Good. I'm not really familiar with the stand your ground law, but I'm glad it would be on Trayvons side in that scenario.Even then the stand your ground law would on the side of the Trayvon (sp). He was the one being stalked and then confronted.
Good. I'm not really familiar with the stand your ground law, but I'm glad it would be on Trayvons side in that scenario.Even then the stand your ground law would on the side of the Trayvon (sp). He was the one being stalked and then confronted.
He likes to color too.
That shirt though...
Even then the stand your ground law would on the side of the Trayvon (sp). He was the one being stalked and then confronted.
Damn. That's pretty powerful.
Now having said that, the only affirmative defense would be if Treyton was on top of him and saw the gun in Zimmermans waistline(or wherever it was) and tried to grab the gun. It could then be argued that he was in fear for his life. Other than that, Zimmerman comes off as a wannabe cop who deserves to be in jail.
That would hinge on the gunshot wound would be in his back or his front. I thought previous accounts were that the wound was through his back?
Recent pictures of Trayvon from February 17, 2012
Confirms what we already knew. He was just a kid. I'm finding it difficult to see him as the violent thug some would want me, and the public at large, to see him as.
http://globalgrind.com/node/829140?gpage=3
![]()
yeah . . .
Yeah, apparently the reporter misspoke. The video is no longer up. Trayvon Martin did not call 911.http://abclocal.go.com/wls/video?id=8593399
Transcript of the significant portion at the end:Paul Meincke said:Trayvon Martin made a 911 call shortly before his death, and the FBI is attempting to determine if that recording - which captured Zimmerman's voice in the background - can be audio enhanced to more clearly hear what was said.
And that may very well be the key to what happens next.
It's weird though that they found Trayvon face down though. If he was shot in the chest wouldn't he have been on his back?
Good. I'm not really familiar with the stand your ground law, but I'm glad it would be on Trayvons side in that scenario.
I heard on the radio that a 13 year old boy was an eye witness to parts of the event.
He likes to color too.
That shirt though...
I heard on the radio that a 13 year old boy was an eye witness to parts of the event.
I heard on the radio that a 13 year old boy was an eye witness to parts of the event.
Well I should say it should be on his side considering the situation. He had a right to defend himself.
Yea, was talked about a couple of pages back
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...martin-grainy-proves-lawyer-article-1.1052713
The police interviewed him eight days later and asked him leading questions.
It's weird though that they found Trayvon face down though. If he was shot in the chest wouldn't he have been on his back?
Damn son.
It's weird though that they found Trayvon face down though. If he was shot in the chest wouldn't he have been on his back?
I think his/her point is that you can't draw a direct analogy between the two situations. Zimmerman's family doesn't need to advocate for anything--their son is free. Unless they can produce "smoking gun" evidence, anything they say publicly will likely only hamper their son's ability to mount a successful defense if charges are ever filed.
By contrast, if the Martins did not speak out publicly, this would not be a story; the cops already determined that they could not charge Zimmerman with anything. The only reason a grand jury is going to be looking at this case is because of the public outcry.
Yea, was talked about a couple of pages back
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...martin-grainy-proves-lawyer-article-1.1052713
The police interviewed him eight days later and asked him leading questions.
Unless Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman when he was shot, and then Martin slipped out from under him, leaving Trayvon face down.
Unless Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman when he was shot, and then Martin slipped out from under him, leaving Trayvon face down.
You'd think if he shot Martin when Martin was ontop of him, punching him and whatnot, he would have gotten soaked in blood, Martin would have fallen ontop of him dead. But if that were the case, the clothes would be evidence, he wouldn't wear that out of the station. How he didn't have any blood on him is a mystery!I don't believe any sort of struggle occurred that lead Zimmerman to shoot and fire to defend himself. Know why? No blood splatter. Shoot someone at close enough range, you will get their blood on you.
You'd think if he shot Martin when Martin was ontop of him, punching him and whatnot, he would have gotten soaked in blood, Martin would have fallen ontop of him dead. But if that were the case, the clothes would be evidence, he wouldn't wear that out of the station. How he didn't have any blood on him is a mystery!
All those people who defended or are still defending Zimmerman and attacking Trayvon must be feeling ever more stupid as the evidence mounts, that said, I actually doubt even that. Much of America, especially the right wing Republican types, many of whom would likely revel in any excuse to defend this sort of shit and instead turn the sympathy around on themselves.
It's weird though that they found Trayvon face down though. If he was shot in the chest wouldn't he have been on his back?
I actually don't think anyone is defending Zimmerman, but rather they are projecting themselves onto Zimmerman's situation contemplating the idea of being in his shoes under the 'pretense' they knew they were innocent as well. There is a lot of people that don't want to believe we live in an unjust world so they want to find something desperately that doesn't make this situation so one sided and tragic. There is also the whole 'media judgement' that can be a fear for others as well where the media can attach guilt without a trial, the funny thing is by being contrarian they are doing the exact same thing they fear on to someone else. Basically they don't want people to rush to conclusions and want the law to handle it, but this story is unique because its clear the law didn't handle this case well AT ALL, and still remains to be seen if he is actually going to get a proper trial since he hasn't been arrested and hasn't even been charged with a crime to take him to court to find the truth.
All those people who defended or are still defending Zimmerman and attacking Trayvon must be feeling ever more stupid as the evidence mounts, that said, I actually doubt even that. Much of America, especially the right wing Republican types, many of whom would likely revel in any excuse to defend this sort of shit and instead turn the sympathy around on themselves.
He was shot in the chest, but then he jumped up, shouted "YOU GOT ME!", spun around, and dropped face-first to the ground.
Specifically, many people don't want to believe that we live in a world whose injustices disproportionately fall on black people.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hj4RHJ0taoc
That gunshot sounds like it was shot from a distance and not point blank..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hj4RHJ0taoc
That gunshot sounds like it was shot from a distance and not point blank..
Life doesn't work like CSI. You can shoot someone point blank and not get any blood on you unless you're using a shotgun. The stipling pattern on Trayvon will tell how close he was when he was shot. No stipling=at least 6 feet away(approx). The more pronounced the stipling pattern, the closer the shot.I don't believe any sort of struggle occurred that lead Zimmerman to shoot and fire to defend himself. Know why? No blood splatter. Shoot someone at close enough range, you will get their blood on you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hj4RHJ0taoc
That gunshot sounds like it was shot from a distance and not point blank..
Life doesn't work like CSI. You can shoot someone point blank and not get any blood on you unless you're using a shotgun. The stipling pattern on Trayvon will tell how close he was when he was shot. No stipling=at least 6 feet away(approx). The more pronounced the stipling pattern, the closer the shot.
Stipling is the gunpowder burns around the bullet wound for those that don't know.
Life doesn't work like CSI. You can shoot someone point blank and not get any blood on you unless you're using a shotgun. The stipling pattern on Trayvon will tell how close he was when he was shot. No stipling=at least 6 feet away(approx). The more pronounced the stipling pattern, the closer the shot.
Stipling is the gunpowder burns around the bullet wound for those that don't know.
You forget though, that if trayvon was indeed on top of him when zimmerman shot him, he would have fallen on zimmerman after. I would think that his blood would be on his shirt due to that at the very least.
Even then, looking at the surveillance, none of the things that zimmerman said happened to him(grass stains on back, blood stains on shirt due to broken nose, etc.) are concurrent with the video.
This. Martin would've immediately fallen on top of Zimmerman if he was straddling him. Unless Zimmerman was able to shoot him and get away from under him in the seconds it took before Martin slumped over on top of him, then it smells like even more bullshit to me. And I don't care what anyone says, that does not sound like it would come from Zimmerman. At all.We're being told he shot him point blank in the chest as he's being straddled. I cannot believe there is no blood on him what so ever in that case.