New Trayvon Martin photos released into evidence

[Farley1324]

I just noticed a few people familiar with this case are currently banned.

I haven't seen as many people who actually know what's what in terms of actual evidence and testimony on the ban list so much as I have seen loud mouths repeating what the media told them 13 months ago on the ban list.

[Mr Beer]

PS: How does Krane manage not to get banned for his blatant racism?

I'm no fan of KRANE's style of simplistic, binary thinking and nearly everything he says is either deeply naive or flat-out wrong but I don't believe he's said anything ban worthy. His racism takes the form of denying any possibility that Martin wasn't gunned down in cold blood, rather than open racial slander of white people in general.

[ScubaStevo]

lol I honestly don't believe I've read any posts in this thread after the first page, really.

Truly incredible the debate this case has caused.

There is going to be major unrest on either side, regardless of the verdict.

But hopefully logic prevails in this case.

[fitnessislife]

I just came off of a ban for an allegedly racist comment on here, be careful the double standard on this forum.

Racial slur for black people is censored and rightfully so, however honkey, pinkey, crackah, redneck, hillbilly, etc...

Same here. Not one thing I've ever said on this forum has been anything even remotely close to racism. What a joke. Mods needs to stop being so PC.

[B.O.L.A.]

So what happens if he is actually convicted? Clearly a miscarriage of justice. Any appeal process or anything to save him?

[Lionsbridge]

So what happens if he is actually convicted? Clearly a miscarriage of justice. Any appeal process or anything to save him?

I get the feeling that even if it's blatantly a miscarriage of justice, people will brush it to the side or tip-toe around it to avoid offending or emotionally upsetting any minority groups. Which is sad

[Streetbull]

lol I honestly don't believe I've read any posts in this thread after the first page, really.

Truly incredible the debate this case has caused.

There is going to be major unrest on either side, regardless of the verdict.

But hopefully logic prevails in this case.

Is this thread size a record for the R/P? Just curious...thread is huge!

Just saw that the Chat thread is larger.

[John Hicks]

Is this thread size a record for the R/P? Just curious...thread is huge!

Just saw that the Chat thread is larger.

No, a lot of people, like me ARE LURKING. Not saying anything but just watching the show. Lots of good arguments here and I'm trying to read them all.

Anyone here a fan of Combat Handguns? I just read a great article in the latest issue regarding the SYG laws.

[lasher]

most of the recent bans have been from people complaining about mods. I'd watchout your comments bros.

[Farley1324]

So what happens if he is actually convicted? Clearly a miscarriage of justice. Any appeal process or anything to save him?

Anybody and everybody convicted of anything automatically gets one appeal, per my understanding. This case has as many legitimate reasons for appeal as any I know of, with the most obvious being the bias of the judge, including some of her decisions that may have markedly influenced the trial/jury.

[Calhexas]

Yeah...that doesn't fit the media's agenda.

"Two teen boys in this coastal city were charged with murder Friday, accused in the fatal shooting of a 13-month-old boy who was in a stroller being pushed by his mother."

'Give me your money or I'm going to kill you and I'm going to shoot your baby and kill your baby,' and I said, 'I don't have any money,' and 'Don't kill my baby.'"

"West continued, "And then, all of a sudden, he walked over and he shot my baby in the face."


You'd think people would care greatly about a 13 month old child being murdered in cold blood...










Somebody should start a thread about this. People need to know.

Black on white crime. There's no story here.

[Calhexas]

Were they 17 to 19, brandishing tatoos, drinking liquor, making all kinds of noise, were there 20 of them? If so I would tell you call the police. DO NOT, DO NOT go out with a loaded gun and face them. If there were 5, 9th graders, I would still advise against a weapon...and I still would call the police.

Just wondering, wtf does this have to do with anything? tattoos = criminal? How is this any better than racism?

[mydawgs]

Just wondering, wtf does this have to do with anything? tattoos = criminal? How is this any better than racism?

Read his hypothetical. My husband is inked to the teeth and is a law abiding citizen. The question was regarding putting yourself at risk. Confronting on your own a group of 8th graders or a tougher looking crowd. Picture Hells Angels.

Which are you more likely to confront without fear of a response.

[Calhexas]

Read his hypothetical. My husband is inked to the teeth and is a law abiding citizen. The question was regarding putting yourself at risk. Confronting on your own a group of 8th graders or a tougher looking crowd. Picture Hells Angels.

Which are you more likely to confront without fear of a response.

My point is that are tattoos supposed to illicit fear?

And for the record I've had enough of hypotheticals. I was just curious why tattoos was a detail you felt like pointing.

[GreatOldOne]

I'm no fan of KRANE's style of simplistic, binary thinking and nearly everything he says is either deeply naive or flat-out wrong but I don't believe he's said anything ban worthy. His racism takes the form of denying any possibility that Martin wasn't gunned down in cold blood, rather than open racial slander of white people in general.

I think Krane is smarter than most people. He has wits, and principles, and he acts on them.

It's ok to be wrong. We all are.

I think Zim. would be wrongly convicted of murder or even manslaughter at this point. But I still think the situation is his fault.

I posted way back about 'not buying Zims. story' based on my own thinking about what that fight would be like. But, Zims explanation is reasonable doubt and that is pretty much that.

His explanation shows correctly (or reasonably) his own fear, and displays an incompetent fighter...or childish (actually, a real child Martin) who has his hands on somebodies mouth while mounting them.

I think it could have gone down just as Zim. said. There isn't any reason to think it didn't happen that way, as far as I know.

[Farley1324]

I think Krane is smarter than most people. He has wits, and principles, and he acts on them.

It's ok to be wrong. We all are.

I think Zim. would be wrongly convicted of murder or even manslaughter at this point. But I still think the situation is his fault.

I posted way back about 'not buying Zims. story' based on my own thinking about what that fight would be like. But, Zims explanation is reasonable doubt and that is pretty much that.

His explanation shows correctly (or reasonably) his own fear, and displays an incompetent fighter...or childish (actually, a real child Martin) who has his hands on somebodies mouth while mounting them.

I think it could have gone down just as Zim. said. There isn't any reason to think it didn't happen that way, as far as I know.

No good reason I am aware of.

No good reason to think otherwise according to the lead investigator, either.

[GreatOldOne]

No good reason I am aware of.

No good reason to think otherwise according to the lead investigator, either.

Yeah, exactly. Seems like it should be case closed...tbh.

[mydawgs]

My point is that are tattoos supposed to illicit fear?

And for the record I've had enough of hypotheticals. I was just curious why tattoos was a detail you felt like pointing.

I suppose the point is in the hypothetical although tattoos are not supposed to illicit fear they can. But the point is moot out of context.

[Farley1324]

I suppose the point is in the hypothetical although tattoos are not supposed to illicit fear they can. But the point is moot out of context.

Generally speaking tattoos don't mean anything necessarily.

However, certain tattoos or types of tattoos can be very strong indicators of a person's criminal past/present as well as past/present gang involvement.

[Calhexas]

Generally speaking tattoos don't mean anything necessarily.

However, certain tattoos or types of tattoos can be very strong indicators of a person's criminal past/present as well as past/present gang involvement.

Only to someone who actually knows anything about tattoos and what to look for in the imagery and ink skill. I'd say most people would see tattoos and immediately think less (to what degree obviously differs) of the person with them for whatever reason. Think about how many people are told not to get tattoos because of professional appearance purposes. It's ridiculous lol

[Enso]

I'm not against people owning guns, but Martin would not be dead if Zimmerman was not armed. Zimmerman shot him because he had a gun. If you own a gun, and you go up to someone, and a fight ensues and you shoot them and they end up getting killed...you got to be willing to accept the consequences of your actions. The 2nd Amendment and the right to self defense should not be used as clear all in all situations. It is clear in this situation that Zimmerman made several judgement errors.

Zimmerman was defending himself it appears, but he was the one who put himself in that particular situation...so Zimmerman was at fault imho...because Martin was also defending himself against a lurker/stalker. So, even if he is not convicted of 2nd Degree Murder, he should not simply be let free unscathed. That would be a terrible injustice to Martin and Martin's family.

[Farley1324]

I'm not against people owning guns, but Martin would not be dead if Zimmerman was not armed. Zimmerman shot him because he had a gun.

No, Zimmerman shot him because it was necessary and justified to defend himself from imminent serious bodily harm or death. He was able to shoot Martin because he had a gun.

If you own a gun, and you go up to someone

When did this happen? Sauce?

and a fight ensues

Being attacked =/= being in a fight.

and you shoot them and they end up getting killed...you got to be willing to accept the consequences of your actions. The 2nd Amendment and the right to self defense should not be used as clear all in all situations.

Say it with me:

reasonable fear of imminent serious bodily harm or death

It is clear in this situation that Zimmerman made several judgement errors.

Indeed, Zimmerman would have been much safer had he stayed in his car.

Zimmerman was defending himself it appears, but he was the one who put himself in that particular situation

Fortunately for him he did nothing illegal.

...so Zimmerman was at fault imho...because Martin was also defending himself against a lurker/stalker.

Negative. No evidence nor testimony indicates Martin ever had any right to use physical force in self defense.

So, even if he is not convicted of 2nd Degree Murder, he should not simply be let free unscathed.

Laugh out ****ing loud and thinking a not guilty verdict would be "unscathed".

That would be a terrible injustice to Martin and Martin's family.

I disagree. See the above.

[Calhexas]

I'm not against people owning guns, but Martin would not be dead if Zimmerman was not armed. Zimmerman shot him because he had a gun. If you own a gun, and you go up to someone, and a fight ensues and you shoot them and they end up getting killed...you got to be willing to accept the consequences of your actions. The 2nd Amendment and the right to self defense should not be used as clear all in all situations. It is clear in this situation that Zimmerman made several judgement errors.

Zimmerman was defending himself it appears, but he was the one who put himself in that particular situation...so Zimmerman was at fault imho...because Martin was also defending himself against a lurker/stalker. So, even if he is not convicted of 2nd Degree Murder, he should not simply be let free unscathed. That would be a terrible injustice to Martin and Martin's family.

Someone following you now means you have the right to beat them and try to kill them? lol gtfo

[mydawgs]

I haven't seen as many people who actually know what's what in terms of actual evidence and testimony on the ban list so much as I have seen loud mouths repeating what the media told them 13 months ago on the ban list.

Clarify some things for me, as by far you are the one closest to the details of the testimony.

1. When Z was reenacting the events of the evening, did he say that T saw he was armed?

2. According to Z what position were he and T in when he shot T? In other words did T have Z pinned to the ground when Z was able to fire his weapon? Specifically was T OVER Z, holding his head and smashing it to the concrete? Or was this level of detail not discussed.

[DocHol1day]

I think Krane is smarter than most people. He has wits, and principles, and he acts on them.

It's ok to be wrong. We all are.

I think Zim. would be wrongly convicted of murder or even manslaughter at this point. But I still think the situation is his fault.

I posted way back about 'not buying Zims. story' based on my own thinking about what that fight would be like. But, Zims explanation is reasonable doubt and that is pretty much that.

His explanation shows correctly (or reasonably) his own fear, and displays an incompetent fighter...or childish (actually, a real child Martin) who has his hands on somebodies mouth while mounting them.

I think it could have gone down just as Zim. said. There isn't any reason to think it didn't happen that way, as far as I know.

Kranes total denial of reality isnt the mark of an intelligent individual. ..

[Farley1324]

Clarify some things for me, as by far you are the one closest to the details of the testimony.

1. When Z was reenacting the events of the evening, did he say that T saw he was armed?

2. According to Z what position were he and T in when he shot T? In other words did T have Z pinned to the ground when Z was able to fire his weapon? Specifically was T OVER Z, holding his head and smashing it to the concrete? Or was this level of detail not discussed.

1. Not that I recall. IIRC, according to Z, T didn't know Z was armed until T had mounted Z.

2. T on top of Z. Best I recall Z says T was attempting to suffocate Z/covering Z's mouth and reached in the direction of Z's gun; T had been attempting to (successfully?) smash Z's head as well. Remember that these things could all happen extremely quickly, and transitioning from punching to attempted head smashing to covering the mouth to reach ing for the gun could happen in the blink of an eye.

[Bushmaster]

I'm not against people owning guns, but Martin would not be dead if Zimmerman was not armed. Zimmerman shot him because he had a gun. If you own a gun, and you go up to someone, and a fight ensues and you shoot them and they end up getting killed...you got to be willing to accept the consequences of your actions.

Which is why he's just been sitting in a court room on trial for however many days/weeks.

So, even if he is not convicted of 2nd Degree Murder, he should not simply be let free unscathed.

Fukit, lets just disregard the whole constitution and system of justice and stick him with SOMETHING! Right? Anything at all as long as it makes you feel all warm and yummy inside... What do you have in mind? Anything in particular?

[ChristopherNV]

because Martin was also defending himself against a lurker/stalker.

Martin was a 10 second jog from his fathers girlfriends house. If he feared for his life or safety he didn't need to stick around and confront Zimmerman.

Martin also had the option of calling 911 with his cellphone but instead chose to repeatedly call Diamond Eugene.

[mydawgs]

1. Not that I recall. IIRC, according to Z, T didn't know Z was armed until T had mounted Z.

Ok I am just trying to make sure what I thought I saw can be validated by someone else. Last Friday the husband and I saw a piece of film where I thought Z was reenacting his movements that night. I thought he said when T approached him, he instinctively reached for his firearm and that pulled up his jacket and T saw the weapon and at that point, T told Z he was going to die and the struggle began over the gun. I could be wrong but that is what I thought I saw.

If this is what Z really said I have trouble with it, because I would assume most folks who would challenge another and then see a fire arm back down quickly....not saying all the time, but it is much easier to believe the kid would attack if he thought his opponent was NOT armed. I will see if I can find that film and watch it again.

2. T on top of Z. Best I recall Z says T was attempting to suffocate Z/covering Z's mouth and reached in the direction of Z's gun; T had been attempting to (successfully?) smash Z's head as well. Remember that these things could all happen extremely quickly, and transitioning from punching to attempted head smashing to covering the mouth to reach ing for the gun could happen in the blink of an eye.

If the two were in such close proximity in a struggle, and the weapon fires into the kids heart (somewhat centered between the bodies), I would expect that gun to be pressed against his skin, thus the GSR would indicate a hard contact shot. I mean the bodies are close enough for Ts arms to reach Zs head and mouth, lets say the gun has a 4" barrel plus the grip, plus the area for the hand to hold the gun. How much space was there.....and why wouldn't you jam that gun into your target so as to be sure not to miss. The fact that the ME said the shot was intermediate bothers me somewhat. (.4" to 4 feet) Then again the ME was very confusing, this is what I thought I heard.

[Farley1324]

Ok I am just trying to make sure what I thought I saw can be validated by someone else. Last Friday the husband and I saw a piece of film where I thought Z was reenacting his movements that night. I thought he said when T approached him, he instinctively reached for his firearm and that pulled up his jacket and T saw the weapon and at that point, T told Z he was going to die and the struggle began over the gun. I could be wrong but that is what I thought I saw.

If this is what Z really said I have trouble with it, because I would assume most folks who would challenge another and then see a fire arm back down quickly....not saying all the time, but it is much easier to believe the kid would attack if he thought his opponent was NOT armed. I will see if I can find that film and watch it again.



If the two were in such close proximity in a struggle, and the weapon fires into the kids heart (somewhat centered between the bodies), I would expect that gun to be pressed against his skin, thus the GSR would indicate a hard contact shot. I mean the bodies are close enough for Ts arms to reach Zs head and mouth, lets say the gun has a 4" barrel plus the grip, plus the area for the hand to hold the gun. How much space was there.....and why wouldn't you jam that gun into your target so as to be sure not to miss. The fact that the ME said the shot was intermediate bothers me somewhat. (.4" to 4 feet) Then again the ME was very confusing, this is what I thought I heard.

This is because you are ignorant of firearms.

You wouldn't "jam that gun into your target" because that takes more time (have to reach farther), gives your attacker more opportunity to steal disable or deflect the firearm, and increases your chances of a malfunction, especially with a semi automatic (push it out of battery, which can prevent you from firing any shots at all).

An intermediate shot is what you would/should expect. Guns aren't contact weapons, there is no need nor reason to jam a gun into your attacker.

PS: The firearm Zimmerman used (KelTec PF9) has a 3.1" barrel, for the record.



.Do you have a link to that piece of film specifically?