Just because you know how to put someone in an arm bar and reverse a mount that doesn't necessarily mean you are for enough to execute it lol.

Quote from Fusion

And how is it so? Floridian law says that a person who isn't engaged in an illegal activity or isn't in a place they are legally allowed to be is justified in using deadly force if they are attacked and feel that they might receive severe bodily harm. Zimmerman already had lacerations on the back of his head before he shot Trayvon Martin, and he was lying on his back according to some witness testimony. That seems like a situation where someone could reasonably expect to receive severe bodily harm.

Also, 'Manslaughter' isn't a blanket term that means the same thing throughout the country, and it's meaningless outside of local legal context.

That sounds like trespassing. What I mean by manslaughter is that when Zimmerman was on the ground, it would be pretty hard to aim while getting hit in the face, and even if he was standing, the head injuries and blurry/dizzy vision could have caused an unintentionally lethal shot. I'm not saying he didn't shoot in self defense, but the fact that the shot was lethal makes it a likely case of unintentional manslaughter.

But it was self defense? Yeah the kid died but if the kid wasn't beating the shit out of him he would still have been here?

Quote from Azure Kite

Looking at a statement Zimmerman made from the trial, he had been studying MMA. It is entirely possible that both were studying it. That's why I said that I believe Zimmerman resorting to the gun was a bit too much, especially since he did nothing to defend himself.

yep, they both studied some type of martial arts or something. the difference is that trayvon was actually good at fighting, whereas zimmerman's martial arts instructor said he was a shitty fighter, rating him a 1-1.5 out of 10.

Quote from GrimmtheReaper

an unintentionally lethal shotshot was lethal makes it a likely case of unintentional manslaughter.

Once again, any and every shot can be either lethal or just require a quick hospitalization. There's no "It's just a flesh wound.", a shot is a shot. Just clearing this out.

Quote from Arch-Angel

Based on the phone call Zimmerman made to the police that really sounded like him screaming :/

Well, I completely disagree. It doesn't sound like Zimmerman at all.

Quote from Gunnii

1. If we don't judge him on past history, on what should we actually base our judgement of character?
The way he looked?

We shouldn't judge him at all. His character had nothing to do with what happened that night. I could easily bring up Zimmerman's past history of him assaulting a police officer in 2005 and of the domestic violence charge on him by his ex-fiance. But I'm not because it's irrelevant.

2. You have shown no evidence of Zimmerman having injuries that point to him showing physical aggression, unlike has been done with Trayvon.

I don't have any evidence, but I do have reasonable suspicion to think he could have. Also, you don't need to have any injuries so prove aggression. A single grab or hold won't give you any injuries.

Quote from Preserve

We shouldn't judge him at all. His character had nothing to do with what happened that night. I could easily bring up Zimmerman's past history of him assaulting a police officer in 2005 and of the domestic violence charge on him by his ex-fiance. But I'm not because it's irrelevant.

How does past history not have anything to do with this? Zimmerman's past isn't irrelevant but arguing that it matters in this specific case is useless since no evidence shows that Zimmerman was the initial aggressor.
The neighborhood had 8 robberies recently. The fact that Zimmerman felt suspicion because he saw someone who seemed to be scouting around houses isn't weird, and judging by Trayvon's past history he actually could have been planning a home invasion. We can argue that Zimmerman should or should not have followed him forever but it does not change the fact that it was not illegal.

Quote from Preserve

I don't have any evidence, but I do have reasonable suspicion to think he could have. Also, you don't need to have any injuries so prove aggression. A single grab or hold won't give you any injuries.

This is a moot point. You are basing your argument on pure speculation and that isn't something that works within a courtroom. Innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

Quote from Gunnii

How does past history not have anything to do with this? Zimmerman's past isn't irrelevant but arguing that it matters in this specific case is useless since no evidence shows that Zimmerman was the initial aggressor.

Just because you have a bad past history, it doesn't mean you're up to no good 24/7

This is a moot point. You are basing your argument on pure speculation and that isn't something that works within a courtroom. Innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

It's reasonable speculation based on the evidence in my opinion. Though I agree it doesn't hold up in court, that doesn't change my belief that he actually was guilty. He may have not done anything illegal in following him, though that is questionable, that doesn't mean he was right in doing so.

Quote from Preserve

Just because you have a bad past history, it doesn't mean you're up to no good 24/7

I'm tired of this circlejerk, I might answer this in the morning, but so far you have proven pretty immune to reasoning so I'm really not sure.

Quote from Preserve

It's reasonable speculation based on the evidence in my opinion. Though I agree it doesn't hold up in court, that doesn't change my belief that he actually was guilty. He may have not done anything illegal in following him, though that is questionable, that doesn't mean he was right in doing so.

If he didn't do anything illegal how can you consider him guilty?
You aren't arguing whether he should be considered guilty or not, but whether his actions are morally reprehensible, not only that but you are basing your arguments on speculations that you haven't any sort of evidence to support.

Quote from Preserve

It's reasonable speculation based on the evidence in my opinion.

The 911 recordings are moot and were inadmissible, and even if they were admissible it hardly proves your argument. You or anyone else has no right to judge him based on evidence that wasn't admissible in the case. Continuing this argument is pointless.

Quote from Vertigo

You or anyone else has no right to judge him based on evidence that wasn't admissible in the case.

Many people disagree with the case, which is mostly why this thread is here at all. If everyone just accepted things because, the governments says so we would be screwed for various reasons. Anyway, that's a bit off topic, just take in the first sentence.

Quote from Gunnii

I'm tired of this circlejerk, I might answer this in the morning, but so far you have proven pretty immune to reasoning so I'm really not sure.

It's not a circlejerk. I'm pointing out the fallacy of making a conclusion to a current problem due to irrelevant things that happened in the past.

If he didn't do anything illegal how can you consider him guilty?

I said he questionably didn't do anything illegal in following him and that's about it.

Quote from Vertigo

The 911 recordings are moot and were inadmissible, and even if they were admissible it hardly proves your argument. You or anyone else has no right to judge him based on evidence that wasn't admissible in the case. Continuing this argument is pointless.

Just because it was inadmissible in court, that doesn't mean it's not evidence. Those 911 recordings are a good way to figure out what happened that night.

I'm not trying to argue whether he would be guilty or not guilty in a courtroom, because I can see myself seeing him as not guilty only because of the lack of definitive proof, but that doesn't mean I think he was actually innocent. There's a difference.

Well, in my opinion, the evidence of the court case is what you should base it on. Like it or not, that's how our justice system works. And no, Naimad, that doesn't mean we should be mindless government minions either.

Even if the 911 recordings were admissible, you can only speculate as to who was yelling, and what was going on. We have more solid evidence in Zimmerman's testimony, which is corroborated by other evidence and the fact that it's unlikely he would perjure himself, than we do in the 911 recordings.

Bottom line, he got the shit beat out of him and used a gun in self-defense. No one here has yet to present any evidence to the contrary, court admissible or otherwise.

Quote from Preserve

It's not a circlejerk. I'm pointing out the fallacy of making a conclusion to a current problem due to irrelevant things that happened in the past.

Trayvon's past and present proved that he wasn't a very nice kid. You also seem to disregard the fact that he was presently involved in some shady business. Drug tests were positive and he was apparently trying to buy a gun illegally. Whether or not his past is relevant, his current state of affairs is enough to show that he is not innocent. Add in the past history of the neighborhood and it is easy to see why Trayvon would look suspicious.

Quote from Preserve

I said he questionably didn't do anything illegal in following him and that's about it.

Yet you provide no evidence or real reasoning to your speculations which you conjured up after the event, and I'm guessing far away from its location. You are basing all your thoughts on the assumption that Zimmerman started the fight, and you base that assumption on nothing.

Quote from Preserve

Just because it was inadmissible in court, that doesn't mean it's not evidence. Those 911 recordings are a good way to figure out what happened that night.

Are you really claiming you are more capable of analyzing the audio then the experts that did for this particular case?

Quote from Preserve

I'm not trying to argue whether he would be guilty or not guilty in a courtroom, because I can see myself seeing him as not guilty only because of the lack of definitive proof, but that doesn't mean I think he was actually innocent. There's a difference.

Innocent until prove guilty. You have even less evidence to defend your viewpoint. Yes, there is obviously a slight chance that he did something illegal, but so far I have seen nothing pointing towards that. On the other hand all the evidence seems to support Zimmerman.

Quote from Vertigo

Ok, just to clear it up, his name is not Travis, not Tyrone, it's Trayvon.

Sorry, these kinds of things bug me. Carry on.

Sorry about that lol.