George Zimmerman's Trial/acquittal/DOJ charges

[Myrensis]

So, a combination of "A." and "C."?

Zimmerman didn't say, "I'm sorry for what happened, I wish it hadn't turned out that way, I just have faith that God has some greater plan."

He said, "I have no regrets, everything that happened was obviously what God had planned, it's not my place to question it."

There is a vast difference, one is acknowledging that a tragedy happened and mistakes may have been made, while having faith that their is a greater purpose. The other is saying that the tragedy was meant to happen, and therefore you have faith that you did nothing wrong and have no reason to question it.

Defending such a morally bankrupt position in the name of 'respecting his faith!!" is absurd.

[Neu California]

Go on, you can be the first to explain this, since the implication of your post is that's what Trayvon Martin was doing to George Zimmerman

Autopsy reports claim that he could have been alive for several minutes after the gun was fired.
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/201 ... blood-loss
This opens up the possibility that he simply staggered or crawled there. Whether or not this is likely is irrelevant, there was evidence that suggested he could crawl to the grass, and the Prosecution could not overturn that in the court of law because they had nothing that could overturn it. The burden of proof does not lie on the shoulders of the defense, but rather on the prosecution, therefore they would have to prove that Martin did not crawl, or that Zimmerman did not move the body.

Except I asked you which section of the autopsy report said he could still walk after downloading it myself earlier in the thread and providing a link to where I downloaded it from (I think page 108 or so) and you never said which section, so sorry if I don't take your word for it. As to your source, it doesn't say if he could have moved to that spot. Also, it says

Because Trayvon's heart was weakened by blood loss and dropping blood pressure, it could no longer pump blood to his lungs. That means vital organs, including the heart, were no longer receiving the oxygen-rich blood they needed.

If vital organs weren't receiving the blood they needed, would his leg muscles be receiving the blood they needed for him to walk to where he died? And why was he facing towards the sidewalk if he walked or crawled away? There is so much that doesn't make sense about that.

[Shofercia]

It's important for the Jury to actually reach a conclusion on their own, rather than thinking "how will this decision reflect on my life, if my boss/co-workers/friends/family/etc, disagree with my reasoning".

But this isn't very different from the situation as it is today, where the jurors may think "how will this decision reflect on my life, if my boss/co-workers/friends/family/etc, disagree with my decision". There's a risk that friends of the six jurors in the Zimmerman case may no longer count them as friends, since they came to a conclusion which is 'obviously wrong' (in the mind of the friends) - and now the jurors may have to explain themselves in person to their friends, since it is impossible to know exactly why they came to the conclusion they did.

In short, that fear is still there, and I don't see any reason why it would be different if they explain themselves.

It's different because you're adding another layer. Now, as a Juror, you aren't just responsible for your ruling, but for your explanation as well, and it's much more likely that people will disagree with an explanation, than people disagreeing with a "yes/no" question. Additionally, Jurors are going to be less likely to volunteer for controversial cases, and attorneys, (this is from my experience during Jury Duty Recruitment, which I've sat through more than once,) are less appreciative of Jurors who enter the Case unwillingly. Jurors in America aren't well compensated.

For instance, what if different Jurors used different reasons to reach the same conclusion? Do you demand that all of the reasons be made public?

The accused has a strong interests in knowing why he was convicted, that all the pertinent facts have been considered, and that things have gone as they should. Further, the legal system itself has an interest in making sure that no irrelevant considerations have been taken and that the integrity of the jury system remains intact. So yes, I think so. I don't see why it shouldn't.

Again, if that's the case, you can simply use the Check Box Method I suggested earlier, i.e. have the Jurors rule on different elements of a crime, and after the Jury settles all of the individual Factual Issues, the Judge can write an overall Legal Conclusion. Or are you going to demand that the Jurors also explain how they reached their findings of fact? "Juror Alpha, which witness did you find more trustworthy? Why? Juror Beta, which witness did you find more trustworthy? Why? And what kind of an idiot would find A more trustworthy over B? Oh right, Jurors Alpha and Beta, stay tuned for the next editions of Stupid Jury Logic, on CNN!"

Americans are the most litigious society in the World. In 2011, 367,692 Civil and Criminal Cases were filed in the US District Courts. The population was roughly 312 million at the time. That's roughly 0.12% of the population, that's huge. I highly doubt that 1 out of every 1,000 Swedes or Norwegians went to Court. As statistics clearly show, http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/Statis ... ummary.pdf, the Docket Number of Criminal Cases keeps on increasing. In 2002, there was an overload of 76,973 cases. In 2011, there was an overload of 111,968 cases. And this is just Criminal Cases.

So not impossible, simply a question of resources.

Resources that should be spend on education, (in certain states over half of K-12 schools are failing,) and infrastructure, before going towards engaging in wannabe Liberal Reforms of the Jury System, because some Liberals said so. Money doesn't grow on trees.

Additionally, the Jurors don't have to write down their explanations, just their opinions. So actually, if you do think about it, forcing them to explain their opinions would take longer. Additionally, while the Jurors Deliberate, the Judge can get some other work done. When a Juror is giving his or her opinion, the Juror needs the Judge's undivided attention, to prevent potential harassment by either sides' attorneys. So forcing the Judges to do more work, while the Docket Overload is increased, that's not going to work out. At all.

You can take steps to help alleviate the problem - steps you should take no matter what, since there's such a thing as "Docket overload". Increase the number of judges. Simplify the process. And you can change it so the judge doesn't have to give his undivided attention, by making the jurors submit their reasoning in writing.

Reform is possible.

The American Judicial System is complex, in a large part due to Federalism. You have to adhere to the US Constitution, followed by Federal Law, Federal Treaties, State Constitution, State Law, and whatever the Local Ordinances might be, in that order. The average salary of a Judge is roughly $160k. The median salary is $150k. Additionally a Judge needs a Courtroom, an assistant, a recorded, and a bailiff. Those ain't cheap either. In terms of having the Jurors submit it in writing, well, you'll still need someone to read what they wrote to make sure that they don't accidentally destroy the privacy of their deliberations, so, who are you hiring for that?

Yeah it does. If you're forcing the Jurors to explain their reasoning, against their will, and they know that's how it'll end up, they might not be as candid and open in deliberations, as they otherwise might;

I see absolutely no reason for this hypothesis. I rather see it as alarming: If it's true that jurors are reluctant to explain how they reached a particular conclusion, and won't be open and candid if they have to explain themselves, something is seriously wrong. How can we really have faith in such a system? I would see no option at that point but to junk the entire thing, as it is utterly broken.

Because of the media circus that will follow. I need to get a drill, and drill the aftereffects of what the media circus does in the US, into your brain, because you are absolutely, completely, totally and utterly ignorant of that. I expect Jurors to be honest with their fellow Jurors in a closed, unrecorded setting. But when you have the Paparazzi asking Jurors the "Gotcha Questions", which they will, heck, these are the pricks who go into your house to take a picture of you being pissed off at them, and then wonder why you're pissed off. Jurors can explain their decisions to their fellow Jurors, in a professional setting, but don't expect the Jurors to defend their logic in front of a media feeding frenzy, who are going to attack said findings with the dirtiest ways imaginable.

But as I said, I don't believe that it will be a significant problem. Studies suggest that lay judges are open and candid in their deliberations with professional judges, and I think those results are transferrable.

And I disagree, see above for the reason.

instead some of them might look up to the figure of authority in the room to feed them the process.

Some already do that. I am not convinced that the number would increase if they have to explain their positions.

Most Americans don't want to be in the middle of a media circus, don't want to be thought of as ignorant by their peers. Ergo, it's likely that they'll be more likely to listen, not just to those whom they think know more about the issue than they do, but also to those who can explain it better. There's a documentary about how the media and the Prison Lobby fucked up the explanation of one of the families. Watch it, before you say anything else that's utterly ignorant. http://www.pbs.org/pov/thelegacy/film_description.php To summarize: two fathers, each of whom lost a daughter, had differing views of the Three Strikes Law. One of them initially supported it, but later on, went to oppose it, because of what it did. The other was the driving force behind it. The Media used both of their tragedies, even though one of them pointed out that he no longer support Three Strikes, to push through a radically harsh law. The result:

"Three Strikes" won handily, putting California at the forefront of a national trend of prison growth. By June 1998, one in five California inmates were sentenced under Three Strikes. Ninety percent of those sentenced actually had only one prior "strike" and were sentenced for nonviolent crimes in 81% of those cases.

You really want to place Jurors in the middle of such potential controversies, because they made an honest mistake? Is this how you support individuals?

I don't comment on things that I don't know much about. You don't even know about Jury Nullification, and yet, here you are, providing your advice in an area where you're totally clueless.

I'm opposed to it.

And I'm not. And here's why: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=247632&start=3850
And: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=247632&p=15568003#p15568003

I trust the Jurors to do their jobs, as long as they're not heavily influenced by outside bias, which is exactly what you're proposing. You want to kill the Jury System with your proposal, that's your ultimate goal, whether you admit it, or not, because, as you've admitted, you want the Jury System gone!

Your response was rather disconnected, but anyway...

I don't think the "outside bias" will be greater if the jurors have to explain their decisions. I'd use the Breivik trial as an example of a case where there was a high degree of outside pressure and media attention, and the lay judges performed admirably and independently - but since you are, in your words, totally clueless, there would be no point.

I said that your arguments were totally clueless, not that I was totally clueless. Tell me Gravlen, are you American? Citizen of the US? Been personally affected by the US Jury System? The reason that I'm asking, is that I believe that those who live in the Ivory Tower World of Theory, instead of the Actual World of Practice, do more damage with their suggestions, even if their intentions are semi-decent.

Also, I get that Breivik was an emotional case, but what was the controversy? That he did what he did?

That was phrased as a hypothetical.

So in other words, yes, numbers pulled straight out of your ass, no empirical data to show a 99% success rate. Thank you.

I'm saying that due to the media frenzy, one percent of Jurors might ruin the reputation of 99% of Jurors. If you think that's a factual statement, well, that just shows you cannot comprehend the difference between an opinion and a factual statement, so should people really be debating with you, Gravlen?

Oh, I'm certainly up for improving the system. Problem is, you've turned out to be an ignoramus when it comes to understanding how America's Judicial System works, so none of your solutions are effective, and all of them are based on the "hurr durr Juries suck!" logic.

Interesting how most of your objections are ad hominem attacks and unfounded assertions. Like this one. You have failed to show that I'm ignorant on the subject (which, unfortunately, I am not). You have failed to understand the point, which is that I wish to improve the situation for both the accused and the victims, improving the respect for the rule of law in criminal cases, and make it easier for the public to be educated on criminal activity (especially rape cases would give benefits here). Those things, in your mind, translate to "hurr durr Juries suck!" - which is only proof that you are either ignorant or not listening.

Are you American? Are you a US Citizen? Were you personally affected by the US Legal System? There is respect of the Rule of Law in the US, and there is respect for the Jury System. Your proposals are likely to destroy that. You just threw out the world "rape", trying to draw some pathos no doubt, but the issue with rape cases is that it's a he said-she said controversy, which might or might not work out in Court, and what are you going to ask the Jurors? Whom did you believe? Cause it's kind of obvious, actually it's blatantly obvious whom the Jury believed by the result of the Rape Case.

It takes all six to convict or acquit. And yet a single racist remark from one of the Jurors, that might have had absolutely no impact on the decision of the other five Jurors, would probably start a riot.

Get it out in the sunlight. It's much better to know that one of the jurors want to convict for the wrong reasons than to let the accused go to prison because it would be uncomfortable in the short term to expose a miscarriage of justice.

One Juror cannot send anyone to prison. You need at least six to agree. And the Defense Counsel can strike out certain Jurors, if the Defense Counsel believes that they are racist.

Glad you find that so hilarious, Gravlen.

Yeah, you are hilarious. In a sad way.

I was responding to the argument. Not the person. You seem to be confusing the argument with the person. Actually wait, no, you don't just seem to be, you are showing your ineptitude to tell the different between the argument and the person making said argument. Is this typical for you?

And if different Jurors dare to have different explanations reaching the same conclusion? And if they accidentally tell/write what their fellow Jurors said, that ends up humiliating their fellow Jurors, with no intent to do so on either party's side?

How do you imagine that happening?

No seriously. They are there to determine the facts of the case as they see it. Why would they write something about what their fellow jurors said? This is simply not plausible.

Because their fellow Jurors' opinions on the facts might have shed some light on their own interpretation of the facts, by showing the Juror another way to view the argument. Oh my, what a completely ignorant argument you've delivered Gravlen, and argument that fails to take into account that during Jury Deliberations the Jurors *gasps* deliberate! Imagine that!

[Ponderosa]

This video confirmed my thoughts on the case.
An important point dude raised. If what Zimmerman did, and the evidence pointing towards his innocence is not enough to rule a case as self-defense, then what right of self-defense do citizens in there have? A right whose application is only permitted in unreal , perfect circumstances is about as sensible as the charity mechanical organ in Jaroslav Hasek's short story, made available to a god-fearing honest, chaste poor widow proven by office to be incapable of labour which of course was sitting in the charity's deposit.

cases where the defendant didn't head towards the danger in defiance of both logic and a direct instruction.

Actually, Stefan Molyneux explains this in the video, at about 17 minutes in. Go watch.

[The Treorai]

For those wondering what if Zimmerman had been black, there is a case with striking similarity.
The Roderick Scott case.
http://rochester.ynn.com/content/top_st ... ot-guilty/

Christopher was not Hispanic, so the roles aren't completely reversed, but it just goes to show that even when it was a black guy killing a white kid, the black guy was still acquitted.
(Not to say the cases are identical. Just saying that all this baseless speculation about the people involved's race.)

[Neu California]

Guys, do you think that The Government will make a decision to vanish marijuana? Is that Possible??

Not relevant to this thread

[Caninope]

Or he rejects free will.

That would fall under dangerously deluded, since it's saying, exactly as he's using it in this context, "I have no personal responsibility for anything, whatever I do, up to and including killing someone, was all part of God's plan, so why should I regret it?"

Not, it doesn't make him dangerously deluded. He's not rejecting responsibility, and has never done so. He simply felt that it was going to happen and was always going to happen.

Rejecting free will doesn't mean a rejection of responsibility.

[The Treorai]

Autopsy reports claim that he could have been alive for several minutes after the gun was fired.
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/201 ... blood-loss
This opens up the possibility that he simply staggered or crawled there. Whether or not this is likely is irrelevant, there was evidence that suggested he could crawl to the grass, and the Prosecution could not overturn that in the court of law because they had nothing that could overturn it. The burden of proof does not lie on the shoulders of the defense, but rather on the prosecution, therefore they would have to prove that Martin did not crawl, or that Zimmerman did not move the body.

Except I asked you which section of the autopsy report said he could still walk after downloading it myself earlier in the thread and providing a link to where I downloaded it from (I think page 108 or so) and you never said which section, so sorry if I don't take your word for it. As to your source, it doesn't say if he could have moved to that spot. Also, it says

Because Trayvon's heart was weakened by blood loss and dropping blood pressure, it could no longer pump blood to his lungs. That means vital organs, including the heart, were no longer receiving the oxygen-rich blood they needed.

If vital organs weren't receiving the blood they needed, would his leg muscles be receiving the blood they needed for him to walk to where he died? And why was he facing towards the sidewalk if he walked or crawled away? There is so much that doesn't make sense about that.

Except his muscles were still recieving oxygen rich blood. Hold your breath for a few seconds. Keep holding it, and walk across the room, and back to your seat. Could you do it? Yes? Hmm...

Anyways, as for the crawling bit perhaps he crawled backwards. There is nothing that contradicts that.

You also failed to mention that Zimmerman could have potentially moved the body.

Speaking from a purely legal stand point, there is no way to prove that Martin wasn't banging Zimmerman's head into the pavement. Forensics suggest that, while he may have been in loads of pain, he was still quite able to move, perhaps as a knee-jerk reaction, jumping back after the shot was fired, and then stumbling several feet. There are just too many variables to even attempt to disprove Zimmerman's story, and too much evidence that supports it.

[Caninope]

He said, "I have no regrets, everything that happened was obviously what God had planned, it's not my place to question it."

Well, it's also important to note that Zimmerman has maintained that he killed in self-defense; this could certainly be an important factor in his non-regret if he was indeed defending himself.

[The Treorai]

So, a combination of "A." and "C."?

Zimmerman didn't say, "I'm sorry for what happened, I wish it hadn't turned out that way, I just have faith that God has some greater plan."

He said, "I have no regrets, everything that happened was obviously what God had planned, it's not my place to question it."

There is a vast difference, one is acknowledging that a tragedy happened and mistakes may have been made, while having faith that their is a greater purpose. The other is saying that the tragedy was meant to happen, and therefore you have faith that you did nothing wrong and have no reason to question it.

Defending such a morally bankrupt position in the name of 'respecting his faith!!" is absurd.

No, you simply do not understand faith. What he meant (not to speak for Zimmerman, this is just what I believe he means) is that he believes, the night of the shooting, what happened was meant to happen, and that he will not question his faith that god meant for it to happen.

[Shofercia]

You are allowed, in some Jurisdictions, to present questions regarding specific findings of fact to the Jury, instead of just going Guilty or Not Guilty. We already have that. For instance, in order to be guilty of murder, you need Intent. If Intent is the only element in dispute, you can simply ask the Jury to find whether or not the accused had the requisite intent. If that's the reform that you're proposing, as opposed to "eliminate the Jury System", I can support expanding something like that.

You go element by element.
*snip*

So long as we agree on the above -- that criminal cases should (where appropriate) use something like special verdicts or special interrogatories (like are sometimes used in civil cases) that do little more than require something like check-box answers as to whether an element of the offense was proven beyond a reasonable doubt or not -- there is no need for us to continue a pissing contest over side issues. I hate urine stains.

Fair enough, because if that happens, Juror Anonymity is still protected, and there's not much hype the media can raise about the Interrogatories and blame it solely on the Jury. On top of that, it'd be up to Attorneys to draft, and the Judge to check, so not a whole lot of work for the Judge, especially if its tied to the Jury Instructions

[Alien Space Bats]

Is that a reference to that one propaganda video?

Just one?

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

Speaking from a purely legal stand point, there is no way to prove that Martin wasn't banging Zimmerman's head into the pavement.

Well, yes.

I mean, if you were just going along minding your own business, enjoying your Skittles, and some racist vigilante KKK wannabe decided to attack you because you were black and niggers don't belong in this part of town, I suspect you might try to disable your attacker so you could get away too.

I would hope you wouldn't (after all, even in self-defense violence is wrong), but I wouldn't hold it against you if you did.

Seriously, has it occurred to anyone that if anything, it was Mr. Martin who was the one acting in self-defense?

[The Treorai]

Speaking from a purely legal stand point, there is no way to prove that Martin wasn't banging Zimmerman's head into the pavement.

Well, yes.

I mean, if you were just going along minding your own business, enjoying your Skittles, and some racist vigilante KKK wannabe decided to attack you because you were black and niggers don't belong in this part of town, I suspect you might try to disable your attacker so you could get away too.

I would hope you wouldn't (after all, even in self-defense violence is wrong), but I wouldn't hold it against you if you did.

Seriously, has it occurred to anyone that if anything, it was Mr. Martin who was the one acting in self-defense?

It is possible for two people in an altercation to simultaneously be acting in self defense. Given your example is completely irrelevant, I will simply ignore it, but if Martin felt his life was in danger, he was acting in self defense, It just so happens that so was Zimmerman, and Zimmerman shot to kill when things went south.

Also, I think it is pretty laughable that you result to using nigger because you have absolutely no argument. Shock value and guilt working for you now-a-days?

[Terraius]

Either you have to disdain all forms of racism or not. You cannot hold a moral high ground and pick and choose which forms of racism to defend and which ones to promote. Nigger and cracker may have two very different historical roots and origins, but the present, real implication of the thought and feeling behind such words are by no means vastly different. They both target a group of people based on their skin color and express a prejudiced disdain.

It's like me calling a Black friend of mine "dark chocolate". It isn't necessarily racist, but could be considered a racial slur. Now if Trayvon Martin called George Zimmerman pus, a goober, or another offensive term similar to those it would be a whole different story.

No. It doesnt. Its the meaning behind the word. I can make up some bullshit tomorrow that has never been used before but if the stated meaning and intent behind the word signified a racial prejudice and singling out of people based on color it would be just as offensive and immoral as nigger, cracker, or any other word. So long as racial double standards exist, there will continue to be a perpetual cycle of hate unbreakable, because for one race to another, it may be deemed inappropriate, but to another different group, fine and encouraged.

[Sheltopolis]

You know, only in America can white people get blamed for a Hispanic shooting a black person. And the amount of people saying Martin was not given justice depresses me.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Only if you're in the process of beating their head against it.

How did Trayvon get so far from the sidewalk after being shot if he was bashing Zimmmerman's head into the sidewalk?

that dark part on the leftmost part of the right picture of the picture is the sidewalk


Bottom left is the sidewalk

I'm going to keep challenging people making this claim until the can prove that Martin could and did get to the grassy area after being shot, or they admit that it didn't happen that way.

Edit: spoiler tag gives me a headache

edit 2: added second picture

Go on, you can be the first to explain this, since the implication of your post is that's what Trayvon Martin was doing to George Zimmerman

Getting shot in the chest with a nine millimeter will not instantaneously kill you. Reflexes/involuntary muscle spasms (y'know, from being shot) could move oneself.
Whilst getting up, Zimmerman may have pushed Martin's body/Martin 'back', resulting in the position it is in.
Martin's own movement (back and away from the gun that just shot him) may have combined with Zimmerman pushing off, resulting in the body coming to rest in the position it is in.
Zimmerman may have moved the body.

Besides that, I'd be hesitant to start yelling anything until you know the actual scale of those photos because Martin's body might not be as far from the sidewalk as you seem to think it is.

[Blakk Metal]

Look up "These assholes always get away" on this thread.

He never expressed displeasure with Martin getting away. If you knew what you were talking about (which you obviously don't) you would know that he made that comment on the police call he made prior to the confrontation, and he was referring to the criminals in a string of burglaries throughout his neighborhood. He (quite possibly mistakenly) assumed Martin was one of these criminals.

He was angry that a burglar, or a group them, was evading capture. He assumed Martin was one of the burglars, so he was angry at Martin for 'getting away'.

[Neu California]

Except I asked you which section of the autopsy report said he could still walk after downloading it myself earlier in the thread and providing a link to where I downloaded it from (I think page 108 or so) and you never said which section, so sorry if I don't take your word for it. As to your source, it doesn't say if he could have moved to that spot. Also, it says



If vital organs weren't receiving the blood they needed, would his leg muscles be receiving the blood they needed for him to walk to where he died? And why was he facing towards the sidewalk if he walked or crawled away? There is so much that doesn't make sense about that.

Except his muscles were still recieving oxygen rich blood. Hold your breath for a few seconds. Keep holding it, and walk across the room, and back to your seat. Could you do it? Yes? Hmm...

Show me the medical literature that makes Trayvons' gunshot wound wound comparable to holding your breath [edit:] in any capacity

Anyways, as for the crawling bit perhaps he crawled backwards. There is nothing that contradicts that.

Was there any evidence to support it happening? Without supporting evidence it's just speculation, and, remember, I want proof

You also failed to mention that Zimmerman could have potentially moved the body.

Because Zimmerman never said he moved the body, so you're just adding speculation, not supported by the facts. And why would he move the body so far from the sidewalk, even if he slid it off of his body over his feet (he's not tall enough for Martin to end up there)

Speaking from a purely legal stand point, there is no way to prove that Martin wasn't banging Zimmerman's head into the pavement. Forensics suggest that, while he may have been in loads of pain, he was still quite able to move, perhaps as a knee-jerk reaction, jumping back after the shot was fired, and then stumbling several feet. There are just too many variables to even attempt to disprove Zimmerman's story, and too much evidence that supports it.

Source? Because your last one made no mention of this fact, and doesn't explain how he ended up facing towards the sidewalk. I'm also still waiting on you to tell me what part of the autopsy report says he could have walked (and, before I forget, could Trayvon really have jumped eight feet plus backwards? He wasn't some star basketball player or long jumper, I don't think).

Also this is not a court of law. this is a debate forum. You make an assertion, you'd better be willing to back it up

There's a lot of could have, and no evidence for them being likely, so let me quote myself again

I'm going to keep challenging people making this claim until the can prove that Martin could and did get to the grassy area after being shot, or they admit that it didn't happen that way.

Either prove that Martin did bang Zimmerman's head into the concrete and somehow ended up where he did, or stop asserting that he did the former, because I'm not going to stop until that happens, and speculation doesn't count as proof

[The Treorai]

Except his muscles were still recieving oxygen rich blood. Hold your breath for a few seconds. Keep holding it, and walk across the room, and back to your seat. Could you do it? Yes? Hmm...

Show me the medical literature that makes Trayvons' gunshot wound wound comparable to holding your breath [edit:] in any capacity

Anyways, as for the crawling bit perhaps he crawled backwards. There is nothing that contradicts that.

Was there any evidence to support it happening? Without supporting evidence it's just speculation, and, remember, I want proof

You also failed to mention that Zimmerman could have potentially moved the body.

Because Zimmerman never said he moved the body, so you're just adding speculation, not supported by the facts. And why would he move the body so far from the sidewalk, even if he slid it off of his body over his feet (he's not tall enough for Martin to end up there)

Speaking from a purely legal stand point, there is no way to prove that Martin wasn't banging Zimmerman's head into the pavement. Forensics suggest that, while he may have been in loads of pain, he was still quite able to move, perhaps as a knee-jerk reaction, jumping back after the shot was fired, and then stumbling several feet. There are just too many variables to even attempt to disprove Zimmerman's story, and too much evidence that supports it.

Source? Because your last one made no mention of this fact, and doesn't explain how he ended up facing towards the sidewalk. I'm also still waiting on you to tell me what part of the autopsy report says he could have walked (and, before I forget, could Trayvon really have jumped eight feet plus backwards? He wasn't some star basketball player or long jumper, I don't think).

Also this is not a court of law. this is a debate forum. You make an assertion, you'd better be willing to back it up

There's a lot of could have, and no evidence for them being likely, so let me quote myself again

I'm going to keep challenging people making this claim until the can prove that Martin could and did get to the grassy area after being shot, or they admit that it didn't happen that way.

Either prove that Martin did bang Zimmerman's head into the concrete and somehow ended up where he did, or stop asserting that he did the former, because I'm not going to stop until that happens, and speculation doesn't count as proof

Except there is no point in asking for proof, as the burden of proof is not placed on the defense, or did this thread suddenly not become about the trial?

Anyways, if you would look at the source I gave you, it would tell you that he was alive for at least twenty seconds after he was shot. It is entirely possible that he jumped backwards away from the gun, stumbled back a few more feet, and feel to his knees, before falling onto his face. Me asking you to hold your breath and cross the room was to show you that your muscles don't need fresh oxygen at every moment to move properly. Once again, my knee jerk reaction theory is quite sound with the provided evidence, yet you have no evidence, and no theory, so I can't really credit you with anything. Sorry, no cookie for you.

[The Treorai]

He never expressed displeasure with Martin getting away. If you knew what you were talking about (which you obviously don't) you would know that he made that comment on the police call he made prior to the confrontation, and he was referring to the criminals in a string of burglaries throughout his neighborhood. He (quite possibly mistakenly) assumed Martin was one of these criminals.

He was angry that a burglar, or a group them, was evading capture. He assumed Martin was one of the burglars, so he was angry at Martin for 'getting away'.

Except Martin hadn't gotten away, as Zimmerman was still on the phone with the police. Do you lack higher reasoning function? Let me give you a basic timeline.

BEFORE:
Burglaries in Zimmerman's Area
BEFORE:
Zimmerman calls the police when seeing a suspicious figure (Martin, who looked suspicious to Zimmerman). Says "These Assholes Always Get Away".
DURING:
The Altercation occurs.
AFTER:
Martin is shot.
AFTER:
Never is Zimmerman on record again saying "I am angry that Martin got away".
AFTER:
You make highly flawed arguments, and make a fool of yourself.

That clear things up for you?

[Linux and the X]

Except there is no point in asking for proof, as the burden of proof is not placed on the defense, or did this thread suddenly not become about the trial?

Self-defence is an affirmative defence, so yes, the burden of proof is on the defence. Zimmerman admits to killing Martin; as party admission, this is sufficient evidence for conviction.

[The Treorai]

Except there is no point in asking for proof, as the burden of proof is not placed on the defense, or did this thread suddenly not become about the trial?

Self-defence is an affirmative defence, so yes, the burden of proof is on the defence. Zimmerman admits to killing Martin; as party admission, this is sufficient evidence for conviction.

No it is not. The preponderance of evidence forces the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was not acting in self defense

EDIT: For anyone who finds this Easter egg, congrats! You are seeing my 2000th Post!

[Neu California]

Show me the medical literature that makes Trayvons' gunshot wound wound comparable to holding your breath [edit:] in any capacity



Was there any evidence to support it happening? Without supporting evidence it's just speculation, and, remember, I want proof



Because Zimmerman never said he moved the body, so you're just adding speculation, not supported by the facts. And why would he move the body so far from the sidewalk, even if he slid it off of his body over his feet (he's not tall enough for Martin to end up there)



Source? Because your last one made no mention of this fact, and doesn't explain how he ended up facing towards the sidewalk. I'm also still waiting on you to tell me what part of the autopsy report says he could have walked (and, before I forget, could Trayvon really have jumped eight feet plus backwards? He wasn't some star basketball player or long jumper, I don't think).

Also this is not a court of law. this is a debate forum. You make an assertion, you'd better be willing to back it up

There's a lot of could have, and no evidence for them being likely, so let me quote myself again



Either prove that Martin did bang Zimmerman's head into the concrete and somehow ended up where he did, or stop asserting that he did the former, because I'm not going to stop until that happens, and speculation doesn't count as proof

Except there is no point in asking for proof, as the burden of proof is not placed on the defense, or did this thread suddenly not become about the trial?

Anyways, if you would look at the source I gave you, it would tell you that he was alive for at least twenty seconds after he was shot. It is entirely possible that he jumped backwards away from the gun, stumbled back a few more feet, and feel to his knees, before falling onto his face. Me asking you to hold your breath and cross the room was to show you that your muscles don't need fresh oxygen at every moment to move properly. Once again, my knee jerk reaction theory is quite sound with the provided evidence, yet you have no evidence, and no theory, so I can't really credit you with anything. Sorry, no cookie for you.

Keyword here, it's about the trial (and, once again, I am arguing against one specific claim, not about Zimmerman's guilt or innocence). A debate forum and a trial operate on completely different standards, and if no one can prove that x is true in a debate, then x can safely be dismissed as false. That's how it works.

The source also said nothing about him being able to walk. For all we know he was conscious the entire time and bleeding to death [edit:]on the ground, unable to move[/edit]. Unless you can prove he got there under his own power, it is held to the same standard as all speculation, irrelevant until proven to be true in a debate

[Alien Space Bats]

This is what gets me upset about this trial. This was a Latino who killed a Black teen.

This misses the point so massively that it isn't even funny.

When Sean Bell was shot to death by five New York City police officers in 2006, the city's African-American community didn't notice that black officres were involved in the killing right along with the white ones and say, "Oh, well, there were black officers involved in the killing, so no problem, then!"

No, the whole problem with this shooting — just as with all of the other shootings of unarmed black men and youths under various circumstances — is the recurring theme of profiling: The idea that African-American men are being targeted for violence and killed because of societal perceptions of them as violent, dangerous, and intrinsically criminal.

Yes, the African-American community is extremely unhappy with black-on-black violence; gang warfare and the ocean of illegal arms flowing into our inner cities are matters of grave concern among American blacks (and part of the reason black Americans support gun control). But profiling is just as much of a concern: Indeed, it's especially painful for upper income blacks, who are almost as likely to be victimized by it as poor blacks.

This is part of what's so painful about the shooting at Twin Lakes. A black family works to get their kids into a good neighborhood, and some guy who thinks that those kids don't "belong" there chases after them, provokes a confrontation, and guns one of them down.

So African-Americans get upset. And why shouldn't they, really? Isn't all the profiling in this case saying that there's no safe place in America for their kids? Isn't it saying that there's no place here in America where they really belong?