Trayvon Martin Death Investigation

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

If “deaths due to self-defense have tripled”, then what that means is that the number of citizens refusing to remain helpless victims of violent crime has tripled.

Really? That's a bold statement. Got any data that backs that contention?

Other than basic math?
No.
But if, let's say, 100 people have successfully defended themselves against violent crime, then it would follow that at least those 100 people have not allowed themselves to become victims of violent crime.
And I don't see how anyone can regard that as a bad thing.

Yeah. But that's not what you said initially, is it? You categorically stated that since deaths due to self defense have tripled, then that means that the number of citizens refusing to remain helpless victims has also tripled. There is absolutely no way to prove that, and your new "But if, let's say" argument is nothing more than a straw man.

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

If “deaths due to self-defense have tripled”, then what that means is that the number of citizens refusing to remain helpless victims of violent crime has tripled.

Really? That's a bold statement. Got any data that backs that contention?

Other than basic math?
No.
But if, let's say, 100 people have successfully defended themselves against violent crime, then it would follow that at least those 100 people have not allowed themselves to become victims of violent crime.
And I don't see how anyone can regard that as a bad thing.

Yeah. But that's not what you said initially, is it? You categorically stated that since deaths due to self defense have tripled, then that means that the number of citizens refusing to remain helpless victims has also tripled. There is absolutely no way to prove that, and your new "But if, let's say" argument is nothing more than a straw man.

If you take the man’s claim as true – “In Florida alone, deaths due to self-defense have tripled since the law was enacted. … “ – then it would follow that the number of people defending themselves and refusing to remain helpless victims has tripled. (Basic math, assuming that the criminals and the defenders he referenced were involved in one-on-one situations.)
And again, how is that a bad thing?

happy jack wrote:

If you take the man’s claim as true...

We don't have to. Law enforcement documents such statistics.

happy jack wrote:

...then it would follow that the number of people defending themselves and refusing to remain helpless victims has tripled. . . And again, how is that a bad thing?

But we don't know that's happening, which is the whole point of the argument. The only thing that changed was how such incidents are legally defined now, not the actual situations themselves.

happy jack wrote:

If you read his quote, the man himself defined them as “deaths due to self-defense”

Which, again, is how they're now classified, unless you're suggesting he was a witness to every such event.

happy jack wrote:

Unless you were a witness to every such event, can you say with certainty that they were not legitimate acts of self-defense?

Nope, which is why I made no such claim.

happy jack wrote:

Then what is the problem?

It was highlighted on the previous page:

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

If “deaths due to self-defense have tripled”, then what that means is that the number of citizens refusing to remain helpless victims of violent crime has tripled.

Really? That's a bold statement. Got any data that backs that contention?

Answer: No.

happy jack wrote:

Heretic wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Then what is the problem?

It was highlighted on the previous page:

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

If “deaths due to self-defense have tripled”, then what that means is that the number of citizens refusing to remain helpless victims of violent crime has tripled.

Really? That's a bold statement. Got any data that backs that contention?

Answer: No.

[b]Need a refresher on the definition of the word 'if'?

Once again you've engaged in baseless speculation without having any proof to back up your claim.

Yet earlier in the thread you were all bent out of shape over similar speculative arguments. In fact,your exact words were:

happy jack wrote:

I have no opinion – I have only fact.
And the fact is is that I have no idea what happened that night and am not averse to admitting it, unlike you and certain others, who pretend to know exactly what happened when, in fact, you don’t know your asses from a wishing well.

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Heretic wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Then what is the problem?

It was highlighted on the previous page:

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

If “deaths due to self-defense have tripled”, then what that means is that the number of citizens refusing to remain helpless victims of violent crime has tripled.

Really? That's a bold statement. Got any data that backs that contention?

Answer: No.

[b]Need a refresher on the definition of the word 'if'?

Once again you've engaged in baseless speculation without having any proof to back up your claim.

1. Google 'conditional statement'.
2. Get back to me.

happy jack wrote:

1. Google 'conditional statement'.
2. Get back to me.

I just did. I got a pop-up that said "Beware of Troll attempting to blow smoke up your butt".

Now back to the issue....

Heretic wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Then what is the problem?

It was highlighted on the previous page:

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

If “deaths due to self-defense have tripled”, then what that means is that the number of citizens refusing to remain helpless victims of violent crime has tripled.

Really? That's a bold statement. Got any data that backs that contention?

Answer: No.

Find any data that backs up your claim?

Wow. You're still defending this ridiculous contention?

As I pointed out earlier...

Quote :

You categorically stated that since deaths due to self defense have tripled, then that means that the number of citizens refusing to remain helpless victims has also tripled. There is absolutely no way to prove that, and your new "But if, let's say" argument is nothing more than a straw man.

So it's up to you to prove that all instances of "self defense" are committed by "citizens that refuse to remain helpless victims."

Why not just admit that you overreached a bit and just move on?

FBI may charge George Zimmerman with hate crime
SANFORD, Fla. —
WFTV has learned charges against George Zimmerman could be getting more serious.

State prosecutors said Zimmerman, a neighborhood watchman, profiled and stalked 17-year-old Trayvon Martin before killing him, so the FBI is now looking into charging him with a hate crime.

Zimmerman admitted to killing Martin in February during a confrontation. However, he claims the shooting was in self-defense. He's facing a second-degree murder charge, which carries a maximum possible sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole. But if Zimmerman is charged and found guilty of a federal hate crime involving murder, he could face the death penalty.

FBI investigators are actively questioning witnesses in the retreat at the Twin Lakes neighborhood, seeking evidence for a possible federal hate crime charge.

“Mr. Zimmerman could be punished by up to life in prison or even the death penalty,” said Sheaffer.

Artie60438 wrote:

President of the Florida College of Emergency Physicians who stated that with a broken nose you would see some swelling. See any? I didn't.

edge540 wrote:

The 'expert' didn't miss anything.


It's also quite conceivable that Zimmerman never had a broken nose. The only people so far that I know of who have made that claim are George Zimmerman, his father and his brother. Given the fact that none of those people are trained in medicine, any reasonable person would find them hardly credible at diagnosing a "broken nose."

Yes?

edge540 wrote:

Seriously?
These are the "wounds" that are more than scratches or an “abrasion”? What would make you say something so ridiculous? Are you a doctor? How do you know for a fact that they are " more than scratches or an “abrasion"? You see some deep gash that nobody else does?
The only thing I see is some blood that could come from minor cuts or scratches, the kind that I've seen at a playground. I sure as hell do not see "more than scratches or an “abrasion." Don't see it in the video, don't see in the photo.
If these "wounds" were so serious why didn't they require more attention in the ER? Why no stitches? Not even a ice bag on the big boo-boo.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-medical-report-sheds-light-injuries-trayvon/story?id=16353532

ABC News Exclusive: Zimmerman Medical Report Shows Broken Nose, Lacerations After Trayvon Martin Shooting

May 15, 2012
A medical report compiled by the family physician of accused Trayvon Martin murderer George Zimmerman and obtained exclusively by ABC News found that Zimmerman was diagnosed with a "closed fracture" of his nose, a pair of black eyes, two lacerations to the back of his head and a minor back injury the day after he fatally shot Martin during an alleged altercation.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/prosecution-requests-george-zimmermans-bond-revoked/story?id=16476183

George Zimmerman's Bond Revoked

BY MATT GUTMAN (@mattgutmanABC) AND SENI TIENABESO (@senijr_abc)
SANFORD, Fla., June 1, 2012

A judge revoked bond today for George Zimmerman, who is accused of killing a Florida teenager in his gated community, and ordered the neighborhood watch captain to surrender himself in 48 hours.
Prosecutors had filed a motion today to revoke his bond, accusing Zimmerman of "deceiving" the court about his finances and his possession of a second passport, which he apparently acquired two weeks after the shooting.

happy jack wrote:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/prosecution-requests-george-zimmermans-bond-revoked/story?id=16476183

George Zimmerman's Bond Revoked

Gee? Why would someone have a second passport? Hello Evidence of intention to flee!!!
Warden,Please put Mr Zimmerman in Gen Pop.

happy jack wrote:

No, it is not evidence of intention to flee.

Of course not, he was planning on going on a vacation, right?

Quote :

In recordings of conversations released today during a court hearing, Zimmerman and his wife, Shelly Zimmerman, speak in code -- reducing the amounts in their financial accounts by a factor of 1,000. Prosecutors said the couple knew that their jailhouse conversations were likely being recorded.

I think we have evidence that George and his wife are not too bright.

Again, why would you have two passports? Isn't that like having two driver's licenses?