Martin/Zimmerman-----Poll

[The Man]

Read earlier that the judge will not be allowing evidence on Martins phone showing fight refereeing ,pictures of posing with illegal weapons and pictures of naked minors..also social media exchanges of attacks by Martin on others will not be allowed.
While I could see this in many cases as being proper,I do not see how this is proper as Martins gets to be painted an Angel kid...and his history of aggression is being suppressed.
The jury will be left with "Did this angel attack the watchman?"
Truth is we will never actually know what happened during that minute or so where a life was taken.
The jury is left up to their "best guess" while making the vote....IMO the characters of both should be fully presented to the jurors.
Just as Zimmerman as an over eager watchman is important...it is also important to show Martin being known to enjoy fights etc.
How can the jurors make an honest guess as to what happened?

 

[Kakapo Dundee]

Read earlier that the judge will not be allowing evidence on Martins phone showing fight refereeing ,pictures of posing with illegal weapons and pictures of naked minors..also social media exchanges of attacks by Martin on others will not be allowed.
?

Because they are obviously not relevant to the case . The defence will have to focus on the relevant facts, and justifying the killer's actions instead of attempting to smear the victim's reputation.

 

[Kakapo Dundee]

IMO the characters of both should be fully presented to the jurors.
Just as Zimmerman as an over eager watchman is important...it is also important to show Martin being known to enjoy fights etc.
How can the jurors make an honest guess as to what happened?

Thankfully, the law is usually written by smarter people. You are judged on facts, not on which side can fling the most crap.

hypothetical situation - a traffic officer is called to an accident scene, and finds two cars collided. One driver is drunk, the other is known to the police for speeding offences. The drunk should be charged with DUI. No question about it, easy to prove. Was the other driver speeding at the time of the accident? Unless you have witnesses who consistently say that he was, you don't have any right to presume that he was.As to the cause of the accident, again that's down to witness testimony.Whatever happens, the drunk gets charged with DUI.

The facts in the Zimmerman case are astoundingly simple. Zimmerman spotted Treyvon Martin, assumed that he was a potential criminal, and called it in to police dispatch.Police dispatch advised him not to engage, but Zimmerman got out his truck, followed Treyvon Martin and killed him.

Should be a very short trial.

 

[Tangerine]

Because even if Martin were a serial killer with a prison record a mile long, Zimmerman had no way of knowing this simply by looking at him. He made an assumption based on his outward appearance alone, and that is extremely relevant to this case.

 

[The Man]

Because even if Martin were a serial killer with a prison record a mile long, Zimmerman had no way of knowing this simply by looking at him. He made an assumption based on his outward appearance alone, and that is extremely relevant to this case.

I agree.
However he is claiming self defense to an attack..the character of the one shot is very relevant as to the likelihood of an attack by the deceased.
Lets face it had there been no attack there would have been no shooting....the history of the deceased violence is very relevant.
The prosecutor will paint him as an angel..the defense should be able to prove otherwise.

 

[The Man]

Thankfully, the law is usually written by smarter people. You are judged on facts, not on which side can fling the most crap.

hypothetical situation - a traffic officer is called to an accident scene, and finds two cars collided. One driver is drunk, the other is known to the police for speeding offences. The drunk should be charged with DUI. No question about it, easy to prove. Was the other driver speeding at the time of the accident? Unless you have witnesses who consistently say that he was, you don't have any right to presume that he was.As to the cause of the accident, again that's down to witness testimony.Whatever happens, the drunk gets charged with DUI.

The facts in the Zimmerman case are astoundingly simple. Zimmerman spotted Treyvon Martin, assumed that he was a potential criminal, and called it in to police dispatch.Police dispatch advised him not to engage, but Zimmerman got out his truck, followed Treyvon Martin and killed him.

Should be a very short trial.

You are judged on facts, not on which side can fling the most crap.

Sadly in the states it is who can fling the most crap....thus why they do it.

hypothetical situation - a traffic officer is called to an accident scene, and finds two cars collided. One driver is drunk, the other is known to the police for speeding offences. The drunk should be charged with DUI. No question about it, easy to prove. Was the other driver speeding at the time of the accident? Unless you have witnesses who consistently say that he was, you don't have any right to presume that he was.As to the cause of the accident, again that's down to witness testimony.Whatever happens, the drunk gets charged with DUI.

I could see your point if one shot the other after the accident....the mental state of both becomes very relevant as to why the shooting occurred.

The facts in the Zimmerman case are astoundingly simple. Zimmerman spotted Treyvon Martin, assumed that he was a potential criminal, and called it in to police dispatch.Police dispatch advised him not to engage, but Zimmerman got out his truck, followed Treyvon Martin and killed him.

I see where you are going with this...following martin does not automatically make him guilty of murder.
It could have been a cop his brother a neighbor anyone eying him to see where he went...that doesnt give Martin a right to bash his head on the sidewalk break his nose etc.
You are giving to much thought to the dispatch saying "we dont need you to do that"

Example..lets say I just got robbed during a home invasion and say they are driving off now "I will see which way they go"...they say "we dont need you to do that"
I go out on the front porch to see which way they are going to go...he runs up and starts beating me to death..he gets shot...should I be charged with murder...No.

The fact remains that he would have come up and started beating me to death whether or not I just talked to 911.{above}
Additionally{Zimmerman} the advice by 911 was just that advice ..not an order....They cant instruct Zimmerman that he can not see where someone has ran to.

It is not a crime to not take advice,,if that was the case they would first charge and convict him of a crime "by not following orders" then convict him of murder.

Example lets say one is committing a felony of burglary ..the home owner starts to hit you with a board ....you shoot him...you cant claim self defense as you were committing a felony at the time...Our laws here are more complex than the black and white laws possibly in NZ.

 

[The Man]

You cant not go around attempting to do seriously bodily injury to a watchman as he makes effort to see where you went after you ran from him upon spotting him in his SUV.

 

[Kakapo Dundee]

Using Tangerine's argument,Treyvon Martin would also have no idea whether Zimmerman was a serial killer. Was Zimmerman wearing a uniform?

The manual, from the National Neighborhood Watch Program, states: "It should be emphasized to members that they do not possess police powers, and they shall not carry weapons or pursue vehicles. They should also be cautioned to alert police or deputies when encountering strange activity. Members should never confront suspicious persons who could be armed and dangerous."

But then, Zimmerman's vigilante group wasn't registered with the National Neighborhood Watch Program.

 

[Kakapo Dundee]

You are giving to much thought to the dispatch saying "we dont need you to do that"

Nope. If Zimmerman had obeyed a reasonable instruction from a trained police dispatcher, Treyvon Martin would still be alive. If he'd stuck to the manual, from the National Neighborhood Watch Program, there is no way that he would have picked a fight with Treyvon Martin.

The vigilante profiling and pseudo-heroics may be acceptable to the KKK, the NRA and any number of other simpletons, but the law was never intended to exonerate those who shoot their way out of a fist fight that they instigated.

 

[The Man]

Using Tangerine's argument,Treyvon Martin would also have no idea whether Zimmerman was a serial killer. Was Zimmerman wearing a uniform?

The manual, from the National Neighborhood Watch Program, states: "It should be emphasized to members that they do not possess police powers, and they shall not carry weapons or pursue vehicles. They should also be cautioned to alert police or deputies when encountering strange activity. Members should never confront suspicious persons who could be armed and dangerous."

But then, Zimmerman's vigilante group wasn't registered with the National Neighborhood Watch Program.

Using Tangerine's argument,Treyvon Martin would also have no idea whether Zimmerman was a serial killer. Was Zimmerman wearing a uniform?

True,
However he saw Zimmerman in his SUV on the phone then bolted...why would we he think he was a serial killer or such ?

But then, Zimmerman's vigilante group wasn't registered with the National Neighborhood Watch Program

If he wasnt registered with the neighborhood watch then why do you want to hold him to the neighborhood watch manual as far as conduct?

"It should be emphasized to members that they do not possess police powers, and they shall not carry weapons or pursue vehicles. They should also be cautioned to alert police or deputies when encountering strange activity. Members should never confront suspicious persons who could be armed and dangerous."

You already stated he wasnt registered with the neighborhood watch...so its now meaningless.

 

[The Man]

Nope. If Zimmerman had obeyed a reasonable instruction from a trained police dispatcher, Treyvon Martin would still be alive. If he'd stuck to the manual, from the National Neighborhood Watch Program, there is no way that he would have picked a fight with Treyvon Martin.

The vigilante profiling and pseudo-heroics may be acceptable to the KKK, the NRA and any number of other simpletons, but the law was never intended to exonerate those who shoot their way out of a fist fight that they instigated.

If he'd stuck to the manual, from the National Neighborhood Watch Program, there is no way that he would have picked a fight with Treyvon Martin.

You have already stated he wasnt registered with them.

there is no way that he would have picked a fight with Treyvon Martin.

Where is your documentation Zimmerman picked a fight with martin?
Are there any wounds on martin from being hit?...even if there was that would not prove Zimmerman picked a fight.

The vigilante profiling and pseudo-heroics may be acceptable to the KKK, the NRA and any number of other simpletons, but the law was never intended to exonerate those who shoot their way out of a fist fight that they instigated.

You havent shown that Zimmerman started a fight.
You must also remember a simple fist fight does not allow shooting for the sake of "he started it" as a defense.
Example...someone slaps you for taking a parking place you cant shoot them....however if you are getting your head smashed into the sidewalk you may become very fearful for your life and do what you have to do.
You seem to be forgetting here that hands can also be deadly weapons...getting your head smashed on the sidewalk is serious.

You can always have the argument of "if he had stayed in the SUV martin would still be alive"
Had Martin not been bashing his head he would be alive today.,,if you want to use ifs.
Lets face it...he picked the wrong dude to smash his head into the cement..this guy had a gun...bottom line.
He saw zimmerman then took off running.
Zimmerman looked to see where he went.
Martin was not that far from his home....had plenty of time to get there..but rather hid in between buildings.
Martin had enough time to make it home during the time that Zimmerman was on the phone with the police.{but rather hid in between buildings}
The fight happened much closer to the SUV than martins house.
Zimmerman didnt track him down in between buildings and pick a fight.
Remember the fight took place on the sidewalk....which shows that Martin came to Zimmerman...as Martin had bolted prior remember and was hiding in between buildings.
Where the shooting took place shows Zimmerman was on his way back to his SUV not further down the sidewalk where he ended the call with 911{thus was on his way back}...and using the sidewalk.
In other words martin came back to zimmerman AFTER zimmerman stopped trying to see where he went.
A fight took place...who started it is open to speculation..but one thing for sure..the head wounds and broken nose are real and happened BEFORE the shooting.

The moral here is not to circle an suv then bolt when you see the guy on the phone
Next if the guy follows you you may want to go home rather than hide in between buildings
If the guy stops looking for you then is heading back to his SUV you dont come out from in between the buildings and start smashing his head into the cement.....you go home.
Why run when you see Zimmerman using the phone?...Fear of what?
IMO this suggests that Martin was worried he had been seen doing something wrong in the recent past or at least thought he had been seen doing something wrong....thus the bolting.

Martin had plenty of time to go home....If he was genuinely scared of the guy in the suv on the phone{and bolted due to such} then why did he not go home while Zimmerman was going back to his SUV?...or at least stay hidden until Zimmerman was gone?

 

[Alien Allen]

You can always have the argument of "if he had stayed in the SUV martin would still be alive"

If one uses that argument then the same can be said if Martin had gone straight home he would still be alive.

If I was Martin and afraid of being attacked by a stranger I would be hightailing it home. Which I believe he did not do.

Does that make Martin guilty? Nope. Neither does it make Zimmerman guilty

 

[The Man]

If one uses that argument then the same can be said if Martin had gone straight home he would still be alive.

If I was Martin and afraid of being attacked by a stranger I would be hightailing it home. Which I believe he did not do.

Does that make Martin guilty? Nope. Neither does it make Zimmerman guilty

Exactly.

 

[Kakapo Dundee]

You have already stated he wasnt registered with them.

Where is your documentation Zimmerman picked a fight with martin?
Are there any wounds on martin from being hit?...even if there was that would not prove Zimmerman picked a fight.


You havent shown that Zimmerman started a fight.?

Zimmerman picked a fight the moment that he ignored the police dispatcher's instructions and left his vehicle.He had been specifically told that it was not neccesary for him to follow Treyvon Martin, yet he chose to stalk him.

Still, we can continue to go round in circles if you insist on defending incompetent vigilante killers.

 

[Kakapo Dundee]

If one uses that argument then the same can be said if Martin had gone straight home he would still be alive.

If I was Martin and afraid of being attacked by a stranger I would be hightailing it home. Which I believe he did not do.

What a complete load of crap. Last I heard, even in America, you have the right to walk down the street at night without being set upon by vigilantes. If Treyvon Martin was not doing anything illegal, and there's no evidence to suggest that he was, he had no reason to believe that he would be attacked by a vigilante. Treyvon Martin's motives for his chosen route will never be known. Zimmerman effectively silenced him by shooting him dead at point blank range.

Zimmerman's motives, on the other hand, appear quite clear. He wasn't interested in any of the rules and responsibilities of his volunteer position. He ignored instructions from the police dispatcher and deliberately put himself at risk. When his stalking turned bad on him , he shot an unarmed man with a gun that he shouldn't have been carrying as part of his watchman's responsibilities. Instead of assisting the police by identifying persons of interest, he stalked and killed a teenager for the crime of 'looking suspicious'.

I'm very clear on my motives for supporting Treyvon Martin. Amateur patrols are not police, should not attempt to do police work, and should under no circumstances be trusted to carry firearms. The fact that Zimmerman ignored the basic rules of the post that he volunteered for, and then attempted to mislead the judicial system over his assets shows that Zimmerman has little respect for rules or authority,which makes him the very worst kind of volunteer for the job.
Questions should be asked why he wasn't weeded out long before he killed someone.

 

[The Man]

Zimmerman picked a fight the moment that he ignored the police dispatcher's instructions and left his vehicle.He had been specifically told that it was not neccesary for him to follow Treyvon Martin, yet he chose to stalk him.

Still, we can continue to go round in circles if you insist on defending incompetent vigilante killers.

So...if your mom told you to not go play with the neighbor kid and you did anyway...he bashed your head in...that means you picked the fight according to your logic.....circular logic

Also he wasnt told to not leave his vehicle...he was already out trying to kid sight of the young man BEFORE dispatch stated "we do not need you to do that"

As said you are putting to much weight on "we dont need you to do that"
As stated prior by myself...if doing such was a crime / they would convict him of it so they could have an actual murder trial rather than the rr job we have now.

 

[The Man]

What a complete load of crap. Last I heard, even in America, you have the right to walk down the street at night without being set upon by vigilantes. If Treyvon Martin was not doing anything illegal, and there's no evidence to suggest that he was, he had no reason to believe that he would be attacked by a vigilante. Treyvon Martin's motives for his chosen route will never be known. Zimmerman effectively silenced him by shooting him dead at point blank range.

Zimmerman's motives, on the other hand, appear quite clear. He wasn't interested in any of the rules and responsibilities of his volunteer position. He ignored instructions from the police dispatcher and deliberately put himself at risk. When his stalking turned bad on him , he shot an unarmed man with a gun that he shouldn't have been carrying as part of his watchman's responsibilities. Instead of assisting the police by identifying persons of interest, he stalked and killed a teenager for the crime of 'looking suspicious'.

I'm very clear on my motives for supporting Treyvon Martin. Amateur patrols are not police, should not attempt to do police work, and should under no circumstances be trusted to carry firearms. The fact that Zimmerman ignored the basic rules of the post that he volunteered for, and then attempted to mislead the judicial system over his assets shows that Zimmerman has little respect for rules or authority,which makes him the very worst kind of volunteer for the job.
Questions should be asked why he wasn't weeded out long before he killed someone.

he had no reason to believe that he would be attacked by a vigilante.

You just crushed your own argument...if he had no reason to believe Zimmerman was going to attack him...then why did martin try to beat him to death?

Treyvon Martin's motives for his chosen route will never be known.

He saw Zimmerman on the phone and bolted...his motive was to vacate before police arrived?..Why take off running when you see the watchman on the phone? As said prior by myself Martin had either been seen prior doing something or suspected he had IMO
The pictures of stacks of jewelry on his phone pics could support this due to the fact that the many units that had been broken into were stripped of their jewelry

Zimmerman effectively silenced him by shooting him dead at point blank range.

The other choice was to let him continue bashing his head on the sidewalk.

Zimmerman's motives, on the other hand, appear quite clear

To see where he ran to.
He did not set out to go find martin and shoot him.
Why the fuck would you let someone smash your head into the cement if you plan on shooting them?
Give me a break with the vigilante bullshit....you are the perfect example why people get fucked at jury trials.

He ignored instructions from the police dispatcher and deliberately put himself at risk.

Big fucking deal..just because he didnt take the advice of dispatch does not give martin the right to bash his head on the sidewalk.
To further martin had no way of knowing the conversation he had with dispatch.
Please stop being intentionally difficult.
Dispatch would give you the same advice if a building was burning and you said you were going in to find your brother....going in is not a fucking crime.

he shot an unarmed man with a gun that he shouldn't have been carrying as part of his watchman's responsibilities.

He was off duty remember.{thus why he was legally packing}
Also good thing he had it or he could have been beat to death by the troubled young man.
And before you respond with nonsense a fireman is not supposed to take a gun to a fire ..but can carry one {if he has a permit} off duty and yes if he sees smoke on the way home he can check it out.

When his stalking turned bad on him

There you fucking go again...if Martin was being "stalked" then why didnt he call the police rather lay and wait then bash his head on the sidewalk?
Give me a fucking break....but he rather chose to talk to his girlfriend during the stalking.
Remember Zimmerman was attacked on the sidewalk on the way back to his suv...at this point he was the one being stalked.

Instead of assisting the police by identifying persons of interest, he stalked and killed a teenager for the crime of 'looking suspicious'.

ROFL...you may want to to some research before responding in the thread...Zimmerman had multiple wounds upon his head...some from impacts with the sidewalk....He shot him{Martin} during a beating.
If he wanted to shoot someone for looking suspicious as you say...he wouldnt have called the cops first..nor let the guy bash his head.

I'm very clear on my motives for supporting Treyvon Martin.

Quite obvious...you cant keep your nose out of American politics

and should under no circumstances be trusted to carry firearms

It was a legal weapons and he has{d} a CCP as well.
Good thing uh or he may have been killed.

 

[The Man]

Welcome back by the way...you American wanna be

 

[Kakapo Dundee]

Welcome back by the way...you American wanna be

Good to see that you still can't respond in a logical and credible manner.

However you try to slide out of it with semantics, Zimmerman's actions were excessive and unnecessary. He had no need to be anywhere near Treyvon Martin,and yet he stalked him.You don't have one shred of evidence to suggest that Zimmerman didn't instigate any fight, and I would contend that a person walking down the street minding his own business is less likely to start a fight than a wannabe cop who has already ignored advice from police NOT to pursue him. IMO he's clearly guilty of manslaughter, and it's quite possible that he got away with murder only because there were no witnesses.

By sheer coincidence, the police shot and killed an armed burglar not far from here yesterday. It's kind of big news round here, not because the police were reckless or amateurish in any way, but because it's very rare . In a country of over 4 million people, just 10 criminals have been shot dead by police in the last 20 years.Only one bystander, who had the misfortune to drive into a gun battle between police and criminal has died in the last 20 years Only 4 officers have been shot dead by armed offenders in the same period. NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON HAS DIED AS A RESULT OF VIGILANTE ACTIONS.
Community patrols here are run to tight standards, and volunteers are properly trained and vetted so that loose cannons like Zimmerman get weeded out.

Quite honestly I can't see why Zimmerman isn't already in jail. He initiated a confrontation that led to the death of an unarmed teenager. I cannot fathom why anyone would want to defend such behaviour.

 

[Kakapo Dundee]

Quite obvious...you cant keep your nose out of American politics

Nice troll, but like most of your efforts, it's hopelessly off the mark.This has absolutely nothing to do with politics, this is a straightforward matter of law, and of law at it its simplest. There is not one country in the developed world that would tolerate the idea that a vigilante can select a man walking down the street minding his own business, presume him to guilty of criminal intent, stalk, engage, and then execute him without trial.

Anyone that think is Zimmerman did anything different clearly doesn't give a fuck about law or justice,and is simply getting off on the notion that carrying a gun is a heroic act that is above any form of responsibility or scrutiny.