I need to take my gun out and kill whoever seems to be shooting at me.
Seriously, not only are warning shots a bad idea, they allow the other person to arm themselves making the situation much more dangerous.
Assaulting a person is not really defending yourself unless you have reason to believe you are about to be assaulted yourself.
The prosecution claimed Zimmerman had a duty to retreat but that same duty applied to Martin too. Martin had a phone, he could have called the police and said someone is following me. He could have tried to lose Zimmerman, but instead, he went to confront the cracker ass cracker or whatever racial slur his friend he was on the phone with said he said before hanging up to put Zimmerman in his place.
From what I can tell with the court testimony, Martin attacked Zimmerman because he was following him. Martin was never defending himself. It also appears that Martin went out of his way to find Zimmerman and surprise him as Zimmerman lost sight of him just before Martin came from behind. That is all supported by court testimony. Martin simply was not defending himself.
I doubt club gitmo would have them spinning. George Washington found traitors in his army and sent the Citizen to criminal court where he was eventually found not guilty and let go. But the other, the foreigner who conspired with him, was promptly convicted in a military tribunal and executed as efficiently as possible.
That somewhat appears that at least one founding father thought more of citizens then foreigners and that the constitution protected citizens.
All he has to do is change his name and move to a new location. Most applications do not ask if you have been accused of a felony. Anyways, it seems his wife made more money then he did so it will probably be the same in the future.
He doesn't know. sadly in today's age, anything you don't agree with is racist. It's because they cannot support their opinions with facts and reality and need to limit the conversation to menial flaws of the person you disagree with instead of the context of the actions or disagreement.
there is a growing group of people who simply cannot debate ideas and have to shut the debate down in order to preserve their view points. The GP is one of them.
So Martin's acts of aggression against Zimmerman have no place in the discussion over whether or not Zimmerman was justified in fearing for his life and using lethal force because Martin is now dead?
That makes exactly no sense and if you were to stop and think about this analytically instead of emotionally, you would see your error.
Zimmerman doesn't have to prove he was injured. This is not a trial concerning whether Martin receive the proper punishment or not, it is a trial to determine the mental state of Zimmerman at the time he defended his life by taking another life. If an MMA fighter attacked you, would you be in more or less dear for your life then if your brother attacked you. How about some random joe on the street who is in the same shape as you verses one who is in better physical condition.
This is what it is all about- the state of mind Zimmerman had and whether or not he caused himself to be in that state of mind. showing that Martin was not some 12 year old boy who loves his momma is very important in showing that the fear Zimmerman had was real.
This is very true. However, say that person was in your house saying he was going to rape and kill your wife or kid or guests, it very much becomes pertinent to the situation if he has done it before. Remember, this isn't about someone minding their own business and getting shot, this is about someone who eventually was attacking and winning in a fight and getting shot. It's a lot different then just shooting someone who you don't recognize in the dark. Anyways, the claim of innocence in this case surrounds the fact that Zimmerman was in a position where he feared his life would end due to someone being on top of him and slamming his head to the ground. Showing that the person claimed to be doing that has a pattern of aggression or being capable of fighting oppoents larger then himself goes directly to whether or not Zimmerman could have reasonably though his life was in danger when he was on the receiving end of that aggression.
That's correct which is why I said the to use the information to sort the facts out.
Hogwash. That is complete insanity- the cops don't do this, why should Zimmerman be limited to it? I mean seriously, when a kid goes missing, one of the first things they do is check out the nearby sex offender list. When the cops are looking for suspects in a bank robbery, they look at people who have robbed stores or people. If someone fits the description and is arrested for the crime, that prior is brought up during trial.
The problem
I think you have that wrong. The prosecution was trying to say that when the shot was fired, there was a distance between the two that would have allowed Zimmerman to retreat instead of shooting. Expert witnesses in the field of forensics say the evidence matches Martin being on the top of Zimmerman and the gun being between 2 and 4 inches with the muzzle touching his shirt. The muzzle touching the shirt is what clinches it as gravity would cause the shirt to fall away from the body. This is how the gun was X inches away but touching the shirt, in a position of being over top of someone, the shirt falls away from the body towards the gun which was held by the person on the ground and under the one shot.
http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/09/forensic-expert-says-zimmerman-on-bottom-fired-at-close-range/
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/06/28/prosecution-witness-in-zimmerman-trial-testifies-martin-on-top-in-fight/
I'm not sure where or how, but there is a lot of misinformation out there about this. I know the mass media has already been caught doctoring the 9/11 recordings to make things sound different then what happened. They have posted pictures of Martin at age 12 instead of 17 in attempts to gain sympathy or whatever for him. We have documents declaring the US government being involved and aiding protesters for some reason. It is as if there is a concerted effort to cause a problem at the ending of this trial in order to push some political agenda or something.
He's talking about the stand your ground laws in Florida.
It is interesting because it appears that both victims were using the stand your ground approach.
I will say that photographs of a kid holding a gun and text messages telling him to not get into any more fights is evidence that it is not just some kid with a pack of skittles.
The prosecution was trying to present this as if Trayvon was some innocent 5 year old with a box of candy who was gunned down by a racist while minding his own business. The complete picture is that this kid was 17, more then capable of fighting, more then capable of putting Zimmerman in a position in which he feared gross bodily harm and death.
The evidence is that a person losing a fight to this kid could actually be in fear while being attacked by the kid.
Which victim? Both Zimmerman and martin were victims at one point in the ordeal.
I don't necessarily disagree with this. However, what is seemingly lost in all this is that Martin, without physical provocation, attacked Zimmerman.
We do need the ability to investigate patterns of behavior whether someone is alive to defend against them or not. This is already law and standard practice. It allows us to find pertinent facts that can support or disallow a claim for or against someone. The problem is in determining what are facts and speculation and what has bearing with the case at hand. President Bill Clinton had this crop up on him where his pattern of behavior because contention during a deposition in a lawsuit brought against him for sexual harassment.
He can sue for slander. Also, at will states do honor employment contracts and there may be something within the employment contract that could allow him to sue.
Actually, they will enlighten you if you listen to what they say without blinder on. There will be nothing I can point you to either if you refuse to do that.
lol.. You better look again. The post I replied to was the first one in this discussion I made.
You see, this is what I am talking about with blinders, you don't even care what the truth is, as long as you can construe something to match your predetermined mindset. You specifically did it here and anyone can hit the parent buttons and see that. You have proved my point better then I could ever articulate it. Good job.
I had an application that had a cloud option and someone convinced the CEO he needed it. So we go through the hassle of migrating the data for it and first week out, the internet goes down for 3 days. Construction site cut some lines. So we got a redundant connection and have it fail over. Only the static IP is different now so the certificates need to be swapped out when it goes to the other internet source. Not a big deal.
I lost the account to someone who underbid me. A storm came through and dropped a tree on the side of the building, they had to relocate temporarily. I get a call asking me to help with this and of course I did so (while charging a premium). Creating new certificates and getting the app working was the first and easiest thing to do. One server with local data was damaged in the move. It took 2 days to get everything moved and wired and 26 terminals wired with about 10 hours being dedicated to restoring local data and binging up the damaged server. They were finally able to work again.
Both have advantages and disadvantages and both can be shown to be the best way. In the situation I described, outside of the 10 hours repairing a server, neither had a compelling advantage. If you have a reason- like it does what you want it to do, then use whatever fits that purpose. For me, the redundant internet connection and paying someone to transfer files is reason not to go cloud. Others might not mind.
From data loss. No more "my computer died and now I lost 20 years of digital photos along with all the letters written to my now dead grandmother".
Corporations are not some magical creature that can act completely on their own. People need to be present and people do those acts. Those people, at least in a modern justice system, are the ones who get punished- not invisible ideas binding them together as a legal entity.
and on that note, Corporations do get convicted all the time. They pay fines as a corporation when they do. This usually happens when the blame cannot be squarely placed on someone acting inside the corporation.
Sigh.. It's like the blind leading the blind here. The "changing" effects of the sun are not included in any of the climate models currently mature enough to claim proof or predictive evidence of global warming. The amount of changes are less understood then you seem to think and the changing sun actually creates multiple effects on other systems like cloud formation that feed into the loop. All in all, it is not well understood as it pertains to climate. It's more like a static number that only gets corrected after the fact.
As for calling people idiots and retards, I'm reminded of pigs wallering in the mud. They do it for a reason (no sweat glands) and I think you and the op have reasons for the comments you make (theological) that places you both into the idiot and retards category.