Bill Cosby Breaks Silence on Trayvon Martin

[MachZer0]

Probably not a deadly one.

You never know. It could be that killing Martin was his only way to survive. Regardless, all that is necessary for acquittal is to get the jury to believe he reasonably feared for his life or that he was in danger of bodily harm. That's the law.

Again, yeah, we do, the dead body. If Zimmerman had stayed in the car, it's extremely unlikely Martin would have approached him, and even less likely he would have died.

Your conjecture that Martin wouldn't approach Zimmerman doesn't carry much weight. Zimmerman claims that Martin approached him and the prosecutor will have to convince a jury otherwise. From what we know, that's a tall mountain to climb for the prosecutor.

My problem here isn't with the Constitution, but with Zimmerman himself.

Once again, I'm not arguing with Zimmerman's right to own a gun, only with the recklessness of him having the gun with him that night.

Sorry, but Zimmerman was on a trip t the store, just like Martin when they encountered each other. Have a permit to carry a concealed weapon means that carrying a concealed weapon is perfectly legal with no indication of it being a reckless act.

-- A2SG, the second amendment gave Zimmerman the right to own a gun, but not the right to shoot it wherever and whenever -- and at whomever -- he wants to.....

True, but Florida law gives him the right to shoot an attacker in self defense.

 

[A2SG]

You never know.

True, but it's not likely.

It could be that killing Martin was his only way to survive.

Again, unlikely. We know that Martin wasn't armed, or out to attack someone, so if Zimmerman had stayed in the car, as advised, Trayvon would most likely have just gone home with his iced tea and skittles as intended and we'd never have even heard of him.

Regardless, all that is necessary for acquittal is to get the jury to believe he reasonably feared for his life or that he was in danger of bodily harm. That's the law.

Being that he was armed and Martin wasn't, that seems an uphill battle. But, you're right so far as that goes.

Your conjecture that Martin wouldn't approach Zimmerman doesn't carry much weight.

Why not? Do you have any evidence to suggest that Martin went up to cars and confronted people sitting in them?

Zimmerman claims that Martin approached him

A situation that only occurred because Zimmerman followed Martin. Had that not happened, it's highly unlikely Martin would have come up to Zimmerman's car and confronted him.

and the prosecutor will have to convince a jury otherwise. From what we know, that's a tall mountain to climb for the prosecutor.

Given what we do know, that Zimmerman was armed and Martin was not, characterizing Martin as the aggressor seems highly unlikely. I'm not as confident as you are that there's reasonable doubt.

Sorry, but Zimmerman was on a trip t the store, just like Martin when they encountered each other. Have a permit to carry a concealed weapon means that carrying a concealed weapon is perfectly legal with no indication of it being a reckless act.

For him to use his weapon, instead of waiting for the police who were on the way, was reckless. In my humble opinion.

True, but Florida law gives him the right to shoot an attacker in self defense.

Yeah, I'm not as certain as you are about the self-defense part.

-- A2SG, just doesn't pass the smell test for me....

 

[MachZer0]

True, but it's not likely.

Or it could be that Zimmerman would be the one who is dead.

Again, unlikely. We know that Martin wasn't armed, or out to attack someone, so if Zimmerman had stayed in the car, as advised, Trayvon would most likely have just gone home with his iced tea and skittles as intended and we'd never have even heard of him.

The information we have is than Martin had every opportunity to go home and instead he chose to attack Zimmerman.

Being that he was armed and Martin wasn't, that seems an uphill battle. But, you're right so far as that goes.

Why not? Do you have any evidence to suggest that Martin went up to cars and confronted people sitting in them?

No, but we do have evidence that Martin approached Zimmerman, and then attacked him.

A situation that only occurred because Zimmerman followed Martin. Had that not happened, it's highly unlikely Martin would have come up to Zimmerman's car and confronted him.

There's two pints. First, we have no idea how far Zimmerman followed Martin. Second, if he followed him until he caught up to him and asked him what he was doing there, he broke no laws.

Given what we do know, that Zimmerman was armed and Martin was not, characterizing Martin as the aggressor seems highly unlikely. I'm not as confident as you are that there's reasonable doubt.

The problem is that there is only one person who knows for sure who the aggressor was, and he says it was Martin. The prosecutor has to prove to a jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman is lying. There is no evidence that we've seen that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he's lying. Noting of course that the prosecutr has access to the autopsy report and we don't

For him to use his weapon, instead of waiting for the police who were on the way, was reckless. In my humble opinion.

In your humble opinion, you weren't lying on your back with a 6' attacker pounding your head into the ground as alleged. If you ever find yourself in that position, I recommend that you not assume that the police will arrive just in the nick of time like we see so often in the movies.

Yeah, I'm not as certain as you are about the self-defense part.

-- A2SG, just doesn't pass the smell test for me....

It doesn't pass the smell test because you throw in so much conjecture rather than sticking to the facts.

 

[A2SG]

Or it could be that Zimmerman would be the one who is dead.

Well sure...if he had fallen through a time vortex and landed on the Titanic 100 years ago. That's about as likely as Martin killing him for staying in his car, I think.

The information we have is than Martin had every opportunity to go home and instead he chose to attack Zimmerman.

Zimmerman followed him, that we know. Again, if Zimmerman had stayed in the car, as advised, there is no reason Martin would even have known he was there, and there'd be no reason for Martin to not to go straight home.

No, but we do have evidence that Martin approached Zimmerman, and then attacked him.

There is no conclusive evidence that this is what happened. But, again, even if that is the way things unfolded, they would not have unfolded that way at all had Zimmerman done what the 911 operator advised and STAYED WHERE HE WAS.

There's two pints. First, we have no idea how far Zimmerman followed Martin.

But we do know he followed Martin instead of waiting for the police, who were on the way, to show up.

Second, if he followed him until he caught up to him and asked him what he was doing there, he broke no laws.

No one is saying Zimmerman broke the law by following, or even confronting, Martin. What I'm saying -- and what, I think, Cosby was saying -- is that doing so, while armed, was reckless. And that he shouldn't have done it.

The problem is that there is only one person who knows for sure who the aggressor was, and he says it was Martin.

The same thing he'd say if it were not the case, frankly. But one thing is for sure: Zimmerman precipitated the events by not heeding the advice of the 911 operator and getting out of his car in the first place.

The prosecutor has to prove to a jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman is lying.

Or that the facts do not support his version of events. From what I've seen, which is less than the jury would see, I'm sure, they don't seem to.

There is no evidence that we've seen that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he's lying. Noting of course that the prosecutr has access to the autopsy report and we don't

If he testifies (and I think he'd be insane to do so), then whether or not he's lying will depend on how credible he sounds. Absent that testimony, the facts will speak for themselves, and from what I've heard, they don't seem to support Zimmerman's version of things.

At the very least, they do seem to support some form of manslaughter, if not 2nd degree murder. At the very least, I think, reckless endangerment. My guess is this will come down to a plea, and Zimmerman will plead guilty to some lesser charge like that and serve little or no jail time.

In your humble opinion, you weren't lying on your back with a 6' attacker pounding your head into the ground as alleged.

Assuming that is what happened, which I don't believe is entirely accurate, or even believable.

If you ever find yourself in that position, I recommend that you not assume that the police will arrive just in the nick of time like we see so often in the movies.

Again, had Zimmerman heeded the advice he was given and stayed in his car, he would not have found himself facing that dilemma in the first place. Words of wisdom for other neighborhood watch members.

It doesn't pass the smell test because you throw in so much conjecture rather than sticking to the facts.

As do you, my friend.

Actually, my only conjecture has been that Zimmerman done what he was advised to do, none of this would have happened. And that much seems pretty incontrovertible to me.

-- A2SG, and the gun wouldn't have helped defend him from that iceberg in the north atlantic in 1912 either.....

 

[Billnew]

What if he is innocent? Everyone seems to forget the story that media released was one sided. (Family was even angry that police leaked what was in the report.)

The man observing a suspicious man gets beaten after calling police and has no weapon to protect himself with.
The other side of the story was he observed, followed him, called 911, lost him and returned to his vehicle where he was attacked, and had his head slammed on the ground.

Alot different then the original media's story, of a baby faced teen being gunned down while trying to catch a skittle in his mouth.

I am not saying he is innocent, but lets give him a fair trial before the people lynch him.

I am not sure of Cosby's stance on gun control, but I bet it tends to be liberal. If so then his statement should be we need to get the guns out of the hands of citizens.
Which seems to be the underlying sentiment of this movement.
This statement tends to support my belief:
"When you carry a gun, you mean to harm somebody, kill somebody."
That might be news to the la enforcement personel across the world. And also to the millions of legal gun owners in the country.

When you carry a gun, you mean to defend yourself if attacked. Killing anyone is a last resort.

 

[MachZer0]

Well sure...if he had fallen through a time vortex and landed on the Titanic 100 years ago. That's about as likely as Martin killing him for staying in his car, I think.



Zimmerman followed him, that we know. Again, if Zimmerman had stayed in the car, as advised, there is no reason Martin would even have known he was there, and there'd be no reason for Martin to not to go straight home.



There is no conclusive evidence that this is what happened. But, again, even if that is the way things unfolded, they would not have unfolded that way at all had Zimmerman done what the 911 operator advised and STAYED WHERE HE WAS.



But we do know he followed Martin instead of waiting for the police, who were on the way, to show up.



No one is saying Zimmerman broke the law by following, or even confronting, Martin. What I'm saying -- and what, I think, Cosby was saying -- is that doing so, while armed, was reckless. And that he shouldn't have done it.



The same thing he'd say if it were not the case, frankly. But one thing is for sure: Zimmerman precipitated the events by not heeding the advice of the 911 operator and getting out of his car in the first place.

Which all ignores the fact that none of what Zimmerman did that we know about is illegal. So Cosby has just fallen into the race baiting game.

Or that the facts do not support his version of events. From what I've seen, which is less than the jury would see, I'm sure, they don't seem to.



If he testifies (and I think he'd be insane to do so), then whether or not he's lying will depend on how credible he sounds. Absent that testimony, the facts will speak for themselves, and from what I've heard, they don't seem to support Zimmerman's version of things.

At the very least, they do seem to support some form of manslaughter, if not 2nd degree murder. At the very least, I think, reckless endangerment. My guess is this will come down to a plea, and Zimmerman will plead guilty to some lesser charge like that and serve little or no jail time.



Assuming that is what happened, which I don't believe is entirely accurate, or even believable.



Again, had Zimmerman heeded the advice he was given and stayed in his car, he would not have found himself facing that dilemma in the first place. Words of wisdom for other neighborhood watch members.

The problem is that there are no facts that we have seen that dispute Zimmerman's account of events.

As do you, my friend.

Actually, my only conjecture has been that Zimmerman done what he was advised to do, none of this would have happened. And that much seems pretty incontrovertible to me.

Sorry, but I've based what I've said strictly on the facts that we know, without conjecture, excluding one post where I specified that I was making a conjecture.

-- A2SG, and the gun wouldn't have helped defend him from that iceberg in the north atlantic in 1912 either.....

But it does appear to have helped defend himself from Martin

 

[Theofane]

Cosby should stick to comedy

He's got nothing more to prove as a funnyman.

 

[SmellsLikeCurlyFries]

Carrying a gun doesn't mean that you "mean" to harm someone or kill them. It means you hope you don't need to hurt anyone, but you will if necessary.

Right. So it's your intention from the moment you pick up that gun to harm someone with it if it is necessary.

That's still intent.

 

[MachZer0]

Right. So it's your intention from the moment you pick up that gun to harm someone with it if it is necessary.

That's still intent.

The only intent is to protect yourself if need be. That's not the same as what Cosby said.

 

[SmellsLikeCurlyFries]

The only intent is to protect yourself if need be. That's not the same as what Cosby said.

Nope, now you're changing what you just said. You were very specific that one carries a gun for protection and will use it to harm someone if necessary.

 

[MachZer0]

Nope, now you're changing what you just said. You were very specific that one carries a gun for protection and will use it to harm someone if necessary.

Which is not the same as what Cosby said:

"When you carry a gun, you mean to harm somebody, kill somebody."

 

[SmellsLikeCurlyFries]

Which is not the same as what Cosby said:

"When you carry a gun, you mean to harm somebody, kill somebody."

It's the exact same. His point was the same as yours. If you carry a gun, for one reason or another you intend to harm someone. For some people, they intend to kill someone. For others, they intend to harm someone with the gun if that person tries to harm them.

 

[MachZer0]

It's the exact same. His point was the same as yours. If you carry a gun, for one reason or another you intend to harm someone. For some people, they intend to kill someone. For others, they intend to harm someone with the gun if that person tries to harm them.

No. it's not the same thing. "Mean" to harm someone means you intend to harm someone. Most who carry guns don't intend to harm anyone. they hope they never have to harm anyone. Cosby made that up. it sounds good in the effort to demonize Zimmerman.

 

[SmellsLikeCurlyFries]

No. it's not the same thing. "Mean" to harm someone means you intend to harm someone. Most who carry guns don't intend to harm anyone. they hope they never have to harm anyone.

But the intent to harm is still there. They HOPE they won't have to (maybe. I've known people who didn't care), but they still intend to if someone tries to harm them.

 

[MachZer0]

But the intent to harm is still there. They HOPE they won't have to (maybe. I've known people who didn't care), but they still intend to if someone tries to harm them.

No, the intent is not there. Sorry you don't see it.

 

[SmellsLikeCurlyFries]

Do you even know what "intent" means?

 

[MachZer0]

Do you even know what "intent" means?

Do you?

 

[SmellsLikeCurlyFries]

Do you?

Yes, I do, as a matter of fact.

 

[A2SG]

Which all ignores the fact that none of what Zimmerman did that we know about is illegal.

Again, no one is saying what he did was illegal.

So Cosby has just fallen into the race baiting game.

I don't recall him mentioning race at all.

The problem is that there are no facts that we have seen that dispute Zimmerman's account of events.

Or that support it, really. For example, if he was beaten as severely as you seem to believe he was, why didn't he look like it in the police video taken that night?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPMF9gfQm9g

Sorry, but I've based what I've said strictly on the facts that we know, without conjecture, excluding one post where I specified that I was making a conjecture.

Most, if not all, the "facts we know" come from Zimmerman, and there is little, if any, physical evidence to support his version of events. The police video doesn't support the "fact" that Zimmerman was beaten and defending his life, for example.

But it does appear to have helped defend himself from Martin

A situation neither person would have been in had Zimmerman listened to the advice of the 911 operator and not pursued Martin in the first place.

-- A2SG, again, this is incontrovertible....

 

[A2SG]

He's got nothing more to prove as a funnyman.

That's for sure! His Wonderfulness album is my all time favorite comedy album!

-- A2SG, thump-thump, thump-thump, he's outside of your door.....