Page 19 of 66 FirstFirst ... 9 17 18 19 20 21 29 ... LastLast
Results 271 to 285 of 985
  1. #271
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    South Central Illinois
    Posts
    10,902
    Quote Originally Posted by Allusonz View Post
    I know many would would love to believe that this was a teardrop.

    I do believe though and this is MOO that it was more apt to be a raindrop.

    Maybe God's way of grieving?
    BBM

    I don't understand, why would anyone love to believe that?


  2. The Following 16 Users Say Thank You to Dr.Fessel For This Useful Post:


  3. #272
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    6,494
    Quote Originally Posted by CathyinTexas View Post
    I can't help but have my suspicions about the enhanced photo because I know pictures can be photo shopped and made to look like anything. I am not saying it was photo shopped to make it look like GZ's injuries are worse, but just that I have some doubt.
    If I saw that enhancement on a blog, or a news website that was supportive of GZ from the beginning I'd agree. But in airing that enhancement, CNN was basically going against the flavor and slant of their other coverage in this case.


  4. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to JeannaT For This Useful Post:


  5. #273
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Palm Springs
    Posts
    19,014
    Quote Originally Posted by gator View Post
    Can someone please help me understand this whole "under the law, you don't need to be injured to fear for your life" thing? At what point would a reasonable person think that GZ shooting TM is justified?

    • Opponent is unarmed and has not touched you – not reasonable
    • If you think your opponent has a gun because of preconceived notions you have about people like him, but you haven’t actually seen a weapon – not reasonable
    • He says something straight out of a cheesy movie like, “You’re going to die tonight.” – not reasonable
    • Someone jumps you from behind - ?
    • Someone punches you in the face - ?
    • Someone is on top of you, struggling for the gun that you pulled on him - ?

    I know that some people are going to say that killing someone who initiated the fight and is beating your head into the ground is reasonable, but the question I have for those people is: do you really think Trayvon was wailing like his life was ending while beating GZ nearly to death (and yes, I think it was Trayvon screaming, supported by the analysis of the two audio experts)?

    JMO.
    This is why I was saying several threads ago that it seems two people might each be simultaneously justified under SYG.

    If GZ pulled a gun on TM, surely TM had a reasonable fear for his life. But if TM panicked and, while trying to get the gun away, pounded GZ's head into the ground, then apparently GZ also had a reasonable fear under SYG.

    Now some will say GZ lost his SYG rights when he pulled out his gun, but we don't know what caused him to do that (assuming he did), do we?

    Bad law.


  6. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Nova For This Useful Post:


  7. #274
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Palm Springs
    Posts
    19,014
    Quote Originally Posted by Adrienne37 View Post
    I do not believe it's up to us to decide if it is a teardrop or a raindrop, the whole point of the post is to show how callous and unconcerned the Sanford Police Dept treated the father of a murder victim by showing him a picture of his child laying face down in the grass after he was murdered. To Tracy Martin that represented a tear drop and I do not believe it should be up to anyone to decipher or interpret how Mr. Martin felt at that moment to see his beloved son lying face down with a bullet through him.



    ~jmo~
    I understand that's a terrible position in which to place any parent, but how do you want LE to identify dead bodies, if not by showing pictures to next of kin?


  8. The Following User Says Thank You to Nova For This Useful Post:


  9. #275
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    6,494
    Quote Originally Posted by HiHater View Post
    I think it's unethical. That info could be added to a follow up or supplemental report.
    I'm still ruminating on this. It's not like he went back and changed an observation (for example, stating an officer noticed a suspect's limp when that in fact wasn't noticed until days later). I don't think adding the deceased's identity to this changes anything - it would be like adding an address, or phone number, or cop's badge number, or other information pertinent to the case that wouldn't change over time, but had not been in the report because it wasn't known at the time. The initial police report of a shooting that left off the identity of the deceased's identity is incomplete, and not the best recordkeeping practice, IMHO if they learn the identity and don't add it for clarity.

    I don't see how filling in one of the blanks once the answer becomes known falsifies the report. Or even in any way looks suspicious. It makes it a more accurate, useful document. Trayvon's identity didn't change between 3:07 a.m. and whenever they added his identity to the report.


  10. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to JeannaT For This Useful Post:


  11. #276
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Palm Springs
    Posts
    19,014
    Quote Originally Posted by JeannaT View Post
    Thanks. It's interesting that the videotape doesn't have a time stamp that allows him to be more accurate about when Trayvon was there.

    At a minimum, it took him 45 minutes to get back into the complex, or at any rate, 45 minutes (minimum) after purchasing the items he was still outside in the complex. Which leads to a question. What was he doing with that time? He wasn't going to the store and coming back, he was doing something else, likely innocent, but whatever it was is likely the reason he appeared suspicious to GZ.
    1. Talking on the phone to his girlfriend.

    2. Waiting for the rain to let up.

    Which of these activities "appeared suspicious to GZ"?



  12. #277
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    3,262
    Quote Originally Posted by JeannaT View Post
    Thanks. It's interesting that the videotape doesn't have a time stamp that allows him to be more accurate about when Trayvon was there.

    At a minimum, it took him 45 minutes to get back into the complex, or at any rate, 45 minutes (minimum) after purchasing the items he was still outside in the complex. Which leads to a question. What was he doing with that time? He wasn't going to the store and coming back, he was doing something else, likely innocent, but whatever it was is likely the reason he appeared suspicious to GZ.
    The corporate executive states Trayvon was in the store between 6-6:30 p.m. If it takes 45 minutes to walk to the store then obviously it takes 45 minutes to walk back so if he left the store at 6 p.m., he would have arrived back at the complex at 6:45. If he left the store at 6:30 p.m., it would have taken him until 7:15 p.m. to make it back. I fail to understand why anyone keeps needing to throw in the things that Trayvon "might have been" doing.



    ~jmo~



  13. #278
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    2,281
    Nice op-ed from Huffington Post ( link )

    I also became aware of the privilege of being white, straight, middle class, and suburban. I had received the benefit of the doubt from police and other authorities. I could talk my way out of a situation with lies that were believed. When parties in the suburbs got busted, we were told to go home and parents were called. A few miles away, we would have been arrested in paddy wagon

    [...]

    I am reminded of an incident fifteen years ago when we were moving our first office at Public Allies, and two of the women I worked with, both African American Howard University graduates in sweats, decided to treat themselves to a nice lunch. They kept waiting to be seated and were being treated rudely and when they complained were told to take their attitude back to the ghetto. They weren't from the "ghetto." I learned that one of the privileges of being white is that I can wear whatever I want and people don't assume I'm a problem. They don't follow me in the mall. They wouldn't even arrest me when they should have.


  14. The Following 18 Users Say Thank You to shadowraiths For This Useful Post:


  15. #279
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    6,494
    Quote Originally Posted by Nova View Post
    1. Talking on the phone to his girlfriend.

    2. Waiting for the rain to let up.

    Which of these activities "appeared suspicious to GZ"?
    I don't know. The initial belief that he walked to the store, and then walked right back - something that would look not suspicious- may not be accurate. He may have been kind of slowly exploring the place (not a crime) or standing in one area and pacing back and forth (not a crime) or doing something else that looked more suspicious than someone walking in a purposeful way.

    This whole thing was a horrible misunderstanding, and the more we learn about what led to the misunderstanding, the better. And so when you find out that 45 minutes to an hour and 15 minutes after leaving the 7-11, Trayvon was still not home you have to wonder what he was doing besides walking to the condo unit.

    Not that whatever he was doing was criminal. The point is, did it look more criminal than a purposeful walk.

    BTW, people don't normally "wait for the rain to let up" while they're standing in the rain. They work to get back home if the rain is bothering them.


  16. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to JeannaT For This Useful Post:


  17. #280
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    6,494
    Quote Originally Posted by Adrienne37 View Post
    The corporate executive states Trayvon was in the store between 6-6:30 p.m. If it takes 45 minutes to walk to the store then obviously it takes 45 minutes to walk back so if he left the store at 6 p.m., he would have arrived back at the complex at 6:45. If he left the store at 6:30 p.m., it would have taken him until 7:15 p.m. to make it back. I fail to understand why anyone keeps needing to throw in the things that Trayvon "might have been" doing.



    ~jmo~
    If you re-read it, it doesn't say he was inside the store from 6 - 6:30. It says he purchased the items between 6 and 6:30. Meaning, he could have purchased them at 6.

    It is kind of unclear, though.


  18. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to JeannaT For This Useful Post:


  19. #281
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    6,494
    Quote Originally Posted by Adrienne37 View Post
    The corporate executive states Trayvon was in the store between 6-6:30 p.m. If it takes 45 minutes to walk to the store then obviously it takes 45 minutes to walk back so if he left the store at 6 p.m., he would have arrived back at the complex at 6:45. If he left the store at 6:30 p.m., it would have taken him until 7:15 p.m. to make it back. I fail to understand why anyone keeps needing to throw in the things that Trayvon "might have been" doing.



    ~jmo~
    Since we don't know what Trayvon was doing that GZ characterized as "suspicious", I think it's open to thinking about what it could have been.

    No one is saying Trayvon was committing a crime. But rather, what did he appear like that evening?


  20. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to JeannaT For This Useful Post:


  21. #282
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    3,262
    Quote Originally Posted by JeannaT View Post
    If you re-read it, it doesn't say he was inside the store from 6 - 6:30. It says he purchased the items between 6 and 6:30. Meaning, he could have purchased them at 6.

    It is kind of unclear, though.
    This is what I said. No where in my post did I say anything about him being in the store for 30 minutes.

    The corporate executive states Trayvon was in the store between 6-6:30 p.m. If it takes 45 minutes to walk to the store then obviously it takes 45 minutes to walk back so if he left the store at 6 p.m., he would have arrived back at the complex at 6:45. If he left the store at 6:30 p.m., it would have taken him until 7:15 p.m. to make it back. I fail to understand why anyone keeps needing to throw in the things that Trayvon "might have been" doing.


    ~jmo~


  22. The Following 16 Users Say Thank You to Adrienne37 For This Useful Post:


  23. #283
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    6,692
    Quote Originally Posted by gator View Post
    Can someone please help me understand this whole "under the law, you don't need to be injured to fear for your life" thing? At what point would a reasonable person think that GZ shooting TM is justified?

    • Opponent is unarmed and has not touched you – not reasonable
    • If you think your opponent has a gun because of preconceived notions you have about people like him, but you haven’t actually seen a weapon – not reasonable
    • He says something straight out of a cheesy movie like, “You’re going to die tonight.” – not reasonable
    • Someone jumps you from behind - ?
    • Someone punches you in the face - ?
    • Someone is on top of you, struggling for the gun that you pulled on him - ?

    I know that some people are going to say that killing someone who initiated the fight and is beating your head into the ground is reasonable, but the question I have for those people is: do you really think Trayvon was wailing like his life was ending while beating GZ nearly to death (and yes, I think it was Trayvon screaming, supported by the analysis of the two audio experts)?

    JMO.
    I don't know the answer to your question but while you have two audio experts GZ has two eyewitnesses he was on the bottom. Here's from a state of Fla. licensing web site.

    Q. When can I use my handgun to protect myself?

    A. Florida law justifies use of deadly force when you are:

    Trying to protect yourself or another person from death or serious bodily harm;
    Trying to prevent a forcible felony, such as rape, robbery, burglary or kidnapping.
    Using or displaying a handgun in any other circumstances could result in your conviction for crimes such as improper exhibition of a firearm, manslaughter, or worse.

    Example of the kind of attack that will not justify defending yourself with deadly force: Two neighbors got into a fight, and one of them tried to hit the other by swinging a garden hose. The neighbor who was being attacked with the hose shot the other in the chest. The court upheld his conviction for aggravated battery with a firearm, because an attack with a garden hose is not the kind of violent assault that justifies responding with deadly force.

    Q. What if someone uses threatening language to me so that I am afraid for my life or safety?

    A. Verbal threats are not enough to justify the use of deadly force. There must be an overt act by the person which indicates that he immediately intends to carry out the threat. The person threatened must reasonably believe that he will be killed or suffer serious bodily harm if he does not immediately take the life of his adversary.

    http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/wea...f_defense.html


  24. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Peliman For This Useful Post:


  25. #284
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Palm Springs
    Posts
    19,014
    Quote Originally Posted by JeannaT View Post
    I don't know. The initial belief that he walked to the store, and then walked right back - something that would look not suspicious- may not be accurate. He may have been kind of slowly exploring the place (not a crime) or standing in one area and pacing back and forth (not a crime) or doing something else that looked more suspicious than someone walking in a purposeful way.

    This whole thing was a horrible misunderstanding, and the more we learn about what led to the misunderstanding, the better. And so when you find out that 45 minutes to an hour and 15 minutes after leaving the 7-11, Trayvon was still not home you have to wonder what he was doing besides walking to the condo unit.

    Not that whatever he was doing was criminal. The point is, did it look more criminal than a purposeful walk.

    BTW, people don't normally "wait for the rain to let up" while they're standing in the rain. They work to get back home if the rain is bothering them.
    I grew up in Florida and lived there until I was 23. I am well aware of how quickly tropical downpours come and go. No, of course one doesn't stand in the rain, but one might well stand under an awning for 15 or 20 minutes, trusting that the worst of the rain will pass before long. I have done so myself countless times, including when I was TM's age.

    I have never assumed that GZ set out to stalk and kill a black person that night, so I don't have much reason to imagine an alternate reason why he found TM suspicious.


  26. The Following 15 Users Say Thank You to Nova For This Useful Post:


  27. #285
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Palm Springs
    Posts
    19,014
    Quote Originally Posted by Peliman View Post
    I don't know the answer to your question but while you have two audio experts GZ has two eyewitnesses he was on the bottom. Here's from a state of Fla. licensing web site.

    Q. When can I use my handgun to protect myself?

    A. Florida law justifies use of deadly force when you are:

    Trying to protect yourself or another person from death or serious bodily harm;
    Trying to prevent a forcible felony, such as rape, robbery, burglary or kidnapping.
    Using or displaying a handgun in any other circumstances could result in your conviction for crimes such as improper exhibition of a firearm, manslaughter, or worse.

    Example of the kind of attack that will not justify defending yourself with deadly force: Two neighbors got into a fight, and one of them tried to hit the other by swinging a garden hose. The neighbor who was being attacked with the hose shot the other in the chest. The court upheld his conviction for aggravated battery with a firearm, because an attack with a garden hose is not the kind of violent assault that justifies responding with deadly force.

    Q. What if someone uses threatening language to me so that I am afraid for my life or safety?

    A. Verbal threats are not enough to justify the use of deadly force. There must be an overt act by the person which indicates that he immediately intends to carry out the threat. The person threatened must reasonably believe that he will be killed or suffer serious bodily harm if he does not immediately take the life of his adversary.

    http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/wea...f_defense.html
    Am I the only one who is struck by how carefully GZ's story eventually gets around to fulfilling the criteria listed above. I have to wonder if he was coached.



Page 19 of 66 FirstFirst ... 9 17 18 19 20 21 29 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. 17 yo Trayvon Martin Shot to Death by Neighborhood Watch Captain #15
    By imamaze in forum George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin General Discussion threads
    Replies: 1163
    Last Post: 04-03-2012, 05:28 PM
  2. 17 yo Trayvon Martin Shot to Death by Neighborhood Watch Captain #14
    By imamaze in forum George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin General Discussion threads
    Replies: 1285
    Last Post: 04-02-2012, 04:17 PM
  3. 17 yo Trayvon Martin Shot to Death by Neighborhood Watch Captain #13
    By imamaze in forum George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin General Discussion threads
    Replies: 912
    Last Post: 04-01-2012, 04:54 PM
  4. FL 17 y/o Trayvon Martin Shot to Death by Neighborhood Watch Captain #12
    By ynotdivein in forum George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin General Discussion threads
    Replies: 934
    Last Post: 03-31-2012, 09:12 PM
  5. FL 17 yo Trayvon Martin Shot to Death by Neighborhood Watch Captain #11
    By beach in forum George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin General Discussion threads
    Replies: 1090
    Last Post: 03-31-2012, 08:26 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •