Zimmerman charged in Florida in Bickering and Arkansas Discussion Forum

RSS
Email

0 Points

Zimmerman charged in Florida

Author	Comment
ThisCharmingFan		#121	[url]	[-]
Posts: 13581 April 15, 2012 3:29 PM The disputatious one	Remove this ad Pointerpride102 wrote: bhambadger wrote: Bobadger wrote: Maybe you can help, but I can't come up with a scenario in my mind that would allow Martin to physically attack Zimmerman that makes any sense at all. Zimmerman: Hey kid, what are you doing here? Martin: (Silence, keeps walking) Zimmerman: Hey kid. I'm talking to you. What are you doing here. Martin: (Silence, walks a little faster) Zimmerman: (picking up his pace) Hey kid stop right there. You looking for trouble? And there's the start of a possible scene that led to this confrontation. Think Martin would have cause to believe that his well-being was in danger under this scenario? A simple "no" would suffice there. Why should he have to answer? I guess not answering is cause to shoot someone.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
Bobadger		#122	[url]	[-]
Posts: 1461 April 15, 2012 3:33 PM	ThisCharmingFan wrote: Pointerpride102 wrote: bhambadger wrote: Bobadger wrote: Maybe you can help, but I can't come up with a scenario in my mind that would allow Martin to physically attack Zimmerman that makes any sense at all. Zimmerman: Hey kid, what are you doing here? Martin: (Silence, keeps walking) Zimmerman: Hey kid. I'm talking to you. What are you doing here. Martin: (Silence, walks a little faster) Zimmerman: (picking up his pace) Hey kid stop right there. You looking for trouble? And there's the start of a possible scene that led to this confrontation. Think Martin would have cause to believe that his well-being was in danger under this scenario? A simple "no" would suffice there. Why should he have to answer? I guess not answering is cause to shoot someone. What? No. That has nothing to do with what is being discussed. "I guess someone asking a question is cause to physically attack them" was what you were looking for....
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
yanked		#123	[url]	[-]
Posts: 17408 April 15, 2012 3:38 PM	Was Martin a bull? He was so scared that he charged the guy in the SUV, armed with skittles, looking to beat the guy as he got out of the vehicle? He couldn't run through a yard or sprint away down the street in the evening? Would a question like "hey, what are you doing" create such terror that you'd automatically think, chargggggge! And then, as the words flow out of the short fat Zimmerman's mouth your life would flash before your eyes and you'd start punching him repeatedly? So its solved. Martin was just protecting himself. Zimmerman was just protecting himself too. They both stood their ground. Case closed. As I suspected, progressives have a Koch Fetish.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
bhambadger		#124	[url]	[-]
Posts: 8306 April 15, 2012 6:02 PM pussycraptacular	bobger, I should have added, which was my intent at the outset, that the question have an authoritarian tone to them. Zimmerman thought of himself as a neighborhood watch captain (even though there was no formal neighborhood watch group), so I don't think it's that much of a stretch to say he would have taken a stern tone with Martin while following him, had he asked these questions. The question was if it were possible to have a situation where Martin felt threatened just because he was being followed. I think I laid out a pretty simple scenario that says it is very possible. People are bastard coated bastards with bastard filling.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
Bobadger		#125	[url]	[-]
Posts: 1461 April 15, 2012 6:34 PM	bhambadger wrote: bobger, I should have added, which was my intent at the outset, that the question have an authoritarian tone to them. Zimmerman thought of himself as a neighborhood watch captain (even though there was no formal neighborhood watch group), so I don't think it's that much of a stretch to say he would have taken a stern tone with Martin while following him, had he asked these questions. The question was if it were possible to have a situation where Martin felt threatened just because he was being followed. I think I laid out a pretty simple scenario that says it is very possible. How would someone asking you "what are you doing" lead to a fear of great bodily harm that would justify physically attacking someone? That is ridiculous IMO. Let's put it this way, if you saw someone who you genuinely believed was suspicious and you approached them and asked them "what are you doing?" and they followed that by physically attacking you, you think that is justifiable? Because I don't, and I think it would be really hard to convince a jury of that.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
bhambadger		#126	[url]	[-]
Posts: 8306 April 15, 2012 6:57 PM pussycraptacular	Bobadger wrote: bhambadger wrote: bobger, I should have added, which was my intent at the outset, that the question have an authoritarian tone to them. Zimmerman thought of himself as a neighborhood watch captain (even though there was no formal neighborhood watch group), so I don't think it's that much of a stretch to say he would have taken a stern tone with Martin while following him, had he asked these questions. The question was if it were possible to have a situation where Martin felt threatened just because he was being followed. I think I laid out a pretty simple scenario that says it is very possible. How would someone asking you "what are you doing" lead to a fear of great bodily harm that would justify physically attacking someone? That is ridiculous IMO. Let's put it this way, if you saw someone who you genuinely believed was suspicious and you approached them and asked them "what are you doing?" and they followed that by physically attacking you, you think that is justifiable? Because I don't, and I think it would be really hard to convince a jury of that. So if someone who is bigger than you, who is not a police officer, who has been following you for a block or so, says in an authoritative tone "what are you doing?" when you are doing nothing more than walking home in the rain and talking on your cellphone, you don't think that is threatening? then add to the fact that he gets close enough to you that an altercation can develop, and I think it's pretty easy to see that Martin could have been standing his ground. I don't think that's much of a stretch. Second... Now, Martin had no way of knowing that Zimmerman had a gun, but we do know that he had a history of calling 911 and has in his past been charge with assaulting a cop and two domestic assault charges. I bring this up for no other reason than to talk about his frame of mind at the time of the incident. I would say he has a history of been aggressive, so I'm going to guess that he was assertive/aggressive with Martin. In turn there is no history over violent action on Martin's behalf, so playing Occum's Razor I'm going to say that Zimmerman was the aggressor. People are bastard coated bastards with bastard filling.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
Bobadger		#127	[url]	[-]
Posts: 1461 April 15, 2012 7:31 PM	bhambadger wrote: Bobadger wrote: bhambadger wrote: bobger, I should have added, which was my intent at the outset, that the question have an authoritarian tone to them. Zimmerman thought of himself as a neighborhood watch captain (even though there was no formal neighborhood watch group), so I don't think it's that much of a stretch to say he would have taken a stern tone with Martin while following him, had he asked these questions. The question was if it were possible to have a situation where Martin felt threatened just because he was being followed. I think I laid out a pretty simple scenario that says it is very possible. How would someone asking you "what are you doing" lead to a fear of great bodily harm that would justify physically attacking someone? That is ridiculous IMO. Let's put it this way, if you saw someone who you genuinely believed was suspicious and you approached them and asked them "what are you doing?" and they followed that by physically attacking you, you think that is justifiable? Because I don't, and I think it would be really hard to convince a jury of that. So if someone who is bigger than you, who is not a police officer, who has been following you for a block or so, says in an authoritative tone "what are you doing?" when you are doing nothing more than walking home in the rain and talking on your cellphone, you don't think that is threatening? then add to the fact that he gets close enough to you that an altercation can develop, and I think it's pretty easy to see that Martin could have been standing his ground. I don't think that's much of a stretch. Second... Now, Martin had no way of knowing that Zimmerman had a gun, but we do know that he had a history of calling 911 and has in his past been charge with assaulting a cop and two domestic assault charges. I bring this up for no other reason than to talk about his frame of mind at the time of the incident. I would say he has a history of been aggressive, so I'm going to guess that he was assertive/aggressive with Martin. In turn there is no history over violent action on Martin's behalf, so playing Occum's Razor I'm going to say that Zimmerman was the aggressor. Would I believe that I was in danger of bodily harm if someone asked me what I was doing as I was walking through a neighborhood in an assertive manner? No.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
ryebadger		#128	[url]	[-]
Posts: 5129 April 15, 2012 7:43 PM	Bobadger wrote: ryebadger wrote: If Martin was the first person to resort to physical violence, that doesn't appear in the least to be self defense from the facts that we have on hand. ---------------------------------------------------------- What facts do we have on hand that show this? What facts do we have on hand that show otherwise? You can't just attack someone physically for following you or confronting you in a neighborhood. That is all we know about what happened. Maybe you can help, but I can't come up with a scenario in my mind that would allow Martin to physically attack Zimmerman that makes any sense at all. I already laid out several scenarios under which Martin could be justified in physically attacking Zimmerman. You may not think it's reasonable for an unarmed person to attack someone with a gun but that doesn't make it so. You have no idea what went on between the two, or what could have been said or done to make Martin react a certain way. As has been said, Martin is entitled to self defense as well, and if all he had were his fists that's all he could use. Your convenient narrative is not "all we know". Not by a longshot. First, You don't even know who threw the first punch or initiated physical contact, how Zimmerman approached Martin or anything about that scene at all. You don't know that Zimmerman simply "followed" Martin. You don't know that at all. At this point it's all conjecture. And, there are some additional things you do know. Zimmerman was in pursuit, in a confrontational mood after he disregarded the dispatcher's polite suggestion to back off and instead go after the punks who always get away, and carrying a loaded gun. You also know he has difficulty controlling his temper from his prior arrest for assaulting a cop and the restraining order for domestic abuse. Since you were so moved by Martin's school suspension,that prior record is relevant too, no? So based on those facts is it totally outside the realm of possibility that Zimmerman would have done more than said "excuse me good sir, but I do not recognize you and might inquire whether you are lost and in need of assistance"? Maybe he was a tad more aggressive, got in Martin's face, pushed him or even flashed his gun. You don't know that at all, any more than you know that Martin, who was scared and trying to flee (another thing we know) just attacked Zimmerman out of the blue. It could have been that Zimmerman just asked Martin what he was doing and Martin clocked him. But there is enough before us to at least make it possible that Zimmerman was more aggressive, perhaps even the first to threaten or use force. Which makes Sanford's ability to conclusively determine what happened that same night all the more remarkable. As always, this post is written with the express proviso that I am not a chicken little. The sky is not falling. My office window does not have a ledge. I'm happy we won. I heard some ranked teams even lost. I'm glad we are not Virginia Tech. I like our coach. I know these are 19 year old kids. The season is young. Mistakes will get cleaned up. Fowler said even Alabama threw an interception once. The other guys are on scholarship, too. After living through the Don morton era, I'm just glad to be here.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
Bobadger		#129	[url]	[-]
Posts: 1461 April 15, 2012 7:57 PM	You're the one who stated as a fact that Martin "legally defended himself with his fists." That just isn't a correct statement at this point. If Zimmerman got physical first then Martin's use of physical force was justified, I said that. If Zimmerman did not get physical first then it is hard to imagine a situation that Martin's use of physical force was justified.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
LeviBooth		#130	[url]	[-]
Posts: 10854 April 15, 2012 8:13 PM	Remove this ad Bobadger wrote: If Zimmerman did not get physical first then it is hard to imagine a situation that Martin's use of physical force was justified. Wow, it almost sounds like a legal matter to be decided by the proper authorities following the collection and assessment of evidence run through our legal system, rather than a rash determination done the evning it happened by non witnesses - why didn't rye think of that?
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
yanked		#131	[url]	[-]
Posts: 17408 April 15, 2012 8:21 PM	LeviBooth wrote: Bobadger wrote: If Zimmerman did not get physical first then it is hard to imagine a situation that Martin's use of physical force was justified. Wow, it almost sounds like a legal matter to be decided by the proper authorities following the collection and assessment of evidence run through our legal system, rather than a rash determination done the evning it happened by non witnesses - why didn't rye think of that? It didn't run through the legal system? Wouldn't that be the DA's decision not to prosecute or do they leave that up to the dispatcher? As I suspected, progressives have a Koch Fetish.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
Myles Long		#132	[url]	[-]
Posts: 15729 April 15, 2012 9:09 PM	LeviBooth wrote: Bobadger wrote: If Zimmerman did not get physical first then it is hard to imagine a situation that Martin's use of physical force was justified. Wow, it almost sounds like a legal matter to be decided by the proper authorities following the collection and assessment of evidence run through our legal system, rather than a rash determination done the evning it happened by non witnesses - why didn't rye think of that? Bo's a bit slow on the uptake. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room.' President Muffley --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- My Badger Sports Photos Older Tailgate/Bowl Trip Photos
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
ryebadger		#133	[url]	[-]
Posts: 5129 April 15, 2012 9:26 PM	Bobadger wrote: You're the one who stated as a fact that Martin "legally defended himself with his fists." That just isn't a correct statement at this point. If Zimmerman got physical first then Martin's use of physical force was justified, I said that. If Zimmerman did not get physical first then it is hard to imagine a situation that Martin's use of physical force was justified. I said that in the context of a discussion pointing out the irony of Martin being worse off for not being armed. I think I've been pretty consistent in stating that nobody knows exactly what went on - in fact that has been my entire point from the beginning. It's unfthomable to me that you are still clinging to the last sentence. Do you realize you are saying that Martin would not have been justified using physical force in response to an attempted aggravated assault? You continue to torture the very basis of Stand Your Ground. One does not need to wait for a physical attack in order to defend himself with physical force. The person who hit first could just as easily have been legally defending himself as the person who was the first to be hit. Stop turning the law on its head just to make the narrative convenient for your position. All of which is quite ironic, but the way, considering you went to the trouble of quoting a section of the statute to argue that Zimmerman would be justified using force even if he started it, yet you can't imagine a scenario where Martin might be entitled to use force if he did. As always, this post is written with the express proviso that I am not a chicken little. The sky is not falling. My office window does not have a ledge. I'm happy we won. I heard some ranked teams even lost. I'm glad we are not Virginia Tech. I like our coach. I know these are 19 year old kids. The season is young. Mistakes will get cleaned up. Fowler said even Alabama threw an interception once. The other guys are on scholarship, too. After living through the Don morton era, I'm just glad to be here.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
Bobadger		#134	[url]	[-]
Posts: 1461 April 15, 2012 10:47 PM	ryebadger wrote: Bobadger wrote: You're the one who stated as a fact that Martin "legally defended himself with his fists." That just isn't a correct statement at this point. If Zimmerman got physical first then Martin's use of physical force was justified, I said that. If Zimmerman did not get physical first then it is hard to imagine a situation that Martin's use of physical force was justified. I said that in the context of a discussion pointing out the irony of Martin being worse off for not being armed. I think I've been pretty consistent in stating that nobody knows exactly what went on - in fact that has been my entire point from the beginning. It's unfthomable to me that you are still clinging to the last sentence. Do you realize you are saying that Martin would not have been justified using physical force in response to an attempted aggravated assault? You continue to torture the very basis of Stand Your Ground. One does not need to wait for a physical attack in order to defend himself with physical force. The person who hit first could just as easily have been legally defending himself as the person who was the first to be hit. Stop turning the law on its head just to make the narrative convenient for your position. All of which is quite ironic, but the way, considering you went to the trouble of quoting a section of the statute to argue that Zimmerman would be justified using force even if he started it, yet you can't imagine a scenario where Martin might be entitled to use force if he did. I realize what the law says. I am pointing out that there isn't a PLAUSIBLE and REASONABLE scenario in which Martin could have justifiably physically attacked Zimmerman first. Aggravated assault would have been Zimmerman pulling his gun on Martin. I already noted that it would be very implausible for Martin to attack Zimmerman had a gun been brandished on him. Punching someone in the face and bashing their head into the ground isn't legally self defense to getting followed and yelled at. There would have to be an actual threat to pretty substantial bodily harm to physically attack someone that much and have it be justifiable as self defense. I'm not a lawyer, but that is my understanding of self defense and how it has to be in kind with the threat. Self defense isn't beating the crap out of somebody because they scared you.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
Myles Long		#135	[url]	[-]
Posts: 15729 April 15, 2012 10:56 PM	Bobadger wrote: ryebadger wrote: Bobadger wrote: You're the one who stated as a fact that Martin "legally defended himself with his fists." That just isn't a correct statement at this point. If Zimmerman got physical first then Martin's use of physical force was justified, I said that. If Zimmerman did not get physical first then it is hard to imagine a situation that Martin's use of physical force was justified. I said that in the context of a discussion pointing out the irony of Martin being worse off for not being armed. I think I've been pretty consistent in stating that nobody knows exactly what went on - in fact that has been my entire point from the beginning. It's unfthomable to me that you are still clinging to the last sentence. Do you realize you are saying that Martin would not have been justified using physical force in response to an attempted aggravated assault? You continue to torture the very basis of Stand Your Ground. One does not need to wait for a physical attack in order to defend himself with physical force. The person who hit first could just as easily have been legally defending himself as the person who was the first to be hit. Stop turning the law on its head just to make the narrative convenient for your position. All of which is quite ironic, but the way, considering you went to the trouble of quoting a section of the statute to argue that Zimmerman would be justified using force even if he started it, yet you can't imagine a scenario where Martin might be entitled to use force if he did. I realize what the law says. I am pointing out that there isn't a PLAUSIBLE and REASONABLE scenario in which Martin could have justifiably physically attacked Zimmerman first. Aggravated assault would have been Zimmerman pulling his gun on Martin. I already noted that it would be very implausible for Martin to attack Zimmerman had a gun been brandished on him. Punching someone in the face and bashing their head into the ground isn't legally self defense to getting followed and yelled at. There would have to be an actual threat to pretty substantial bodily harm to physically attack someone that much and have it be justifiable as self defense. I'm not a lawyer, but that is my understanding of self defense and how it has to be in kind with the threat. Self defense isn't beating the crap out of somebody because they scared you. Martin: What's you're problem? Why are you following me? Zimmerman: I can do anything I want. Martin: Stop following me! Zimmerman: {feeling embolden because he knows he's packing, makes an aggressive move towards Zimmerman and gets in his face} What's you going to do about it?!?! Martin punches him as Zimmerman comes at him. I have no idea what really happened and neither do you, but your blanket statement first bolded above shows your bias or lack of understanding of "reasonable and plausible." The second bolded statement speaks volumes. Please continue. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room.' President Muffley --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- My Badger Sports Photos Older Tailgate/Bowl Trip Photos
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
yanked		#136	[url]	[-]
Posts: 17408 April 15, 2012 11:16 PM	Myles Long wrote: I have no idea I heart your honesty As I suspected, progressives have a Koch Fetish.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
Bobadger		#137	[url]	[-]
Posts: 1461 April 15, 2012 11:22 PM	I don't think getting in someone's face justifies punching them in the face and bashing their head into the ground.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
Myles Long		#138	[url]	[-]
Posts: 15729 April 15, 2012 11:32 PM	Bobadger wrote: I don't think getting in someone's face justifies punching them in the face and bashing their head into the ground. Get back to us when you learn the legal definition of assault in Florida. Until such time as you educate yourself, I'm going with bias as your primary defect in comprehending the potential issues herein. Your fundamental lack of understanding "plausible and reasonable" is a secondary impediment you face here. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room.' President Muffley --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- My Badger Sports Photos Older Tailgate/Bowl Trip Photos
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
Pointerpride102.muskieville		#139	[url]	[-]
Posts: 8676 April 15, 2012 11:40 PM Stalker of ThisCharmingFan	This thread has taken a turn for the stupid.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
Myles Long		#140	[url]	[-]
Posts: 15729 April 15, 2012 11:43 PM	Remove this ad Pointerpride102 wrote: This thread has taken a turn for the stupid. Please expand upon your statement. Your answer, should you chose to provide us with one, should include specific identification of whom you believe is being stupid and what statement(s) support your contention. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room.' President Muffley --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- My Badger Sports Photos Older Tailgate/Bowl Trip Photos
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

Zimmerman charged in Florida