Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

RPG Superstar 2015

The shooting in Florida


Off-Topic Discussions

151 to 200 of 920 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Let me make this as clear as I can. I think Zimmerman should be taking the short bus to school. Not only did he ignore the dispatcher telling him that he didn't need to follow Martin, he also failed to get a good lawyer -immediately- in a case involving someone's death.

I think the police are not so much corrupt as keystone. I'd be embarrassed to have any connection to them.

I think Martin was a typical 17 year old - young, dumb, and full of cum and he should have just left the area after he lost Zimmerman.

But, stupidity is not a crime. None of these reasons by themselves is enough to convict anyone.

What I'm puzzled about in the video is why Zimmerman is in cuffs. If he wasn't formally charged and is just being brought in for questioning, the cuffs don't make sense.

Asphere wrote:
No blood on his shirt.

To be more precise, no visible blood on a red jacket which covered his shirt in a low quality video

Asphere wrote:
A witness heard the shot and saw Zimmerman get off of Trayvon and didn't see any blood. She tried to tell the police but they wouldn't even take her statement.

do you have a link for this?

Asphere wrote:
If his nose was broken it would be easy to prove it.

It would be easy to prove - with medical records, not a grainy video.


Darkwing Duck wrote:
thejeff wrote:


Two points:
1) Do we actually have any evidence, besides Zimmerman's testimony that he lost Martin and Martin followed him back and attacked him?
Zimmerman obviously has motive to make Martin look like the aggressor.

We do have some evidence (witness statements) that there was a fight and that Martin was winning (on top, hitting him or slamming him into pavement), but that doesn't mean Martin started it. Or wasn't justified in starting it.

We have a statement by the police department that Zimmerman's statement is consistent with the evidence.

I've seen no evidence that there might not have been a trial without the frothing herd. What there might not have been is a threatened kidnapping by the Black Panthers, death threats to Zimmerman's family, and more support for Zimmerman (including potential witnesses).

Others have addressed the second part, but "consistent with the evidence" is weak. Even beyond the apparent incompetence or prejudice of the Sanford police, there may be many stories consistent with the evidence. AFAIK, there's no physical evidence for what happened between the end of Zimmerman's 911 call and when witnesses saw the fight. It may be that Zimmerman chasing down Martin and confronting him is also "consistent with the evidence."


Darkwing Duck wrote:
thejeff wrote:


Two points:
1) Do we actually have any evidence, besides Zimmerman's testimony that he lost Martin and Martin followed him back and attacked him?
Zimmerman obviously has motive to make Martin look like the aggressor.

We do have some evidence (witness statements) that there was a fight and that Martin was winning (on top, hitting him or slamming him into pavement), but that doesn't mean Martin started it. Or wasn't justified in starting it.

2) As others have said here, without the media "whipping up the frothing herd" there might not have been a trial. The outside investigations and the grand jury only started due to public pressure. Maybe the Sanford police were still investigating and an arrest would have been made or a grand jury convened anyway, but I haven't seen any evidence suggesting it. Near as I can tell, before the media pressure kicked in, it was a closed case, self defense.

We have a statement by the police department that Zimmerman's statement is consistent with the evidence.

I've seen no evidence that there might not have been a trial without the frothing herd. What there might not have been is a threatened kidnapping by the Black Panthers, death threats to Zimmerman's family, and more support for Zimmerman (including potential witnesses).

Witnesses who did not tell the story the police wanted to hear were ignored or given a very short time to talk to police. The only person given a good amount of time to talk to the cops was the person supporting the police story making it look like Trayvon's fault. One lady said she had to basically keep calling the police station to get her statement taken.

When the evidence is made to purposely favor one person how can you trust it. The police took sides for Zimmerman, just as much as the media took Trayvon's side at the beginning. That is clear as day.


Asphere wrote:


...She tried to tell the police but they wouldn't even take her statement. If his nose was broken it would be easy to prove it. And YES they do have to. The police must defend why they are not filing charges with the evidence they collected. The problem is that they didn't collect any.

This is the lady I think that I was referring to that the cops tried to ignore.

PS:I am posting as I go.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:
I have a lot of respect for the Black Panthers from the 70s.
Really? I find that a little surprising.

Considering what was going on at the time, I don't see a problem with this.

Its a big difference from what we've got now
http://news.yahoo.com/black-black-crime-widely-ignored-african-american-act ivists-190404331.html


Darkwing Duck wrote:


I think Martin was a typical 17 year old - young, dumb, and full of cum and he should have just left the area after he lost Zimmerman.

Not a fact, and since the police ignored certain people whatever they wrote is suspect.

Quote:


do you have a link for this?

I found the video over a week ago. It is split up into 2 or 3 parts IIRC. I will try to find it again.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I think that someone in law enforcement ought to weigh in here.

First off, I have not seen any evidence beyond what the media has produced. There may or may not be more evidence proving or disproving the self-defense theory than what we know. I'd honestly be surprised if this wasn't the case.

Secondly, when an investigator decides that it is time to make an arrest, many jurisdictions (such as my own) require approval from the prosecuting authority to write a warrant and present it to a magistrate. Florida law, as I read it, is actually quite different than many states in their laws regarding self-defense. In most (if not all) states, self-defense is a defense that the defendant must prove at trial. (In many cases, it is clear-cut and the state does not want to waste time by presenting it.) However, in Florida, the burden of proof falls upon the state to disprove the theory of self-defense. Shifting the burden of proof is a huge difference and a huge obstacle for the investigators to overcome. Rather than proving that he intentionally and knowingly killed the complainant and then countering the argument that it was self-defense, the state must prove that he intentionally and knowingly killed the complainant and that it was not in self-defense. I know it seems like a minute difference, but it is a big legal difference.

I don't really believe in police conspiracies, having never had the opportunity to get involved in one. I believe in small-town ineptitude as a possibility, as they have far less familiarity with murder cases than in urban areas. However, I haven't seen any evidence that this is the case. As I said earlier, there is likely more evidence than we know of, including pictures and medical records and formal statements. As for a conspiracy, I (and every officer I know) find men like Zimmerman to be irritating and frustrating people who think they are helping us but rarely do.

I do believe that Zimmerman is at fault for the confrontation, and that he bears culpability for the incident. However, as an investigator, I can see the inherent weaknesses in the case (especially in regards to the higher burden of proof in Florida) against Zimmerman. I don't envy them trying to meet that burden of proof amidst the phenomenally politicized aspects of this case.

I also believe that the media is pushing the narrative, as they always do, of black victims of whites and law enforcement (presumably in order to balance out the media obsession with missing white girls). This case, while Zimmerman is not truly either of those, hits both of those media narratives. However, the media frequently ignores actual statistics in these matters because (a)statistics are uninteresting and (b)pointing them out would appear to be advancing an anti-black, politically incorrect agenda. (Honestly, I think it would be refreshing for all the people who are marching in support of Martin in this case to start marching against violence in the black culture and actually start doing something productive about it.)


4 people marked this as a favorite.

You know what pisses me off about this discussion and about the backlash to this story in general?

We have one more black kid (teen, if you insist) shot dead when there was, at the very least, no reason to confront him at all and the big problem is that the media is race-baiting.

It's like the only racial problem in America is prejudice against whites. All of the evidence of continuing discrimination against minorities doesn't matter. All the documentation of police prejudice, DWB, stop and frisk policies, etc. None of it matters.
The suggestion without absolute proof that racial prejudice might be involved in the shooting of an unarmed black teen and/or the coverup/ineptitude by the police and it's just proof of the anti-white bias of the media.


Darkwing Duck wrote:

Its a big difference from what we've got now

Link, Citizen Duck, link!

Don't get me wrong, the Panthers were my all-time favorite Maoists, I just think it's weird that you'd respect an organization famous for its running gun battles with the cops in the streets of Oakland when you spent so much time going on about possible blockages of emergency vehicles over in the (sadly) defunct Occupy Wall Street! thread.


The lady who shows up at about 2:30 into this video is the one that was ignored. She is also in another video telling how she was ignored.

She says that she had to reach out to the police due to their sparse questioning.

The second link basically tells the same story that she told in those 3 links that I can not find.


Even if you take race out of it the handing of the case is still suspect. You should not get to follow someone, which many would see as harassing and threatening behavior, kill them, and then claim self defense.

Police should also take statements properly, and not blow people off.

The case also shows a weakness in the SYG law, and it needs a rewrite.

The media should have been more objective, but so should the cops.


Not only that, Comrade Jeff, but it's not exactly like the media has been uniform in its "anti-white bias." (Posted not for the communist propaganda, but for the New York Post picture and snippets of the Orlando Sentinel.)

Also, I'm pretty sure that, over the years, Farrakhan's Million Man March, the Revs. Sharpton and Jackson, etc., etc., have decried "black-on-black" violence ad nauseam.

Not that I like any of those bigots, snitches and/or Uncle Toms.

I personally don't see any end to "b-on-b" violence as long as drugs are illegal, and black people are worse off, standard-of-living wise, than they were during the Civil Rights Movement, but, hey, that's just little ol' communist me.


thejeff wrote:
All the documentation of police prejudice, DWB, stop and frisk policies, etc. None of it matters.

Did you know that the New Jersey Turnpike study, likely the most-cited study "proving" racial profiling, had only a single documented instance of racism - and it was an off-hand comment of an officer regarding a Hispanic DWI suspect's hat? (He called it a sombrero, and implied it was filled with beer.)

I always take offense to people accusing us of racial profiling. Racial profiling is really quite difficult. I've pulled over a few hundred people over the last few years, and only a few dozen of those can I say that I knew the driver's race beforehand. Racial profiling is freaking difficult with modern cars. You'd have to be really dedicated to the idea in order to effectively racially profile.

I take offense to accusations of police prejudice, and the assumption that it occurs. Here's an anecdote from a few years back: my partner and I were sitting across from a motel that we knew to be a hotbed of drugs and underage prostitution. We were waiting for vehicles to make entry and exit within five minutes. It was after dark, probably around 9pm. One of the vehicles, an expensive-looking black Lincoln with tinted windows, entered the motel parking lot and exited just two minutes later. We watched as it failed to stop behind the painted stop line at the stop sign at the corner, then jumped out and pulled it over a few blocks later. I got out of the car and walked up to it carefully, flashlight out and shining it at the driver's side. The driver rolled the window down about four inches. I saw that it was a black female, and she immediately greeting me with an accusation that I pulled her over because she was black. I got her driver's license and insurance and discovered that she was just picking up a friend from the motel. I explained the traffic violation she had committed, to which she responded that it was a b!*#$~%@ excuse and that I had racially profiled her. I went ahead and wrote her a ticket rather than the warning I would have normally given because I was ticked off at her baseless accusation. I know that I didn't racially profile her (nor would it have been possible at all), but she felt that I had and likely told her friends about the racist white officer who pulled her over for a BS reason and wrote her a ticket.


One of the pieces of evidence that may be out there but that I haven't been able to find (with an admittedly cursory look) is the timing of the various phone calls.
A lot could be told about the timing of what happened by looking at the times for Zimmerman's 911 call, the time Martin's call to his girlfriend was cut off and the time of the first 911 calls reporting a gunshot.

I haven't seen much here about the girlfriend's statements. According to her, that phone call was cut off just after Zimmerman confronted Martin.

Quote:

“He said this man was watching him, so he put his hoodie on,” she said. “He said he lost the man. I asked Trayvon to run, and he said he was going to walk fast. I told him to run but he said he was not going to run.”

“Trayvon said, ‘What, are you following me for.’ And the man said, ‘What are you doing here.’ Next thing I hear is somebody pushing, and somebody pushed Trayvon because the head set just fell. I called him again and he didn’t answer the phone.”

I think the natural reading of that, and there may be more that wasn't quoted, is that Martin thought he had lost him, but was approached again. It's possible that, as Zimmerman claims, he'd lost him and then Martin came back to confront him, but that doesn't really fit with the "not going to run" part of the conversation.

She obviously has reason to mislead, but far less than Zimmerman does, so if we're going to give any credence to his statements we should trust hers as well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Don't assume everyone is as moral and ethical as you are. I have a cop friend who says it happens*. Unless someone has tinted windows it is not that hard to pick them out by race. Actually what I like to call economic profiling seem to happen more, but that is another topic for another day.

*It is not a common theme, but as the saying goes "a few bad apples...", and then the media gets a hold of it, and it makes all cops look bad. The fact that people focus on bad more than good makes it seem like it happens more than it does.

It is no different than when a crime seen occurs and the most ignorant black person is put in front of the camera at times instead of someone who can knows how to conduct themselves.

Shadow Lodge

I agree that the media has chosen photographs that make Zimmerman look like a nut and Trayvon look like a child. However, I think this makes an excellent example of the differences in selection bias and outright manipulation. In the Trayvon case they chose real pictures, just highly selected to push a narrative. However, anyone remember this?

Fox News airs altered photos of NY Times reporters

Probably not because it got little airtime even though it was nucking futz. I think it is funny that they gave Steinberg a bigger nose.

So I agree that all media is biased to the corporate agenda, but it is selection bias. Fox News on the other hand...well...

Shadow Lodge

Obo the all seeing. wrote:

Don't assume everyone is as moral and ethical as you are. I have a cop friend who says it happens*. Unless someone has tinted windows it is not that hard to pick them out by race. Actually what I like to call economic profiling seem to happen more, but that is another topic for another day.

*It is not a common theme, but as the saying goes "a few bad apples...", and then the media gets a hold of it, and it makes all cops look bad. The fact that people focus on bad more than good makes it seem like it happens more than it does.

It is no different than when a crime seen occurs and the most ignorant black person is put in front of the camera at times instead of someone who can knows how to conduct themselves.

I know a cop who quit the force because of it. Awesomely he decided to become a scientist and got a PhD in physics!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Asphere wrote:

I agree that the media has chosen photographs that make Zimmerman look like a nut and Trayvon look like a child. However, I think this makes an excellent example of the differences in selection bias and outright manipulation. In the Trayvon case they chose real pictures, just highly selected to push a narrative. However, anyone remember this?

Fox News airs altered photos of NY Times reporters

Probably not because it got little airtime even though it was nucking futz. I think it is funny that they gave Steinberg a bigger nose.

So I agree that all media is biased to the corporate agenda, but it is selection bias. Fox News on the other hand...well...

I lose more respect for Fox News everyday. I did not even know about this.

The Exchange Marathon Voter 2013, Marathon Voter 2014, Star Voter 2015

Apparently, the latest story is that police wanted to arrest Zimmerman, but were denied a warrant by the prosecutor's office. This is bringing up speculation that his father, a retired judge, may have called in some favors at the D.A.'s office.

As for the video, ABC news had their techs clean up the resolution on the tape. There's a very clear portion at the beginning where his jacket, which is open, is not covering Zimmerman's shirt. There's no blood visible, certainly not enough to indicate a broken nose. No swelling, no black eyes, and the man walks completely unassisted, which is not what you'd expect from a guy who took a beating and had his head bounced off the sidewalk repeatedly. Yes, it's been said he may have had paramedics treat him at the scene, but they wouldn't have gone so far as to launder his shirt. Not much there to support Zimmerman's side of the story, especially if he put a bullet into Trayvon's chest at point blank range while the kid was on top of him.

Shadow Lodge

Just saw this linky


Shadowborn wrote:

Apparently, the latest story is that police wanted to arrest Zimmerman, but were denied a warrant by the prosecutor's office. This is bringing up speculation that his father, a retired judge, may have called in some favors at the D.A.'s office.

As for the video, ABC news had their techs clean up the resolution on the tape. There's a very clear portion at the beginning where his jacket, which is open, is not covering Zimmerman's shirt. There's no blood visible, certainly not enough to indicate a broken nose. No swelling, no black eyes, and the man walks completely unassisted, which is not what you'd expect from a guy who took a beating and had his head bounced off the sidewalk repeatedly. Yes, it's been said he may have had paramedics treat him at the scene, but they wouldn't have gone so far as to launder his shirt. Not much there to support Zimmerman's side of the story, especially if he put a bullet into Trayvon's chest at point blank range while the kid was on top of him.

I heard about his parents a few days ago, but I did not want to bring it up unless I knew for sure they called in favors.


thejeff wrote:

You know what pisses me off about this discussion and about the backlash to this story in general?

We have one more black kid (teen, if you insist) shot dead when there was, at the very least, no reason to confront him at all and the big problem is that the media is race-baiting.

It's like the only racial problem in America is prejudice against whites. All of the evidence of continuing discrimination against minorities doesn't matter. All the documentation of police prejudice, DWB, stop and frisk policies, etc. None of it matters.
The suggestion without absolute proof that racial prejudice might be involved in the shooting of an unarmed black teen and/or the coverup/ineptitude by the police and it's just proof of the anti-white bias of the media.

You're right. Racism against whites isn't the only form of racism this country has to deal with. The media keeps looking for sensational cases of racism against blacks and keeps over and over again selecting bad example (Duke Lacrosse, Benjamin Gates, the fact that a store wouldn't reopen just to let Oprah Winfrey buy a purse, etc.) I know its got to be frustrating to people who want a good example of racism against blacks to be covered. But, just because the media has been unable to find a sensational case of white on black racism doesn't mean that we should let our frustration lead us into seeing racism where there's no evidence. That accomplishes nothing worthwhile.


Shadowborn wrote:
Apparently, the latest story is that police wanted to arrest Zimmerman, but were denied a warrant by the prosecutor's office. This is bringing up speculation that his father, a retired judge, may have called in some favors at the D.A.'s office.

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—

(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.
(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).

This text, from the Florida criminal code, is the problem with trying to get a warrant, rather than a conspiracy.


Of course, shouldn't the police always have probable cause before an arrest? Does that law change anything?

Or is there something particularly stupid about it that I'm missing?


Compare it to the Texas law. I don't think anyone will accuse Texas of being unfriendly to using deadly force in self-defense.

Sec. 2.03. DEFENSE. (a) A defense to prosecution for an offense in this code is so labeled by the phrase: "It is a defense to prosecution . . . ."
(b) The prosecuting attorney is not required to negate the existence of a defense in the accusation charging commission of the offense.
(c) The issue of the existence of a defense is not submitted to the jury unless evidence is admitted supporting the defense.
(d) If the issue of the existence of a defense is submitted to the jury, the court shall charge that a reasonable doubt on the issue requires that the defendant be acquitted.
(e) A ground of defense in a penal law that is not plainly labeled in accordance with this chapter has the procedural and evidentiary consequences of a defense.

Sec. 9.02. JUSTIFICATION AS A DEFENSE. It is a defense to prosecution that the conduct in question is justified under this chapter.

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.
(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

As you can see, Zimmerman would most likely have been charged in Texas, but Florida law is much different, even they both have no duty to retreat.

Shadow Lodge

DM Barcas wrote:

Compare it to the Texas law. I don't think anyone will accuse Texas of being unfriendly to using deadly force in self-defense.

Sec. 2.03. DEFENSE. (a) A defense to prosecution for an offense in this code is so labeled by the phrase: "It is a defense to prosecution . . . ."
(b) The prosecuting attorney is not required to negate the existence of a defense in the accusation charging commission of the offense.
(c) The issue of the existence of a defense is not submitted to the jury unless evidence is admitted supporting the defense.
(d) If the issue of the existence of a defense is submitted to the jury, the court shall charge that a reasonable doubt on the issue requires that the defendant be acquitted.
(e) A ground of defense in a penal law that is not plainly labeled in accordance with this chapter has the procedural and evidentiary consequences of a defense.

Sec. 9.02. JUSTIFICATION AS A DEFENSE. It is a defense to prosecution that the conduct in question is justified under this chapter.

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;...

The key here is "the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary". The word "reasonably" means something different in law. It means that there must be a logical argument backed with supporting evidence that deadly force was truly needed. If this word didn't carry this meaning people could just shoot people willy nilly in dark alleyways and claim self defense. They would just need to inflict minor wounds on themselves.

The Florida law uses similar language: "for justifiable use of force"

Sovereign Court Star Voter 2013, Dedicated Voter 2014

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Obo the all seeing. wrote:
Shadowborn wrote:

Apparently, the latest story is that police wanted to arrest Zimmerman, but were denied a warrant by the prosecutor's office. This is bringing up speculation that his father, a retired judge, may have called in some favors at the D.A.'s office.

As for the video, ABC news had their techs clean up the resolution on the tape. There's a very clear portion at the beginning where his jacket, which is open, is not covering Zimmerman's shirt. There's no blood visible, certainly not enough to indicate a broken nose. No swelling, no black eyes, and the man walks completely unassisted, which is not what you'd expect from a guy who took a beating and had his head bounced off the sidewalk repeatedly. Yes, it's been said he may have had paramedics treat him at the scene, but they wouldn't have gone so far as to launder his shirt. Not much there to support Zimmerman's side of the story, especially if he put a bullet into Trayvon's chest at point blank range while the kid was on top of him.

I heard about his parents a few days ago, but I did not want to bring it up unless I knew for sure they called in favors.

I've heard two stories now. One that Zimmerman's old man was a retired Judge and may have called in favors. Another that his old man was just a file clerk and has only enough power to call in a pizza order. Anyone know the truth on this matter?

Shadow Lodge

Pan wrote:
Obo the all seeing. wrote:
Shadowborn wrote:

Apparently, the latest story is that police wanted to arrest Zimmerman, but were denied a warrant by the prosecutor's office. This is bringing up speculation that his father, a retired judge, may have called in some favors at the D.A.'s office.

As for the video, ABC news had their techs clean up the resolution on the tape. There's a very clear portion at the beginning where his jacket, which is open, is not covering Zimmerman's shirt. There's no blood visible, certainly not enough to indicate a broken nose. No swelling, no black eyes, and the man walks completely unassisted, which is not what you'd expect from a guy who took a beating and had his head bounced off the sidewalk repeatedly. Yes, it's been said he may have had paramedics treat him at the scene, but they wouldn't have gone so far as to launder his shirt. Not much there to support Zimmerman's side of the story, especially if he put a bullet into Trayvon's chest at point blank range while the kid was on top of him.

I heard about his parents a few days ago, but I did not want to bring it up unless I knew for sure they called in favors.

I've heard two stories now. One that Zimmerman's old man was a retired Judge and may have called in favors. Another that his old man was just a file clerk and has only enough power to call in a pizza order. Anyone know the truth on this matter?

He was a magistrate for the VA Commonwealth system for six years.


DM Barcas wrote:

Compare it to the Texas law. I don't think anyone will accuse Texas of being unfriendly to using deadly force in self-defense.

Right. Thanks. I should have seen that.

I don't have any problem with self-defense as a defense against a murder charge, but the Florida law goes to far. Preventing even a trial where the facts can come out seems a bad idea.

OTOH, in truly clear cut cases, sparing the expense and trouble of a trial is probably a good idea.

Still, even taking everything in the best light for Zimmerman, this is not a clear cut case.


His father was a judge, and his mother was a court clerk.


Asphere wrote:


He was a magistrate for the VA Commonwealth system for six years.

VA Commonwealth? So, how much influence would he have in Florida?


Comrade, you're right about the Black Panthers.

My only defense is that I'm over 24 hrs short on sleep this week (back pain has been making it hard to get a good night's sleep).

I stand by my position that blocking access to emergency vehicles is unacceptable.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Don't get me wrong, the Panthers were my all-time favorite Maoists, I just think it's weird that you'd respect an organization famous for its running gun battles with the cops in the streets of Oakland when you spent so much time going on about possible blockages of emergency vehicles over in the (sadly) defunct Occupy Wall Street! thread.
Darkwing Duck wrote:
Comrade, you're right about the Black Panthers.

Yeah, they were pretty awesome.

Re: back pain: :(

Might I suggest

Spoiler:
[bubble bubble bubble]?


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Don't get me wrong, the Panthers were my all-time favorite Maoists, I just think it's weird that you'd respect an organization famous for its running gun battles with the cops in the streets of Oakland when you spent so much time going on about possible blockages of emergency vehicles over in the (sadly) defunct Occupy Wall Street! thread.
Darkwing Duck wrote:
Comrade, you're right about the Black Panthers.

Yeah, they were pretty awesome.

Re: back pain: :(

Might I suggest ** spoiler omitted **

In my state, its legal with a prescription for chronic pain (which I'm certain I could get considering the amount of prescription meds I'm already on for it), but my employer (the Federal government) wouldn't allow it.

So, no go on that end.

Which, on another point for another thread, has me worried regarding federal health insurance. I'm confident the private market will eventually (perhaps soon) have insurance policies which cover it in states where it is legal. But, the federal government won't.


Kids, only [bubble bubble bubble] if it's within the strict legal limits of your local laws.

Otherwise, smoke 'em if you got 'em!

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Darkwing Duck wrote:

Did anyone else note that it took forever for the media to acknowledge that Zimmerman is no more white than Obama is?

That the little child in Trayvon Martin's picture is not a current picture of him?
And that the media chose a picture of Zimmerman wearing prison orange?

Regardless of who is guilty (and we won't know that until the trial, the fact is that none of us knows all the available evidence), it seems to me that the media was trying to slant the story in one direction (albeit covertly) from day one.

Racism isn't confined to Black vs. White. So Zimmerman's Latino, from all accounts he was still profiling and aggressively chasing the boy just like any other bigot with a gun and a self-professed mission. Despite being directly told by 911 not to do so. Him not being WASP doesn't change the situation one iota.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Pan wrote:


I've heard two stories now. One that Zimmerman's old man was a retired Judge and may have called in favors. Another that his old man was just a file clerk and has only enough power to call in a pizza order. Anyone know the truth on this matter?

One basic truth. If this had happened anywhere else, Zimmerman would have been brought up on charges by now. He willfully pursued someone when specifically told not to, and killed an unarmed man.


There's a lot of misinformation about the details of this case.

1.) The dispatcher did NOT tell Zimmerman not to follow Martin. What was said is "we don't need to you to do that"

2.) The 911 call is evidence that Zimmerman lost Martin and was no longer following him. See the transcript at 3:40.

http://phoebe53.wordpress.com/2012/03/26/zimmerman-911-call-transcript-tray von-martin/


Also, shortly before the dispatcher tells him "we don't need you to do that" it is quite clear that Zimmerman is breathing heavily (he starts doing so around 2:20). The dispatcher tells him "we don't need you to do that" around 2:25. Zimmerman says "ok" at 2:28. Zimmerman says "he ran" at 2:38. His breathing steadies at around 2:41.

This looks to me like Martin started running when he saw Zimmerman was on the phone. Zimmerman started chasing after him around 2:20. Zimmerman stops at around 2:28, two seconds after the dispatcher tells him 'we don't need you to do that'. Since Martin is running and Zimmerman isn't, Zimmerman acknowledges at 2:38 that he has lost Martin. Now that Zimmerman is no longer running, his breathing steadies by 2:41.


LazarX wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:

Did anyone else note that it took forever for the media to acknowledge that Zimmerman is no more white than Obama is?

That the little child in Trayvon Martin's picture is not a current picture of him?
And that the media chose a picture of Zimmerman wearing prison orange?

Regardless of who is guilty (and we won't know that until the trial, the fact is that none of us knows all the available evidence), it seems to me that the media was trying to slant the story in one direction (albeit covertly) from day one.

Racism isn't confined to Black vs. White. So Zimmerman's Latino, from all accounts he was still profiling and aggressively chasing the boy just like any other bigot with a gun and a self-professed mission. Despite being directly told by 911 not to do so. Him not being WASP doesn't change the situation one iota.

Tell that to the media who aggressively portrayed him as a white man, even selecting a photo of him that is years out of date which made him look whiter than he is.


Whilst Zimmerman may well have shot in self defence, the only reason he had to 'defend' himself was that he went out looking for trouble, instigated it, and then killed someone when it kicked off.

He should be locked up because he is a menace.


I'm quite confused by the girlfriend's testimony.

When Zimmerman is calling 911, he says on the phone that Martin ran. Zimmerman gets out of breath while following him. That suggests that he is not following Martin in a car.

Yet, according to the girlfriend's testimony, Martin called her and told her that he was being followed by someone in a car. So, when did that call take place? At the same time as Zimmerman's call to 911? After Zimmerman's 911 call? (which would have meant that Zimmerman got in his car searching for Martin after he hung up on 911 and then having seen Martin, got out of his car again?)

It doesn't make any sense. I can't imagine that Zimmerman got out of breath just by driving his car down a short street in his apartment complex.

I have to suspect the girlfriend's testimony.


He might have been followed initially in a car, but then Zimm might have got out, so both might be accurate.


Shifty wrote:

Whilst Zimmerman may well have shot in self defence, the only reason he had to 'defend' himself was that he went out looking for trouble, instigated it, and then killed someone when it kicked off.

He should be locked up because he is a menace.

By absolutely no definition of the law does suspecting that one is being followed grant that one the right to assault another.

If Zimmerman continued to pursue Martin after 2:28 on the tape (which I seriously doubt now that I've analyzed the tape), he is, at worse, guilty of being a dumb ass. He is not responsible for the assault which followed. So, if there was an assault, then he had the right to defend himself.

That stands particularly true since, according to the 911 call, Zimmerman had stopped following Martin.


Shifty wrote:
He might have been followed initially in a car, but then Zimm might have got out, so both might be accurate.

Are you suggesting that Martin made his call to his girlfriend before Zimmerman made his call to 911?


Darkwing Duck wrote:

There's a lot of misinformation about the details of this case.

1.) The dispatcher did NOT tell Zimmerman not to follow Martin. What was said is "we don't need to you to do that"

And that's really not the same thing? Really? O.o

Darkwing Duck wrote:
2.) The 911 call is evidence that Zimmerman lost Martin and was no longer following him.

So a 17yr old kid has been followed by some dude in a truck and then on foot. I mean, who's acting suspicious here? I guess Martin shoulda called 911 too...

Think back to when you were a kid and then ask yourself what you would have done. I probably would have hidden somewhere, but I know friends of mine who would have called Zimmerman out.

He should have stayed in the car. That's the bottom line. A kids is dead because he didn't.

Shadow Lodge

Darkwing Duck wrote:
Shifty wrote:
He might have been followed initially in a car, but then Zimm might have got out, so both might be accurate.
Are you suggesting that Martin made his call to his girlfriend before Zimmerman made his call to 911?

It happened around the same time. Initially Trayvon noticed that somebody was following him in a car and told his girlfriend. Trayvon thought he lost him but Zimmerman was now on foot as in the 911 call. To be honest there are a thousand ways this could have played out - not that suspicious.

However, this was just released:

Trayvon Martin shooting: It's not George Zimmerman crying for help on 911 recording, 2 experts say

This is the opinion of two expert forensic voice analysts.


Asphere wrote:
It happened around the same time. Initially Trayvon noticed that somebody was following him in a car and told his girlfriend. Trayvon thought he lost him but Zimmerman was now on foot as in the 911 call. To be honest there are a thousand ways this could have played out - not that suspicious.

As above.

Zimmy looks like a bit of an out of shape slug and could probably get out of breath pulling up his fly.

Shadow Lodge

Darkwing Duck wrote:
Shifty wrote:

Whilst Zimmerman may well have shot in self defence, the only reason he had to 'defend' himself was that he went out looking for trouble, instigated it, and then killed someone when it kicked off.

He should be locked up because he is a menace.

By absolutely no definition of the law does suspecting that one is being followed grant that one the right to assault another.

If Zimmerman continued to pursue Martin after 2:28 on the tape (which I seriously doubt now that I've analyzed the tape), he is, at worse, guilty of being a dumb ass. He is not responsible for the assault which followed. So, if there was an assault, then he had the right to defend himself.

That stands particularly true since, according to the 911 call, Zimmerman had stopped following Martin.

You do not have the right to use deadly force because you instigated a fist fight. That would be insane. The law says that one may use deadly force if "he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another".

The word reasonable means that he must show that he had a logical reason to fear that his death was imminent or that great bodily injury was imminent. A fist fight wouldn't fall under this. Especially one that left injuries that were not visible by witnesses or the police station video.

As a person who believes in the right to own and carry firearms, I think people like George Zimmerman ruin it for the rest of us. Never would I in a 1000 years use a gun in a fist fight. The law was not meant to be used this way...saying it can is abusing it and it gives the anti-gun crown good reasons to remain anti-gun.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darkwing Duck wrote:


By absolutely no definition of the law does suspecting that one is being followed grant that one the right to assault another.

Who said anything about that being 'lawful'?

Zimmerman went out at night armed up, and started following random people on a 'wet and rainy night', this is not an intelligent thing to do. He was quite literally looking for trouble, however he was also in a position of intimidating others and causing them to fear their safety.

Do this often enough and by sheer probability ONE of those people is going to fight over flight.

George picked a fight and now a dude is dead.

George is a menace.

151 to 200 of 920 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Community / Off-Topic Discussions / The shooting in Florida All Messageboards

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.