Topic: Donating to the Zimmerman Defense Fund (Read 8601 times)
That one is a tiny bit biased i would suppose..
Here is Zimmerman's complete reenactment video.
http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/06/21/watch-video-shows-george-zimmerman-reenacting-fight-with-trayvon-martin/
http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/06/21/watch-video-shows-george-zimmerman-reenacting-fight-with-trayvon-martin/
Quote
In another interview, he told an investigator that he has been taking 20 milligrams of Adderall twice a day – and has a bad memory.
Quote
Mr. Zimmerman told a police detective that he has attention deficit hyperactivity disorder
So he has ADHD and was under drugs, and has a bad memory.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/21/us-usa-florida-trayvon-idUSBRE85K04320120621
Additional press: http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/21/justice/florida-teen-shooting/index.htmlQuote
(Reuters) - The Florida police chief whose department failed to arrest neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman in the February shooting death of unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin was fired on Wednesday, the city of Sanford said.
Quote
police documents released later showed that the lead investigator in the Sanford Police Department believed there was enough evidence to arrest Zimmerman for manslaughter. The investigator wrote in his summary that Martin was not involved in any criminal activity, and that Zimmerman could have avoided the encounter.
EDIT: Includes video of Zimmerman himself walking through the neighborhood and discussing the incident.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/21/us-usa-florida-trayvon-idUSBRE85K04320120621
Quote
(Reuters) - The Florida police chief whose department failed to arrest neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman in the February shooting death of unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin was fired on Wednesday, the city of Sanford said.
Quote
police documents released later showed that the lead investigator in the Sanford Police Department believed there was enough evidence to arrest Zimmerman for manslaughter. The investigator wrote in his summary that Martin was not involved in any criminal activity, and that Zimmerman could have avoided the encounter.
Quote
Just because it was a defensive shot doesn't mean Zimmerman isn't the one who provoked the fight, hence the second degree murder charges.
He was waiting for the police he called to the scene, not provoking fights. The charges are obviously not going to result in a conviction, charging him is appropriate in such a controversial case where someone has lost their life, but in the end justice will do what is also appropriate and find him not-guilty.
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/342834/20120518/george-zimmerman-trayvon-martin-shot-evidence-photos.htm
Quote
New documents released in the Trayvon Martin case showed that George Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch volunteer, shot the 17 year old through the chest, piercing his heart and lung. Zimmerman was also bloody and had wounds, evidence in the case shows.
Quote
For example, someone who is getting their head banged on the pavement is not going to be able to aim accurately enough to kill on the first shot with a bullet to the head. He could however do some body damage.
Precisely what happened. One defensive shot to the body was all.
Just because it was a defensive shot doesn't mean Zimmerman isn't the one who provoked the fight, hence the second degree murder charges.
This topic isn't about that though. It's about the defense fund. Can we please stay on topic? I want to know if anyone actually donated to Zimmerman and if they are upset that their money was hidden and not used for his actual defense.
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/342834/20120518/george-zimmerman-trayvon-martin-shot-evidence-photos.htm
Quote
New documents released in the Trayvon Martin case showed that George Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch volunteer, shot the 17 year old through the chest, piercing his heart and lung. Zimmerman was also bloody and had wounds, evidence in the case shows.
Quote
For example, someone who is getting their head banged on the pavement is not going to be able to aim accurately enough to kill on the first shot with a bullet to the head. He could however do some body damage.
Precisely what happened. One defensive shot to the body was all.
Good points. The judge may differ, but in my opinion if TM was banging GZ's head against the pavement he can reasonably consider his life in danger and use deadly force. He could not shoot him for a punch, but who threw the first punch is critical because you can fight back with punches and those things tend to escalate.
Then another matter arises: How to shoot someone if your head is banged upon the pavement? If you are in mortal danger due to a melee fight you shouldnt be able anymore to take a weapon, aim and shoot. So if you are in a melee fight and your life is in mortal danger, then most obviously you will die or beat down your opponent in the very same melee. If your opponent releases you you are no longer in mortal danger or if you finally beat down the opponent you arent in mortal danger anymore either.
Thats the point about mortal danger: Either you die or you win automatically. No need to shoot someone in the back (metaphorically). (all IMHO)
For example, someone who is getting their head banged on the pavement is not going to be able to aim accurately enough to kill on the first shot with a bullet to the head. He could however do some body damage.
Gun owners serious about defense practice gun retention and firing offhand from the floor. The time to come up with a plan about how you will fight if you have been shot first is not during a gunfight.
The hoops you jump through are shocking.
Aggression is a statistically significant side effect of amphetamines; it is a statistically insignificant side effect of marijuana. Your milk analogy is flawed. If two completely random people are in a room and one drinks a glass of milk and one drinks a 1L bottle of Vodka, and then both leave with just a pile of puke on the floor, who do you think did it?
Aggression is a statistically significant side effect of amphetamines; it is a statistically insignificant side effect of marijuana. Your milk analogy is flawed. If two completely random people are in a room and one drinks a glass of milk and one drinks a 1L bottle of Vodka, and then both leave with just a pile of puke on the floor, who do you think did it?
I have linked the scientific experts who say aggression is a side effect, I'm not going to rehash all that. It's been done, you can't make it untrue via repitition. What we have is the knowledge that Martin attacked and that he was on illegal drugs without doctor supervision as Zimmerman was, we don't need to guess who puked, we can see Zimmerman's injuries and the witness accounts. We can see that he was trying to get the police on the scene. We don't have to guess.
Quote
Paranoia, in the sense that it affects most pot smokers, does not translate to aggression.
Well that's an interesting opinion and all, but the experts say the facts disagree. Some people are sedated, but since we know Martin instead violently attacked someone it is clear that was not his reaction to the drug.
http://ncpic.org.au/ncpic/publications/factsheets/article/cannabis-and-aggression
Quote
However, sometimes when people use cannabis it can cause fear, anxiety, panic or paranoia, resulting in an aggressive outburst.
Quote
I'm guessing that you've never smoked weed or really even been friends with someone who has.
I am happy to say I have not. Early intervention through a drug education program taught me to avoid the pitfalls of dangerous, unnecessary products. I have a fulfilling career, happy family, and a fun and stimulating life without having to resort to poisoning and endangering myself with drugs.
Quote
The way you talk about marijuana not only shows that you misunderstand the studies you quote, but that you have sheltered yourself so far from this lifestyle that you oppose that you lack a basic understanding of a drug that is very commonly used substance in our society and one of the more widely understood illicit substances out there.
I am not relying on my own interpretations? I don't want to rehash the thread, but I'm not a scientists I don't go over the studies myself. Experts in government and medicine are the ones I am citing. They have reviewed the information and concluded this drug poses significant risks of addiction and disease.
Growing up in Florida I had friends who used every drug out there, and I've been around them all my life. You know what I learned? I'm not the one missing out, they are. Drug users waste their money and their health and their relationships in pursuit of a terribly unfufilling, zombified state of numbness and stupidity. I'd rather stay on the bridge to freedom and clarity.
Quote
You do realize that many, many people smoke weed, right? If weed affects the body the way you seem to think it does, we would probably see more violence attributed to it, but we almost never do because it doesn't work that way.
You are naive and sad, we do see it, it does work that way.
Quote
In 2008 researchers interviewed and obtained urine samples from 3,924 men arrested in 10 metropolitan areas: Atlanta, Charlotte, Chicago, Denver, Indianapolis, Minneapolis, New York, Portland, Ore., Sacramento and Washington, D.C.
In Chicago, 87% tested positive for drug use and in Sacramento, 78% tested positive. Many of the men — 40% in Chicago and 29% in Sacramento — tested positive for more than one drug.
Marijuana is the most common drug in every city where testing was done except Atlanta, where cocaine is most prevalent, the study found.
In Chicago, 87% tested positive for drug use and in Sacramento, 78% tested positive. Many of the men — 40% in Chicago and 29% in Sacramento — tested positive for more than one drug.
Marijuana is the most common drug in every city where testing was done except Atlanta, where cocaine is most prevalent, the study found.
Violent criminals use drugs, and marijuana is their most favorite. Marijuana is also a gateway to the other drugs.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-05-27-arrestees_N.htm
Quote
You know the movie Reefer Madness isn't scientifically accurate, right? You're taking tiny statistically insignificant samples and trying to make them match the idea you have already formed of weed.
Yes, I am getting my information from well informed experts, not pop culture and stoner legend, which seems to be your source.
Quote
No wonder you're so authoritarian and want everything prohibited. You are so unwilling to open your mind that you won't even attempt to form conclusions based on logic if they contradict your preconceived notions. Honestly, it becomes offensive the way people like you want to control every last part of our lives, more so when it becomes clear how little you actually know.
Freedom to be ruled by addictive, dangerous drugs is no freedom at all.
Quote
Anyway, back to Zimmerman and moving on from the drug argument: Another big part of the puzzle that points to Zimmerman is his past behavior. You can't really believe that healthy or balanced individuals call 911 over a pothole! Have you ever dialed 911? They don't want to be called about potholes; there is a non-emergency number for things like that.
Had he been considered a nuisance caller, they would have fined him and made him stop calling. They did not. They are the experts on what calls are appropriate to be taking in their own system. The pothole thing was one call in 2005, and you're convicting him for murder over it? Now THAT is a scary authoritarian thought.
Quote
I'm sure his strange behavior did occur before he was on drugs too. But drugs are even worse for imbalanced people than they are for healthy people and the fact that much of his crazy behavior (past and present) has occurred while not on drugs, only makes one wonder how bad he gets when he's on a drug that is known to heighten aggression levels. Person with known and documented mental imbalance with strains of vigilantism + aggression heightening drug + gun = what? The voice of reason? Hmm... somehow I have a hard time seeing that.
You don't convict someone based on past behavior. You convict them based on what actually happened. What happened is that Zimmerman tried to call the police to help and was attacked, had his nose broken, and his head slammed into concrete. It doesn't matter if you find he did something in the past, or if Martin said something the other side didn't like on Facebook.
Good points. The judge may differ, but in my opinion if TM was banging GZ's head against the pavement he can reasonably consider his life in danger and use deadly force. He could not shoot him for a punch, but who threw the first punch is critical because you can fight back with punches and those things tend to escalate.
Then another matter arises: How to shoot someone if your head is banged upon the pavement? If you are in mortal danger due to a melee fight you shouldnt be able anymore to take a weapon, aim and shoot. So if you are in a melee fight and your life is in mortal danger, then most obviously you will die or beat down your opponent in the very same melee. If your opponent releases you you are no longer in mortal danger or if you finally beat down the opponent you arent in mortal danger anymore either.
Thats the point about mortal danger: Either you die or you win automatically. No need to shoot someone in the back (metaphorically). (all IMHO)
For example, someone who is getting their head banged on the pavement is not going to be able to aim accurately enough to kill on the first shot with a bullet to the head. He could however do some body damage.
Good points. The judge may differ, but in my opinion if TM was banging GZ's head against the pavement he can reasonably consider his life in danger and use deadly force. He could not shoot him for a punch, but who threw the first punch is critical because you can fight back with punches and those things tend to escalate.
Then another matter arises: How to shoot someone if your head is banged upon the pavement? If you are in mortal danger due to a melee fight you shouldnt be able anymore to take a weapon, aim and shoot. So if you are in a melee fight and your life is in mortal danger, then most obviously you will die or beat down your opponent in the very same melee. If your opponent releases you you are no longer in mortal danger or if you finally beat down the opponent you arent in mortal danger anymore either.
Thats the point about mortal danger: Either you die or you win automatically. No need to shoot someone in the back (metaphorically). (all IMHO)
This has always been about who threw the first punch.
And what about the adequatness of means used? Ok, even IF someone punched someone in the head - does that legitimate for murder? Well, ok, guess in the USA it really IS about who threw the first punch.. but any civilised (in terms of weapon handling etc) culture wouldnt ask that, they would rather ask: Was it appropriate to shoot someone?
This story has only been about propaganda and agendas every since it broke on the national news. The truth and the facts of what happened were the first casualties of the media campaign.
This has always been about who threw the first punch.
And what about the adequatness of means used? Ok, even IF someone punched someone in the head - does that legitimate for murder? Well, ok, guess in the USA it really IS about who threw the first punch.. in a culture not so adapted to weapon use the question would rather be: was the use of deadly force appropiate?
*edited to sound less arrogant*
Is walking around at night illegal?
Is following someone illegal?
Is assault illegal?
This has always been about who threw the first punch.
Is following someone illegal?
Is assault illegal?
This has always been about who threw the first punch.
Defending a whiteLatino and possibly racist murderer? Whats next? A childrape help fund to aid the church?
FTFYNot that I think race has to do with this, but w/e
I still want an answer to my question that is actually on topic.
Back on Topic:
Does anyone know if the money hidden by Zimmerman and/or his wife was the money donated to the defense fund? Did anyone here donate to it? How do you feel about your money being hidden instead of being used to actually defend him in court (if that is in fact the case)?
Does anyone know if the money hidden by Zimmerman and/or his wife was the money donated to the defense fund? Did anyone here donate to it? How do you feel about your money being hidden instead of being used to actually defend him in court (if that is in fact the case)?
Defending a white racist murderer? Whats next? A childrape help fund to aid the church?
Quote
It seems clear Martin's drug induced paranoia and aggression are what led to his attack on Zimmerman
Quote
I am aware psychiatric drugs are dangerous poisons and I hope Zimmerman gets off them, but there is no evidence they played any role in this incident
Does not compute.
Paranoia is a driver of aggressive behavior. It seems clear Martin's drug induced paranoia and aggression are what led to his attack on Zimmerman, who just wanted to get the police in to handle the situation. If he had reacted shyly instead of attacking, you might have a point.
Allergic reactions to milk are a minority experience, but when they start puking you don't throw up your hands and blame something else.
Zimmerman did not react aggressively however, he was calling the police to the scene before he was attacked. As for the potholes, large enough ones that "block the road" as he stated, are indeed a public danger. That is not at all strange and was likely before he was even on these drugs.
As I said, many times before in this thread which is all just a rehash now, I am aware psychiatric drugs are dangerous poisons and I hope Zimmerman gets off them, but there is no evidence they played any role in this incident. He was a part of the neighborhood watch, calling the police are what they are supposed to do, and what he was doing when Martin attacked him. If the police considered him a nuisance caller, they can fine people to get them to stop abusing the system. They obviously did not feel this was the case.
Allergic reactions to milk are a minority experience, but when they start puking you don't throw up your hands and blame something else.
Quote
Zimmerman, on the other hand, was admittedly on two drugs at the time, one of which causes aggression in a far higher percentage of test subjects than marijuana (Adderall / Amphetamine). Beyond this, Zimmerman has a history of making strange and paranoid callings to the police over non-issues (911 over potholes, for example).
Zimmerman did not react aggressively however, he was calling the police to the scene before he was attacked. As for the potholes, large enough ones that "block the road" as he stated, are indeed a public danger. That is not at all strange and was likely before he was even on these drugs.
As I said, many times before in this thread which is all just a rehash now, I am aware psychiatric drugs are dangerous poisons and I hope Zimmerman gets off them, but there is no evidence they played any role in this incident. He was a part of the neighborhood watch, calling the police are what they are supposed to do, and what he was doing when Martin attacked him. If the police considered him a nuisance caller, they can fine people to get them to stop abusing the system. They obviously did not feel this was the case.
Jump to: