Laotzu del Zinn:These things do not make his death his fault [...]
Who said that they did?
If I had a cake and ate it, it can be concluded that I do not have it anymore. HHH
Well that's fine but there's no clear evidence about exactly what happened.
The standard for conviction is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. If there is a reason to believe that Trayvon may have initiated the conflict and/or threatened Zimmerman's life during the altercation then there exists a reason to believe that the killing was in self defense.
Trayvon's past speaks to his character and would give me pause before convicting Zimmerman of any crime. Ultimately, this will be for a jury to decide though, not me.
Laotzu del Zinn: His cothes are irrelevant. His photos are irrelevant. His fight club is irrelevant. These things do not make his death his fault, and giving him a Darwin award in this circumstance is... questionable.
His cothes are irrelevant. His photos are irrelevant. His fight club is irrelevant. These things do not make his death his fault, and giving him a Darwin award in this circumstance is... questionable.
I agree with your take on the Darwin award. I have no idea why Caley said that. bloomj31 is right though: The fight club, clothes, and photos do speak to character. If Martin is prone to violence, as opposed to a timid geek, then it does give reason to doubt second degree murder. Likewise, if Zimmerman has a history of violence as well, it gives reason to doubt his story. Ultimately, the prosecution has to prove that Zimmerman committed murder, and the defense should use what they can to demonstrate that the prosecution cannot prove this.
I agree with your take on the Darwin award. I have no idea why Caley said that.
Really? No idea at all after I explained it in no uncertain terms? I'll tell you a little story. I quit high school because there were such threats made against me that I essentially had a choice between between (a) quitting, (b) waiting for something to happen to me, (c) assassinating the antagonists. Frankly, after incessant harassment, threats and intimidation, c was and still is my ideal. If I hadn't been in school on court order, as in I actually had any stock in what I was giving up, imagine how wonderful an option set that would have been. (In that case I definitely would have chosen c.) When you rent space in people's heads you put a bullseye on yours. Someone like me that is fed up with that is bound to hit it on the dot. Get it now? Trash belongs in the bin and anyone wanting to emulate trash can go into the bin too because nobody but fairies in a high chair want to try sorting them out and waiting for something to happen.
I'll also add that Trayvon's parents, undoubtably total losers, should have planned the parenting a bit better. I'll send a big boohoo out to them.
Come to mention my history, if you think the police in cases like this are bad, try this. In the hicktown where I grew up the official position of the authorities is that you are a "pussy" if you actually expect any assistance. My friend learned this the hard way from a police officer just before getting mob attacked.
You are a very angry person.
Caley is firey right now I love it.
Don't quit your day job and become a psychologist.
I'm a firey guy.
No need. I offered that one for free.
Btw, all this not-so-clever personal trolling going on recently makes it seem like it is no longer against the rules. Just noticing this because I was banned once without being blatantly obvious like the above.
You are the one who responded to one of my posts. And the response was, well, rather angry. You are saying that people who act like thugs - but are not thugs - should die. After all, you wrote:
Caley McKibbin: Get it now? Trash belongs in the bin and anyone wanting to emulate trash can go into the bin too because nobody but fairies in a high chair want to try sorting them out and waiting for something to happen. I'll also add that Trayvon's parents, undoubtably total losers, should have planned the parenting a bit better. I'll send a big boohoo out to them. [emphases added]
Get it now? Trash belongs in the bin and anyone wanting to emulate trash can go into the bin too because nobody but fairies in a high chair want to try sorting them out and waiting for something to happen.
[emphases added]
And when you respond with
Then the appriopriate response to such nonsense is
Caley McKibbin: Btw, all this not-so-clever personal trolling going on recently makes it seem like it is no longer against the rules. Just noticing this because I was banned once without being blatantly obvious like the above.
Considering the anger that you demonstrated above - calling for the execution of people who act tough - I'm not surprised you have been banned before.
But you're giving psychologisms - such as here:
On top of that you are giving personal case studies/testimonials with unpolite expressions of inner motives... perhaps even extreme to most (the desire to kill in an illegal / uncustomary fashion)...what do you expect?
"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann
"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence" - GLS Shackle
So the state and all its puppet institutions fail in what is basically the most obvious ways (media bias, lack of investigation), causing hundreds of residents in Florida to directly question the legitimacy of the state institution in charge of this case, and the conclusion here is...what?
I honestly don't understand A) the point of this thread, B) why people have opinions on the personality of the Martin family or Zimmerman, or anyone involved in the case for that matter, or C) how this can be considered a productive conversation relating to any ioata of libertarian philosophy whatsoever in any way.
Was there a point to any post in here other than to be provacative and perhaps take a cheap shot at the media?
His clothes are irrelevant. His photos are irrelevant. His fight club is irrelevant.
If clothes, photos or activities may reflect what someone could perceive of a person at a glance in a situation, they are most certainly relevant. You sound like every college party girl who used to attend the self-defense classes I assisted with in college. They were convinced (and the university condoned convincing them) that just because you have the right to wear whatever you want, and go wherever you want with whomever you want (or no one at all) that you should be free of fault should something happen to you when you do them, which is pure nonsense. Decisions have potential risks and if you are aware of them and fail to take precautions, you do bear some responsibility if TSHTF. I will never forget my best friend being totally mystified when a girl on his dorm floor told him a story about how she went to a party (which she knew would be almost all guys) by herself, she got extremely drunk, passed out and woke up to someone having sex with her. After hearing the story my friend became livid trying to get information out of her so he could report the incident as a rape, but she refused to give it to him. She said she didn't feel like she was raped, but even if she was, she should've been much more careful in what she did to begin with. She accepted her part in what happened to her, and she changed how she would do things from then on. He went on for weeks about how crazy she was to think like that, never realizing that she was really more sane about it than he was.
These things do not make his death his fault...
This is an amusing line of illogic. "Fault" is not an all or nothing prospect; in almost any situation you may find yourself in, you bear some degree of responsibility. Does that mean you deserved to have something bad happen to you? No, of course not. But that doesn't mean your actions leading up to something bad happening to you are without fault. For example, if Trayvon hadn't gotten caught with weed (or weed "traces", whatever that is) in his bookbag and been suspended from school, do you think he would be dead right now? If Trayvon's father had gone to the trouble of introducing himself and his family to the neighbors and the neighborhood watch after he moved into the neighborhood, do you think he would be dead right now? None of that is to say he deserved to die, but it is to say he and the people around him do bear some responsibility for what happened to him. Pretending as if Zimmerman is a sole villain is ridiculous.
I honestly don't understand...
No kidding? You're in the General Miscellaneous forum. I believe that's where this topic falls in.
myhumangetsme:If clothes, photos or activities may reflect what someone could perceive of a person at a glance in a situation, they are most certainly relevant. You sound like every college party girl who used to attend the self-defense classes I assisted with in college. They were convinced (and the university condoned convincing them) that just because you have the right to wear whatever you want, and go wherever you want with whomever you want (or no one at all) that you should be free of fault should something happen to you when you do them, which is pure nonsense. Decisions have potential risks and if you are aware of them and fail to take precautions, you do bear some responsibility if TSHTF.
In my opinion, just because one may be in an area where there's an increased risk of being aggressed against does not make any aggression he suffers there any less wrong. Furthermore, he certainly didn't cause the aggression himself - the aggressor did. That is, the origin of the aggression lies solely with the aggressor.
myhumangetsme:I will never forget my best friend being totally mystified when a girl on his dorm floor told him a story about how she went to a party (which she knew would be almost all guys) by herself, she got extremely drunk, passed out and woke up to someone having sex with her. After hearing the story my friend became livid trying to get information out of her so he could report the incident as a rape, but she refused to give it to him. She said she didn't feel like she was raped, but even if she was, she should've been much more careful in what she did to begin with. She accepted her part in what happened to her, and she changed how she would do things from then on. He went on for weeks about how crazy she was to think like that, never realizing that she was really more sane about it than he was. [Emphasis added.]
The part of your quote that I emphasized is a judgement call. Others are free to judge her as being less sane than your friend. No one is right or wrong here, if you ask me. But if the girl doesn't see herself as having been the victim of aggression, or doesn't consider it worth pursuing, that's entirely up to her IMO. On the other hand, my opinion here is also that anyone who has intercourse with a person while he or she is sleeping is raping that person.
myhumangetsme:This is an amusing line of illogic. "Fault" is not an all or nothing prospect; in almost any situation you may find yourself in, you bear some degree of responsibility. Does that mean you deserved to have something bad happen to you? No, of course not. But that doesn't mean your actions leading up to something bad happening to you are without fault.
This thinking leads to the abandonment of all notions of responsibility, as it ultimately must consider everything that ever happened before to be at fault for a given event. In other words, I think you're confusing causality with responsibility here.
myhumangetsme:For example, if Trayvon hadn't gotten caught with weed (or weed "traces", whatever that is) in his bookbag and been suspended from school, do you think he would be dead right now? If Trayvon's father had gone to the trouble of introducing himself and his family to the neighbors and the neighborhood watch after he moved into the neighborhood, do you think he would be dead right now? None of that is to say he deserved to die, but it is to say he and the people around him do bear some responsibility for what happened to him. Pretending as if Zimmerman is a sole villain is ridiculous.
Again, I think you're confusing causality with responsibility. Yes, there's an entire chain of events that (one might say inevitably) led to Trayvon Martin's death, allegedly at the hands of George Zimmerman. To me, that in no way means that Martin killed himself. Otherwise, one could say that everyone always ends up killing himself, as we all go inevitably to our deaths. And to say that would mean to remove any and all value judgements that anyone can impute to anyone else's death from the universe of discourse.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
In my opinion, just because one may be in an area where there's an increased risk of being aggressed against does not make any aggression he suffers there any less wrong.
Wow, it's as if you skipped over that pesky reading problem and went straight to pronouncing ill-informed and irresponsible judgments. Did you even bother to read what I wrote, or did you just skim it then jump in guns a blazin'?
Furthermore, he certainly didn't cause the aggression himself - the aggressor did. That is, the origin of the aggression lies solely with the aggressor.
You have no idea who the aggressor was in this situation, so you rendering such a premature judgment is silly.
The part of your quote that I emphasized is a judgement call. Others are free to judge her as being less sane than your friend.
What does that have to do with anything? You are arguing something that wasn't even an argument, it was an emphasis of an argument. And acknowledging the truth of a matter is insane? Guess this whole forum can safely be shipped off to the nut house.
On the other hand, my opinion here is also that anyone who has intercourse with a person while he or she is sleeping is raping that person.
As she told my friend, for all she knows she may have consented but was too drunk to remember, and it wasn't worth putting herself and someone else who may have thought everything was OK through a criminal proceeding for something that may not be true.
Yes, there's an entire chain of events that (one might say inevitably) led to Trayvon Martin's death, allegedly at the hands of George Zimmerman. To me, that in no way means that Martin killed himself.
Again, you're not only arguing things that I didn't say, you're putting an even more ridiculous set of words in my mouth.
Otherwise, one could say that everyone always ends up killing himself, as we all go inevitably to our deaths. And to say that would mean to remove any and all value judgements that anyone can impute to anyone else's death from the universe of discourse.
I'll give you credit, once you grab onto an ill-advised piece of logic you ride that good horse to death.
myhumangetsme:Wow, it's as if you skipped over that pesky reading problem [sic] and went straight to pronouncing ill-informed and irresponsible judgments [sic]. Did you even bother to read what I wrote, or did you just skim it then jump in guns a blazin' [sic]?
Of course I bothered to read what you wrote. Why would you think otherwise?
myhumangetsme:You have no idea who the aggressor was in this situation, so you rendering such a premature judgment is silly.
I wasn't. I was talking about a hypothetical situation, wasn't I? (Yes, I was.)
myhumangetsme:What does that have to do with anything? You are arguing something that wasn't even an argument, it was an emphasis of an argument. And acknowledging the truth of a matter is insane? Guess this whole forum can safely be shipped off to the nut house.
What are you referring to as "the truth of a matter"?
myhumangetsme:As she told my friend, for all she knows she may have consented but was too drunk to remember, and it wasn't worth putting herself and someone else who may have thought everything was OK through a criminal proceeding for something that may not be true.
Well, if she's not sure whether she was really asleep when the intercourse began, then okay. If she didn't think* it was worth it to file rape charges against the guy, then okay. As I said before, it's up to her.
myhumangetsme:Again, you're not only arguing things that I didn't say, you're putting an even more ridiculous set of words in my mouth.
Well, if you're not going to offer any substantiation, then I won't either. I'll simply say that I don't believe you about this.
myhumangetsme:I'll give you credit, once you grab onto an ill-advised [sic] piece of logic you ride that good horse to death.
I don't see why you'd expect this to make me back down. Try again, maybe? This time with an actual counter-argument?
* Note: there is no truth to whether something is "worth it" - there are only differing opinions.
I'm requesting an admin delete the part of my post about the police.
You are saying that people who act like thugs - but are not thugs - should die.
I'm saying that pretending to be something is as bad as being it from anyone else's prespective because that is the information you are giving and expecting people to play Sherlocke Holmes to find the real you is ridiculous. Maybe Hitler was just trolling. This was about the Darwin Award. It's the same deal on the question of Islam. But I decided that I was too careless about the blanket statement about the police. It's not letting me edit it. I use my real name here to encourage myself to be reasonable.
I never expect much.
Do you have a problem with personal case studies?
I was banned for saying that a post said something about the person. So, it's ironic that you would say that given how often you do it.
They are something that is used almost exclusively in "psychological warfare" and avoiding almost anything relevant to what can be discussed in a rational manner for the facts on hand, whatever the topic may be.
Case Studies have no use in argumentation, they are only useful as "practiced advice" (ex: data for an entrepreneur)
That statement just demonstrates total misunderstanding of the situation. Some people in this thread (and others) try to portray anyone that thinks there are real threats before the point that something catastrophic happens as paranoid delusional. That auctionguy13 is one of them is hardly suprising given his muslim affiliation. What my case does is help to realize how real people prioritize when faced with real dilemmas. In this Trayvon case, his image will factor in to the decision on Zimmerman, which in turn feeds back into how people with that image will be dealth with. The only response to it was more of the same: trying to brush it off as meaningless jabber stemming from a psychological abnormality. I'm not going to let you guys off trying to seem like Gotlucky was just making a hurr durr redundant statement informing me of my own state of mind.
P.S. Excuse my incessant editing.
Then the appriopriate response to such nonsense is No need. I offered that one for free.
Btw, offering something for free does not explain how you are qualified to do it. This thread is not an autobiography about me. That's why it qualifies as an offense. Like the free offering you've had on some other people that you warned about.
Caley McKibbin: I'm saying that pretending to be something is as bad as being it from anyone else's prespective because that is the information you are giving and expecting people to play Sherlocke Holmes to find the real you is ridiculous. Maybe Hitler was just trolling. This was about the Darwin Award. It's the same deal on the question of Islam. But I decided that I was too careless about the blanket statement about the police. It's not letting me edit it. I use my real name here to encourage myself to be reasonable.
You don't know how Trayvon Martin was acting that night. We do know how Hitler was acting. Terrible analogy. Just because Trayvon Martin acts tough in public does not mean that he always acts like that. LogisticEarth made a great point earlier in the thread when he pointed out that the evidence neither convicts nor vindicates Zimmerman. The only reason Trayvon Martin's character is relevant is because it helps the defense. It does not prove that Zimmerman is innocent and Martin guilty. It just helps to provide reasonable doubt.
What you do is just assume Trayvon Martin deserves to die because he acts tough sometimes. I stand by my statement that you are an angry person who calls for the death of others, not because of some actual transgression towards others, but because they have irritated you.
Caley McKibbin: I was banned for saying that a post said something about the person. So, it's ironic that you would say that given how often you do it.
Many people say things about people on this forum. I have been warned once, and I dropped the issue in that particular thread. That you have been banned tells me that you have been particularly vicious towards others on this forum.
Caley McKibbin: I'm not going to let you guys off trying to seem like Gotlucky [sic] was just making a hurr durr redundant statement informing me of my own state of mind.
I'm not going to let you guys off trying to seem like Gotlucky [sic] was just making a hurr durr redundant statement informing me of my own state of mind.
Again, calling for the death of someone who has not demonstrated that he deserves it strikes me as an angry statement. Perhaps that's just par for the course for you though.
Caley McKibbin: Btw, offering something for free does not explain how you are qualified to do it. This thread is not an autobiography about me. That's why it qualifies as an offense. Like the free offering you've had on some other people that you warned about.
Lmao. Because people need to be psychologists to recognize the emotion known as "anger"?
What my case does is help to realize how real people prioritize when faced with real dilemmas.
If there is any advantage I can see in what you are trying to state / what you are stating, it is showing that you are trying harder not to divorce yourself from "abstracting", "idealizing", etc (for lack of better words) cases from actual factual reality. If that is what your main thrust is, I would agree with it. I disdain "armchair speculation" on things like this and find them worse than worthless
However, I still don't see you as seperating yourself from the rest of the people on this thread - by using meaningful context. When you compare your life situations with the case going on, or pass judgment on how you would be a juror over the parents / child you still don't cross the bridge to any statement that can go anywhere other than maybe "aesthetics" or "psychologisms" - which is usually a dead end topic. You are still divorced from any meaningful context to make anything other than appeals, which is just like everybody else on this thread.
Furthermore, by not being able to cross the bridge, and making harsher judgments, more personal experiences, and still dwelling within the realm of the "abstract", "psychological", or "aesthetic" (once again for lack of better terms") - you are drawing attention to a different subject - yourself.
vive la insurrection:You are still divorced from any meaningful context to make anything other than appeals, which is just like everybody else on this thread.
Could you clarify this please? With respect to Caley, I don't see how everyone else in this thread is in the same boat as him.
That you have been banned tells me that you have been particularly vicious towards others on this forum.
More silly mind games, I see. It tells you that you did the same thing I did. You can keep skating or knock it off.
Because people need to be psychologists to recognize the emotion known as "anger"?
Obviously, not that being a psychologist guarantees a good result. A better question: was there a good reason to bring it up? Do you want this thread to be about me or what? I certainly don't
You don't know how Trayvon Martin was acting that night. We do know how Hitler was acting. Terrible analogy.
It seems like a terrible analogy if you compare apples and oranges. We don't know how Hitler acted every night. We only know the value system he expressed publicly, as in Trayvon's case. Even if you don't like that analogy I'm sure you can think of one that suits you and captures my point. I can see a "No Limit _____" trespassing and bashing someone's head in more than I can see a concerned member of the community shooting to kill with no chance of covering it up. That is what the case is about. Zimmerman's image versus Trayvon's image. It's just a bunch of judgemental assholes sitting on a bench. If you look at surveys asking what basis people use for voting, you can see easily enough that social image is the primary piece of personal information in judgements.
Again, calling for the death of someone who has not demonstrated that he deserves it strikes me as an angry statement.
I don't see myself "calling for the death of someone who has not demonstrated that he deserves it". I definitely wouldn't want anything done to Zimmerman based on this event given what is known so far in this case. But that seems sort of irrelevant given that my supposedly angry post was only pertaining to the Darwin Award comment, which I still stand by 100% knowing that my position is fairly common. I would surely give more fair judgement than the typical bonehead juror (voter) despite my guess that the verdict of this trial is a foregone conclusion in Zimmerman's favour.
vive la insurrection: When you compare your life situations with the case going on, or pass judgment on how you would be a juror over the parents / child you still don't cross the bridge to any statement that can go anywhere other than maybe "aesthetics" or "psychologisms" - which is usually a dead end topic.
I'm not trying to elevate my position on what should be done with someone like Trayvon. If people want Trayvons around them, fine by me. I'll sit by and laugh. But I'm not going to let a pro-active stance on safety be slandered as some sort of knee-jerk nutter position. Btw, I knew someone that thought police should just be able to kill people without bothering with trials.
But I'm not going to let a pro-active stance on safety be slandered as some sort of knee-jerk nutter position. Btw, I knew someone that thought police should just be able to kill people without bothering with trials.
This stuff can't really be discussed unless it relevant to practice
When you say "I wan to kill X" (not that you said this, but just go with this as at least somewhat of a relevant example) in the void of the internet - I am saying it gets lost in translation - there isn't enough "real" context. Especially on the internet, where everything is automatically abstract (kudos for using your real name). I mean, would you take life changing financial advice from some forum internet avatar?
Caley McKibbin: More silly mind games, I see. It tells you that you did the same thing I did. You can keep skating or knock it off.
Provide me with some evidence, please.
Caley McKibbin: Obviously, not that being a psychologist guarantees a good result. A better question: was there a good reason to bring it up? Do you want this thread to be about me or what? I certainly don't
Wow. Obviously people need to be psychologists in order to recognize the emotion "anger"? Are you trolling me?
Bring up what? That you are an angry person? My reason was I could not see a better response to what you wrote to me. No, I'd prefer this thread to be about Trayvon Martin, but you keep bringing up these anecdotal stories from your life that have nothing to do with Trayvon Martin.
Caley McKibbin: It seems like a terrible analogy if you compare apples and oranges. We don't know how Hitler acted every night. We only know the value system he expressed publicly, as in Trayvon's case. Even if you don't like that analogy I'm sure you can think of one that suits you and captures my point.
It seems like a terrible analogy if you compare apples and oranges. We don't know how Hitler acted every night. We only know the value system he expressed publicly, as in Trayvon's case. Even if you don't like that analogy I'm sure you can think of one that suits you and captures my point.
No, it's a terrible analogy because it does not matter how Hitler acted every night. We know what crimes Hitler committed, and how he acted on any particular night is irrelevant to the fact of whether or not he is guilty of the crimes he committed. How Trayvon Martin acted the night in question is entirely relevant because that is the "crime" that is in question. How he acted on other nights does speak to his character, which in turn can help provide reasonable doubt. But the analogy between Trayvon Martin and Adolf Hitler is crap. Are you trolling me with this? Seriously, I can't tell.
Caley McKibbin: I don't see myself "calling for the death of someone who has not demonstrated that he deserves it". I definitely wouldn't want anything done to Zimmerman based on this event given what is known so far in this case.
I don't see myself "calling for the death of someone who has not demonstrated that he deserves it". I definitely wouldn't want anything done to Zimmerman based on this event given what is known so far in this case.
You know full well that I am not accusing you of calling for the death of Zimmerman.
Caley McKibbin: But that seems sort of irrelevant given that my supposedly angry post was only pertaining to the Darwin Award comment, which I still stand by 100% knowing that my position is fairly common.
But that seems sort of irrelevant given that my supposedly angry post was only pertaining to the Darwin Award comment, which I still stand by 100% knowing that my position is fairly common.
You stand by this statement?
Caley McKibbin: Get it now? Trash belongs in the bin and anyone wanting to emulate trash can go into the bin too because nobody but fairies in a high chair want to try sorting them out and waiting for something to happen.
And you try to say that you aren't calling for the deaths of people. I'd love to see what you write when you are calling for the deaths of people.
Caley McKibbin: I would surely give more fair judgement than the typical bonehead juror (voter) despite my guess that the verdict of this trial is a foregone conclusion in Zimmerman's favour.
I would surely give more fair judgement than the typical bonehead juror (voter) despite my guess that the verdict of this trial is a foregone conclusion in Zimmerman's favour.
No, you most definitely would not, considering that you said you stand by the idea that anyone who pretends to be a thug ought to die, I cannot imagine how you could ever give a fair judgement in this case. But I thought this wasn't supposed to be about you...so why did you bring it up?
...looks like he looks just fine
After the release of the photo, however, Dershowitz went much further, telling Breitbart News that if the prosecutors did have the photo and didn’t mention it in the affidavit, that would constitute a “grave ethical violation,” since affidavits are supposed to contain “all relevant information.” Dershowitz continued, “An affidavit that willfully misstates undisputed evidence known to the prosecution is not only unethical but borders on perjury because an affiant swears to tell not only the truth, but the whole truth, and suppressing an important part of the whole truth is a lie." When asked if it made a difference whether the prosecution had the bloody photograph at the time they charged Zimmerman, Dershowitz responded, “We do know that there were earlier photographs before the affidavit was done that strongly suggested blood on the back of the head, and we know the police had first access to him, so if there was blood they [the prosecution] would know about it …
After the release of the photo, however, Dershowitz went much further, telling Breitbart News that if the prosecutors did have the photo and didn’t mention it in the affidavit, that would constitute a “grave ethical violation,” since affidavits are supposed to contain “all relevant information.”
Dershowitz continued, “An affidavit that willfully misstates undisputed evidence known to the prosecution is not only unethical but borders on perjury because an affiant swears to tell not only the truth, but the whole truth, and suppressing an important part of the whole truth is a lie."
When asked if it made a difference whether the prosecution had the bloody photograph at the time they charged Zimmerman, Dershowitz responded, “We do know that there were earlier photographs before the affidavit was done that strongly suggested blood on the back of the head, and we know the police had first access to him, so if there was blood they [the prosecution] would know about it …
At the end of the article, Dershowitz not so subtly acuses Florida of having dishonest prosecutors for some time now.
The thing is, if Zimmerman's head injuries were so severe, why wasn't he treated for them?
What do you mean by "treated for them"? Do you mean at a hospital? Because I believe from the article that he was treated on site by paramedics.
Besides, does it matter if he was treated for them? From the picture, it's obvious that his head was bashed at least once. Just once is probably enough to demonstrate that he feared for his life. Should he have let his head be bashed twice? More?
How did the fight go to the ground in the first place? Did Zimmerman try to tackle Trayvon and then lose position? Did Trayvon drop Zimmerman and then follow him to the ground? Was Trayvon bashing Zimmerman's head while standing over him or while in mount?
I wonder if Zimmerman shot Trayvon while he was getting his head bashed against the ground?
I just don't quite understand how the fight unfolded yet.
gotlucky:What do you mean by "treated for them"? Do you mean at a hospital? Because I believe from the article that he was treated on site by paramedics.
I read that he wasn't admitted to a hospital or given any stitches for his head wounds. I thought I had read that paramedics didn't treat him either, but I could be wrong.
gotlucky:Besides, does it matter if he was treated for them? From the picture, it's obvious that his head was bashed at least once. Just once is probably enough to demonstrate that he feared for his life. Should he have let his head be bashed twice? More?
That's not what I'm saying - please don't put words in my mouth (if that's what you're doing).
From what I understand, wounds can appear more serious than they really are. Superficial wounds can produce a lot of bleeding.
Autolykos: I read that he wasn't admitted to a hospital or given any stitches for his head wounds. I thought I had read that paramedics didn't treat him either, but I could be wrong.
I reread the article, and this one in particle does not mention paramedics treating him. However, there were some articles earlier in the thread that mentioned paramedics treating him (I know for certain that one of them was in one of That Old Guy's posts).
Autolykos: That's not what I'm saying - please don't put words in my mouth (if that's what you're doing). From what I understand, wounds can appear more serious than they really are. Superficial wounds can produce a lot of bleeding.
Oopsies . I assumed you were insinuating that if his injuries were not severe enough that he was not acting in self-defense. My mistake. ?
bloomj31: I just don't quite understand how the fight unfolded yet.
I don't think any of us ever will.
Autolykos: From what I understand, wounds can appear more serious than they really are. Superficial wounds can produce a lot of bleeding.
To use a parallel, if someone robbed me of only $1.00 instead of $500.00, are you saying that I should resist less in one scenario than the other due to the severity of the assault? My point is that degree doesn't matter in situations of principle.
That's not what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is that, if Zimmerman's injuries were superficial, it would cast doubt on the validity of his justification for shooting Martin, i.e. in self-defense.
gotlucky:Oopsies . I assumed you were insinuating that if his injuries were not severe enough that he was not acting in self-defense. My mistake. ?
My mind is not made up about whether Zimmerman justifiably shot and killed Martin. I'm inclined for the time being to think that it wasn't justified. Regarding acting in self-defense, if you punch me in the nose and I then shoot you in the head, killing you almost instantly, I'd say that I was not in any way acting in justifiable self-defense.
The first question that has to be answered is whether or not Zimmerman initiated the physical conflict.
From John James' article:
“Even if George Zimmerman was injured in his fight,” said Abrams, “it doesn’t change the fact that the prosecutors clearly believe that Zimmerman was the aggressor. And if Zimmerman was the aggressor and they got into a fight, that doesn’t allow him to use deadly force. It simply — you can’t be losing a fight and then decide to use your gun to protect yourself.”