Zimmerman Case - Lightning Rod (7 Viewers)

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Sure. He was getting his ass kicked. That happens to people all the time. Tens of thousands of times a year.

Well, let's not pretend that Travon Martin was some gentle flower. I don't blame Zimmerman for using everything he had at his disposal. Those in fights aren't making rational decisions, they're thinking of making it stop, finishing the other person or surviving.
 
Denny Crane. Now exposed as anti-gun progressive in league with the Obama Administration. His opinions are their opinions.
 
So, what exactly do Stand Your Ground laws have to do with Zimmerman and Martin? Absolutely nothing, of course. Outside your own home, common principles of self-defense dictate that unless you have reasonable fear of deadly force or harm, you must flee if possible rather than use deadly force. But a "duty to retreat" rests on the ability to retreat. And "duty to retreat" was irrelevant in Zimmerman's case because — pinned to the ground with Martin on top of him, bashing his head on the concrete — he was unable to retreat. - See more at: http://cnsnews.com/commentary/miche...and-your-ground-squirrel#sthash.XW9pwBcP.dpuf

Even the prosecution rejects the cynical attempt to tie Martin's death to Stand Your Ground. Prosecutor John Guy couldn't have made it clearer during the trial: "This case is not about standing your ground." During their post-trial press conference, as conservative talk show host Victoria Taft first noted, a Miami Herald reporter asked the prosecution team specifically whether Stand Your Ground "affected the facts in this case and whether this case could have been won, perhaps, pre the changes in the law."

Prosecutor Bernie De La Rionda replied: "You know, self-defense has existed for a long time. And we've dealt with it in Jackson for a long time. We've tried a lot of self-defense cases; I've personally tried 10-15 self-defense cases. They're tough cases, but we accept it so ... the law really hasn't changed all that much. Stand Your Ground was a big thing, but really the law hasn't changed. We have a right to bear arms and a right to self defense."

In short, Stand Your Ground did not kill Trayvon Martin. Stand Your Ground did not sway the jury. Stand Your Ground saboteurs don't have a leg to stand on. Columnist Jacob Sullum observed drily: "You might think that, given all we now know about Zimmerman's actual defense, critics of 'stand your ground' laws would have to find a different, more apposite case to illustrate their concerns. Instead they just barrel along, citing the same phony example again and again, without regard to the facts. It does not inspire confidence in their argument." - See more at: http://cnsnews.com/commentary/miche...and-your-ground-squirrel#sthash.XW9pwBcP.dpuf


The Obama administration's cynical campaign against Stand Your Ground laws is a racially charged weapon of mass distraction. The goal isn't public safety or community harmony. The goal is for conservative political opponents to Surrender Your Ground. Silence, as always, is complicity. Political self-defense, as with physical self-defense, begins with self-assertion. - See more at: http://cnsnews.com/commentary/miche...and-your-ground-squirrel#sthash.XW9pwBcP.dpuf

 
So, what exactly do Stand Your Ground laws have to do with Zimmerman and Martin? Absolutely nothing, of course. Outside your own home, common principles of self-defense dictate that unless you have reasonable fear of deadly force or harm, you must flee if possible rather than use deadly force. But a "duty to retreat" rests on the ability to retreat. And "duty to retreat" was irrelevant in Zimmerman's case because — pinned to the ground with Martin on top of him, bashing his head on the concrete — he was unable to retreat. - See more at: http://cnsnews.com/commentary/miche...and-your-ground-squirrel#sthash.XW9pwBcP.dpuf

Even the prosecution rejects the cynical attempt to tie Martin's death to Stand Your Ground. Prosecutor John Guy couldn't have made it clearer during the trial: "This case is not about standing your ground." During their post-trial press conference, as conservative talk show host Victoria Taft first noted, a Miami Herald reporter asked the prosecution team specifically whether Stand Your Ground "affected the facts in this case and whether this case could have been won, perhaps, pre the changes in the law."

Prosecutor Bernie De La Rionda replied: "You know, self-defense has existed for a long time. And we've dealt with it in Jackson for a long time. We've tried a lot of self-defense cases; I've personally tried 10-15 self-defense cases. They're tough cases, but we accept it so ... the law really hasn't changed all that much. Stand Your Ground was a big thing, but really the law hasn't changed. We have a right to bear arms and a right to self defense."

In short, Stand Your Ground did not kill Trayvon Martin. Stand Your Ground did not sway the jury. Stand Your Ground saboteurs don't have a leg to stand on. Columnist Jacob Sullum observed drily: "You might think that, given all we now know about Zimmerman's actual defense, critics of 'stand your ground' laws would have to find a different, more apposite case to illustrate their concerns. Instead they just barrel along, citing the same phony example again and again, without regard to the facts. It does not inspire confidence in their argument." - See more at: http://cnsnews.com/commentary/miche...and-your-ground-squirrel#sthash.XW9pwBcP.dpuf


The Obama administration's cynical campaign against Stand Your Ground laws is a racially charged weapon of mass distraction. The goal isn't public safety or community harmony. The goal is for conservative political opponents to Surrender Your Ground. Silence, as always, is complicity. Political self-defense, as with physical self-defense, begins with self-assertion. - See more at: http://cnsnews.com/commentary/miche...and-your-ground-squirrel#sthash.XW9pwBcP.dpuf


Repped
 
Denny Crane. Now exposed as anti-gun progressive in league with the Obama Administration. His opinions are their opinions.

Denny is still very pro gun, he's made that clear a few times in this thread and many times in the rest of the forum.
 
Everyone likes to Monday Morning QB a situation that happened in a split second, but if someone sucker punched you, you fell down and he climbed on top and started banging your head into the ground, you would seriously fear for your life. Supposedly Zimmerman trained in MMA, well I don't know his resume so I can't say for sure, but just "training in MMA and muay thai" does not make you a fighter. I've trained in muay thai and MMA and I know for a fact that there are 17 year olds who would beat my ass. I have a friend who was a legit fighter, trained at Fairtex, etc etc etc, and he would certainly fuck just about anyone up that he met on the street. I've trained with him off and on for years, but that doesn't make me a trained fighter. Zimmerman is a fatty, so let's not pretend that the guy is a well oiled machine. He bit off more than he could chew, he got himself in a position that he probably shouldn't have been in, but I'm sure he probably feared for his life as this "kid" was on top of him, beating his head onto the pavement. That's a legit self defense claim.
 
So, what exactly do Stand Your Ground laws have to do with Zimmerman and Martin? Absolutely nothing, of course. Outside your own home, common principles of self-defense dictate that unless you have reasonable fear of deadly force or harm, you must flee if possible rather than use deadly force. But a "duty to retreat" rests on the ability to retreat. And "duty to retreat" was irrelevant in Zimmerman's case because — pinned to the ground with Martin on top of him, bashing his head on the concrete — he was unable to retreat. - See more at: http://cnsnews.com/commentary/miche...and-your-ground-squirrel#sthash.XW9pwBcP.dpuf

Even the prosecution rejects the cynical attempt to tie Martin's death to Stand Your Ground. Prosecutor John Guy couldn't have made it clearer during the trial: "This case is not about standing your ground." During their post-trial press conference, as conservative talk show host Victoria Taft first noted, a Miami Herald reporter asked the prosecution team specifically whether Stand Your Ground "affected the facts in this case and whether this case could have been won, perhaps, pre the changes in the law."

Prosecutor Bernie De La Rionda replied: "You know, self-defense has existed for a long time. And we've dealt with it in Jackson for a long time. We've tried a lot of self-defense cases; I've personally tried 10-15 self-defense cases. They're tough cases, but we accept it so ... the law really hasn't changed all that much. Stand Your Ground was a big thing, but really the law hasn't changed. We have a right to bear arms and a right to self defense."

In short, Stand Your Ground did not kill Trayvon Martin. Stand Your Ground did not sway the jury. Stand Your Ground saboteurs don't have a leg to stand on. Columnist Jacob Sullum observed drily: "You might think that, given all we now know about Zimmerman's actual defense, critics of 'stand your ground' laws would have to find a different, more apposite case to illustrate their concerns. Instead they just barrel along, citing the same phony example again and again, without regard to the facts. It does not inspire confidence in their argument." - See more at: http://cnsnews.com/commentary/miche...and-your-ground-squirrel#sthash.XW9pwBcP.dpuf


The Obama administration's cynical campaign against Stand Your Ground laws is a racially charged weapon of mass distraction. The goal isn't public safety or community harmony. The goal is for conservative political opponents to Surrender Your Ground. Silence, as always, is complicity. Political self-defense, as with physical self-defense, begins with self-assertion. - See more at: http://cnsnews.com/commentary/miche...and-your-ground-squirrel#sthash.XW9pwBcP.dpuf


Repped
 
Again, did the defense argue "stand your ground"?

Define "self defense" in the state of florida. You can't separate it from stand your ground.

Lots of luck with that.
 
Denny is still very pro gun, he's made that clear a few times in this thread and many times in the rest of the forum.

I'm not opposed to self defense either.

My beef is with stand your ground laws.

If someone uses a gun to kill someone (or lesser crimes), they should be held accountable.
 
Define "self defense" in the state of florida. You can't separate it from stand your ground.

Lots of luck with that.

That wasn't your argument. You stated it was a "stand your ground" case, not a "self-defense" case.

Lots of luck untying yourself from your logical Gordian knot into which you've contorted yourself.

Exactly what didn't the jury understand so they found Zimmerman not guilty of both 2nd degree murder and manslaughter? Exactly what did the Sanford police miss that they chose not to charge him the first time? Please, explain to us how you're so much smarter than the legal system. I'm all eyes.
 
Maybe a highly trained assassin (navy seal, black belt, etc.) might be able to, but not your typical person. Certainly not a kid who just turned 17.

http://spotmebro.com/how-to-kill-a-man-with-your-bare-hands/

The truth is, in order to effectively kill an opponent you must first render them unconscious. Strong fundamentals in traditional combat sports such as boxing, wrestling, muay thai, and jiu-jitsu are the key to victory in a mortal confrontation. There is no magic bullet, the fighter with greater technique, speed, power, and athleticism will almost always come out on top.

The real knowledge lies in something that wrestlers and judo practitioners have known for ages. The hard ground beneath your feet is actually the most abundant and devastating weapon. The most effective and efficient way to kill a man with your bare hands is by firmly grasping the skull of an unconscious opponent, and slamming the back of their head into hard ground multiple times. Several forceful slams will likely result in catastrophic brain damage and immediate death.

The most efficient lethal victory would look something like this:

* The victor lands a powerful snapping punch to the tip of their opponents chin rendering them unconscious.
* The victor mounts their opponent’s chest, firmly grasps the skull, and delivers 2-3 powerful slams of their opponents head on to hard ground.
* If the confrontation is taking place on soft ground such as grass, the most effective method would be to simply apply a blood choke on an unconscious opponent for 2-3 minutes.

And therefore the very reason many men and women prefer to be armed.

You do know Rachel Jeantel now says Trayvon was attacking George Z. right?
Whoop Ass! Imagine that! Whoop Ass on the neighborhood watch! What the fuck kind of
training did this kid get? Hard to feel sorry for a bugger of this order.
 
That wasn't your argument. You stated it was a "stand your ground" case, not a "self-defense" case.

Lots of luck untying yourself from your logical Gordian knot into which you've contorted yourself.

Exactly what didn't the jury understand so they found Zimmerman not guilty of both 2nd degree murder and manslaughter? Exactly what did the Sanford police miss that they chose not to charge him the first time? Please, explain to us how you're so much smarter than the legal system. I'm all eyes.

It is a stand your ground case. You can't decouple the law from the law.
 
It is a stand your ground case. You can't decouple the law from the law.

Baloney. Again Denny, the stand your ground component of self defense in Florida is irrelevant if retreat is impossible.
 
Baloney. Again Denny, the stand your ground component of self defense in Florida is irrelevant if retreat is impossible.

He had time to dial 911, he had time to retreat.
 
The only one winning in all of this is Denny. All the posting has raised his income to the point that he is now a 1%'er. Congrats Denny!
 
It is a stand your ground case. You can't decouple the law from the law.

Golly, you're just so much smarter than the attorneys prosecuting and defending the case, the judge, the vast majority of the legal analysts covering the case, the Sanford police who declined to press charges and the jury who heard the case. You're even smarter than my old college debating partner who happens to be an Florida Assistant State Attorney. He think Barack Obama is too far to the right, sees racism everywhere and predicted disaster for the prosecution.

Again, Denny, please show us why we're all so dumb and you're so brilliant.
 
No. It is ridiculously difficult to actually kill someone with your bare hands.

That's silly. Human bodies are incredibly fragile. A good hard fist to any of several points on a person's head or neck is capable of killing a human being. Happens every day even though the idiot throwing the punch usually doesn't intend to kill the person. Any punch to the head will cause a degree of brain damage, which may not be noticed until later in life.

Ask Ali about the effects of getting hit in the head, then imagine it without the padded gloves.
 
Golly, you're just so much smarter than the attorneys prosecuting and defending the case, the judge, the vast majority of the legal analysts covering the case, the Sanford police who declined to press charges and the jury who heard the case. You're even smarter than my old college debating partner who happens to be an Florida Assistant State Attorney. He think Barack Obama is too far to the right, sees racism everywhere and predicted disaster for the prosecution.

Again, Denny, please show us why we're all so dumb and you're so brilliant.

Ask your brilliant attorney friend about the jury instructions, which state specifically that Zimmerman had no duty to retreat.

I bet you won't.

I dare you.
 
Ask your brilliant attorney friend about the jury instructions, which state specifically that Zimmerman had no duty to retreat.

I bet you won't.

I dare you.

Sigh. It's up to the attorneys to make their cases and for the juries to decide the cases based on the evidence presented. It's not up to the juries to make up their own evidence or arguments.

And Errol is hardly brilliant. He's just happens to be an Assistant State Attorney and knew more than the average bear about the case and the evidence. He's as left as they come, and he knew this case was political.

You're still throwing out red herrings. Sorry, but we're not biting.
 
Sigh. It's up to the attorneys to make their cases and for the juries to decide the cases based on the evidence presented. It's not up to the juries to make up their own evidence or arguments.

And Errol is hardly brilliant. He's just happens to be an Assistant State Attorney and knew more than the average bear about the case and the evidence. He's as left as they come, and he knew this case was political.

You're still throwing out red herrings. Sorry, but we're not biting.

The jury instructions stated Zimmerman did not have the duty to retreat. So duh, the jury didn't consider that he didn't retreat.

Read the damned jury instructions.

http://sportstwo.com/threads/240978-...=1#post3062119
(and the post after)
http://sportstwo.com/threads/240978-...=1#post3062125
 
The jury instructions stated Zimmerman did not have the duty to retreat. So duh, the jury didn't consider that he didn't retreat.

Read the damned jury instructions.

http://sportstwo.com/threads/240978-...=1#post3062119
(and the post after)
http://sportstwo.com/threads/240978-...=1#post3062125

Is someone getting angry the argument isn't going their way? Read slowly, so you may digest the message: The jury evaluates the evidence presented. No one argued Zimmerman was not guilty because of Florida's "Stand Your Ground" statute.
 
Everyone likes to Monday Morning QB a situation that happened in a split second, but if someone sucker punched you, you fell down and he climbed on top and started banging your head into the ground, you would seriously fear for your life. Supposedly Zimmerman trained in MMA, well I don't know his resume so I can't say for sure, but just "training in MMA and muay thai" does not make you a fighter. I've trained in muay thai and MMA and I know for a fact that there are 17 year olds who would beat my ass. I have a friend who was a legit fighter, trained at Fairtex, etc etc etc, and he would certainly fuck just about anyone up that he met on the street. I've trained with him off and on for years, but that doesn't make me a trained fighter. Zimmerman is a fatty, so let's not pretend that the guy is a well oiled machine. He bit off more than he could chew, he got himself in a position that he probably shouldn't have been in, but I'm sure he probably feared for his life as this "kid" was on top of him, beating his head onto the pavement. That's a legit self defense claim.

I guessed you missed it last time I said it

Examiners already said his injuries aren't consistent with getting his head bashed into the pavement. It's that simple. It's also not even known if he actually broke his nose.

Right to kill him based on that? Nope. Since when does losing a fight mean you get to shoot someone? The right to self-defense was grossly applied here.
 
Is someone getting angry the argument isn't going their way? Read slowly, so you may digest the message: The jury evaluates the evidence presented. No one argued Zimmerman was not guilty because of Florida's "Stand Your Ground" statute.

You read the links, slowly.

You don't seem to get what they're saying.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top