The State of Florida vs George Zimmerman: The Trial

@firefly,

Quote:

We have enough facts to know who the victim was.

Trayvon Martin was the victim of a homicide committed by George Zimmerman--Zimmerman admitted to killing him.

nope.

the jury decided that this was a lawful killing, so you cant use the word homicide. you also cant take only the fact that martin is dead and conclude that he was the victim

Quote:

hom·i·cide
ˈhäməˌsīd,ˈhōmə-/Submit
noun
1.
the deliberate and unlawful killing of one person by another; murder.
"he was charged with homicide"

https://www.google.com/search?q=homicide+definition&oq=homocide+de&aqs=chrome.3.69i57j0l5.5950j0j9&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8

when cops kill people and it is ruled a good shoot do we say that the cop is guilty of homicide but "got away with it"? is the dead person a victim?

no, and no. this is no different.

2 Replies

@firefly,

firefly wrote:

Quote:
Lemme get this straight, cicerone imposter:
84% = "nine times more likely"; is that correct

No, that's not correct, David.

You're allegedly a Mensa member, but you can't see you're confusing
two different statements, and two different sets of statistics?

Quote:

"Blacks today are nine times more likely
to be killed by other blacks than by whites," ...

84 percent of white people
killed every year are killed by other whites.

Maybe now you can figure it out.

Your ability to examine evidence is very suspect, David,
given how you scrambled what you were looking at.

No; u r falsely implying that I was ASSERTING the evidence,
when, in fact, I asked its offeror to EXPLAIN what he was offering.
A question does not express affirmative information, Firefly. U shud know that.

David

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

Firefly. U shud know that.

i have been telling you for years that what she knows and what she says are often not the same.

r u ready to believe me now?

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

the jury decided that this was a lawful killing, so you cant use the word homicide. you also cant take only the fact that martin is dead and conclude that he was the victim.

Good grief, Hawkeye, you should never comment on the law. You never seem to understand it correctly.

Quote:

Homicide
The killing of one human being by another human being.

Although the term homicide is sometimes used synonymously with murder, homicide is broader in scope than murder. Murder is a form of criminal homicide; other forms of homicide might not constitute criminal acts. These homicides are regarded as justified or excusable. For example, individuals may, in a necessary act of Self-Defense, kill a person who threatens them with death or serious injury, or they may be commanded or authorized by law to kill a person who is a member of an enemy force or who has committed a serious crime. Typically, the circumstances surrounding a killing determine whether it is criminal. The intent of the killer usually determines whether a criminal homicide is classified as murder or Manslaughter and at what degree.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/homicide

Trayvon Martin was a homicide victim--he did not die of natural causes, he was shot and killed by George Zimmerman.

He's a homicide victim regardless of whether Zimmerman was found criminally liable for that homicide.

I didn't just take the fact he is dead to consider him the victim--go back and re-read my post, it obviously didn't sink in with you, or you had difficulty comprehending it,

Zimmerman provoked, instigated, and created the conditions that led to Martin's death--he needlessly and recklessly went after Martin, he stalked him. In doing so, he caused a needless and totally avoidable death, according to the police investigation.

That makes Martin the victim of a needless and totally avoidable homicide. The jury verdict does nothing to change that, nor does it absolve George Zimmerman of moral responsibility for causing this totally avoidable death by his reckless actions.

Go back and re-read my post.

And don't comment on the law, any law, before you take the time to fully understand it.

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

David, you scrambled what you were reading, you confused two different statements, and two different sets of statistics.

It surprises me that an alleged Mensa member should have needed anyone to explain that material to him--it was very simple to understand, and very straight forward. You scrambled it. You couldn't understand it correctly.

That does make me question your ability to accurately understand what you read.

1 Reply

@firefly,

firefly wrote:

David, you scrambled what you were reading, you confused two different statements, and two different sets of statistics.

It surprises me that an alleged Mensa member should have needed anyone to explain that material to him--it was very simple to understand, and very straight forward. You scrambled it. You couldn't understand it correctly.

That does make me question your ability to accurately understand what you read.

U appear not to be able to understand
that A QUESTION cannot scramble anything.
That can only be accomplished by a declaration.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

A QUESTION cannot scramble anything.
That can only be accomplished by a declaration.

This was your declaration, included within a question...

Quote:

84% = "nine times more likely"; is that correct

You scrambled what you read in the article David, so you asked that absurd question.

You did not correctly understand what you read in the article. You confused two different statements, and two different sets of statistics, as though they referred to the same thing, which they did not.

You really are a birdbrain. It's not worth my time responding to you, which I rarely do.

1 Reply

@firefly,

firefly wrote:

This was your declaration, included within a question...

Quote:
84% = "nine times more likely"; is that correct

You scrambled what you read David, so you asked that absurd question.

I did not scramble, nor did I declare; I QUOTED what was already there. I did not originate that.

firefly wrote:

You did not correctly understand what you read.

That is the reason that people ASK questions, Firefly.

firefly wrote:

You really are a birdbrain. It's not worth my time responding to you, which I rarely do.

That is OFF TOPIC.
This thread is not about whether anyone is a "birdbrain" nor
is it about whether anything is worth your time.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

I did not scramble, nor did I declare; I QUOTED what was already there.

No, Birdbrain, you misquoted what was in the article.

The article said this:

Quote:

"Blacks today are nine times more likely
to be killed by other blacks than by whites,"...

84 percent of white people
killed every year are killed by other whites.

Those are two different statements, and two different sets of statistics. One statement refers to the killing of blacks, the other to the killing of whites.

You failed to discriminate between the two sets of statistics, and apparently thought they referred to the same thing, and you came up with this..

Quote:

84% = "nine times more likely"; is that correct

Duh...

You didn't correctly understand what you read in the article.

http://bumpybrains.com/comics/images/0077_birdBrain.jpg

1 Reply

@firefly,

Cast in the form of a QUESTION,
that is not a mis-quotation. I accurately quoted what was already
set forth there and then I inquired as to whether it was correct.

U have mis-characterized the situation. U shud know better.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

. I accurately quoted what was already
set forth there

No, you didn't.

If you think you were accurately quoting, then cite the exact quote from the article that justifies this statement.

Quote:

84% = "nine times more likely";

Why would you have even connected "84%" and "nine times more likely"--what made you even think they were related to each other or equivalent?

I still don't think you even understand the error in judgment and logic you made by connecting "84%" and "nine times more likely"--by coming up with "84% = "nine times more likely"--those figures are not connected to each other in any way. There is no logical reason to assume they are equivalent.

Put quite simply, the question you posed to C.I. was idiotic. And don't claim questions can't be idiotic, I am free to judge yours as I see fit--it was an idiotic question. And you should have been able to figure out the answer to your idiotic question for yourself, without having to ask C.I. if you were correct. You should have been able to figure out that "84% = "nine times more likely" was not correct, if you have at least average intelligence, and could accurately comprehend what you read in that article.

I am now fully convinced of your Birdbrain status.

0 Replies

WAIT!!
After watching the Zim talkthrough vid again (below), I've got a little more sympathy for the kid and less for Zim!
The key passage of Zims testimony begins at 00:45 and goes like this-
He said "You got a problem?"
I said "No i don't have a problem man".
He was walking towards me. I reached to grab my cellphone..I looked down in my pant pocket. [Zim looks down at his right pocket on the vid].
He said "You got a problem now!", and he punched me in the face

So three possibilities now emerge-
1- As Zim reached into his pocket, Martin may have thought he was reaching for a knife or gun, and punched him in self-defence.
2- As Zim reached into his pocket, his jacket may have rode up slightly and Martin glimpsed the weapon in its holster, and punched him in self-defence.
3- Zim may be lying and in fact deliberately reached for his gun, not the cellphone, and Martin punched him in self-defence.

But whichever of those three scenarios is the true one, i'd still tend to be on Zim's side, because if he'd set out to shoot him right from the start, he'd have had his hand on his gun ready to whip it out the instant Martin got too close for comfort.
The fact that he ended up on the ground with Martin on top of him shows that he DIDN'T have his hand on his gun or he'd have drawn and fired when Martin aggressively approached him, or at least have drawn and pointed it at him as a warning.
As i've said before if both of them hadn't played it so badly the situation could have ended peaceably without any shooting.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

nope.

the jury decided that this was a lawful killing, so you cant use the word homicide. you also cant take only the fact that martin is dead and conclude that he was the victim

Sorry but she can indeed used the emotional term homicide as in justifiable homicide and of course being the dishonest person she happen to be she will always leaved out the word justifiable.

0 Replies

@Romeo Fabulini,

Sorry it was Trayvon that approached Zimmerman in an unfriendly and threatening manner that trigger the conflict so Trayvon bear the blame no matter if Zimmerman was reaching for a cell phone or not.

There was no reason why Trayvon needed to turn back and attacked Zimmerman instead of going home and if it had been me instead of Trayvon if I had been worry about Zimmerman I would had call 911 myself and I would had kept walking home.

If I did end up facing Zimmerman I would had acted in a friendly manner not a hostile one.

Such a manner as I had acted in when I was challenge more the once when doing work for the 2010 US census.

In fact I was somewhat amused as I was carrying a bag with US census in large letters on my side as well as census ID around my neck.

In any case, I would had have no problem in being challenge that night by Zimmerman if he had wished to do so.

Add to the facts that Zimmerman did not wish to challenge Trayvon but only wished to get the police on scene to do the challenging and there is no question who was a fault over Trayvon death it was Trayvon.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

You,
Quote:
I give up.
Please give up! You'll be ahead by not digging deeper into your own pit.

Plenty of facts and evidence from police records and the trial were reported by both firefly and MiT which none of you could dispute. I made some representations about Zimmerman's injuries that were consistent from the record taken by the police and the investigators.

If they were "invented facts ---that totally rejects the real evidence," you haven't shown what they are. You're free to present them now.

But you can't.

You're a loser too, and not only on this subject.

U leftists are the "losers";
u r just too dum to KNOW it.
Zimmy WON; U lost!

2 Replies

@firefly,

firefly wrote:

That link also describes someone like Zimmerman.

The Zimmerman apologists can see themselves in Zimmerman--
that's why they excuse and rationalize everything he doe.

LET THE RECORD SHOW that I am not an apologist for Zimmy.
I brag and joyfully boast of his successes, in good spirits!!!

David

0 Replies

Quote:

BillRM said: it was Trayvon that approached Zimmerman in an unfriendly and threatening manner that trigger the conflict so Trayvon bear the blame no matter if Zimmerman was reaching for a cell phone or not.

Yeah but put yourself in the kid's shoes- you notice a suspicious guy tailing you after dark, so you walk over to ask why, but he reaches for something on his right hip so what would any of us do,
1- Run like hell?
2- Stand still and put our hands up?
2- Dive on him?

2 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

A force kiss or even an attempt force kiss is a minor matter that used to be settle with a slap to the face not the criminal justice system.

An bundling it in with rape or attempt rape as the same class of things and trying to fool the public by reporting rape and attempts rape and very minor misdeeds under the same label of sexual assault is a clear attempts to fool the public on how common rape or attempt rape happen to be.

So...if someone like Mike Tyson decided to give you a great big kiss and maybe pinch your butt...you would just slap his face...and be satisfied that the matter was settled.

Am I correct?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

So...if someone like Mike Tyson decided to give you a great big kiss and maybe pinch your butt...you would just slap his face...and be satisfied that the matter was settled.

Am I correct?

Hmm he is kind of cute...........

1 Reply

@Romeo Fabulini,

Quote:

eah but put yourself in the kid's shoes- you notice a suspicious guy tailing you after dark, so you walk over to ask why, but he reaches for something on his right hip so what would any of us do,
1- Run like hell?
2- Stand still and put our hands up?
2- Dive on him?

If I was so concern about him that I would assume he might be reaching for a weapon when he was reaching for a cell phone I would had not have double back to confront him that for damn sure and I would had already call 911 myself.

0 Replies

The State of Florida vs George Zimmerman: The Trial

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know