Trayvon Martin Case

[mlmpetert]

Originally Posted by los panda

i bought it when i bought the book, it was $6. cheaper than the book. it will let you down, but it's still the outsiders

Thank God i dont read!

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

the law is always right??? History says no. facts are facts i agree, a man with a gun roaming a neighborhood (to protect everyone right?) harrassing children subjectively to what fit his discription of the common criminal (black in hoodie). He finds his discription, his direct harrassment leads to a physical altercation that leads to the death of a child with tea and skittles. Justice served right? i find it strange he has the right under law to shoot children.

Let me go home and grab my handgun and roam peoples neighborhood randomly and question children. if i dont get the answer i like and a child starts actingly like a child, then damn it i have the right to pull out my gun and shoot them. this country is great.

Introducing Chico2321 - the new and improved rant.

The law is neither right nor wrong. It's application sometimes leads to unfair or unsatisfactory results. When the application of a law results in unfair or unsatisfactory results often enough - it gets changed by the society subject to it. Until it is changed, however, the law is the guideline we are bound to follow b/c it's what, we as a society, originally agreed to follow.

As to you emotionally based, factually debatable rant - - If the child attacks you, breaks your nose, starts bashing your head into a sidewalk causing you legitimate fear for your life b/c you said something that offended him and you have a legally authorized deadly weapon, guess what - you have every right to use it. That ain't anything new.

At the same time, under those facts and in Maryland, you would likely be arrested. In Florida, however, as long as no evidence contradicts your claim of self-defense, guess what? You are legally arrest proof. Do I think that's a bad law? I think it's overbroad and creates this type of situation where what was once a defense to be proved is now a presumptive defense. I think that part of the law should be modified but it ain't up to me (or you) - it's up to the good people of Florida. Don't like the law? Don't live in Florida.

You make lots of assumptions both about Zimmerman, about Martin and about what happened. If that is all it takes to convict someone of murder, well, I got the rope if you got the tree.

[mooby]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

the law is always right??? History says no. facts are facts i agree, a man with a gun roaming a neighborhood (to protect everyone right?) harrassing children subjectively to what fit his discription of the common criminal (black in hoodie). He finds his discription, his direct harrassment leads to a physical altercation that leads to the death of a child with tea and skittles. Justice served right? i find it strange he has the right under law to shoot children.

Let me go home and grab my handgun and roam peoples neighborhood randomly and question children. if i dont get the answer i like and a child starts actingly like a child, then damn it i have the right to pull out my gun and shoot them. this country is great.

I feel like you should make a distinction between children and Trayvon. I seperate the two terms 'children' and 'teenagers', the latter of which is Trayvon. It wasn't like he shot an 8 year old playing on a playground.

[drew54]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

Great post, JoeRedskin.

The only issue I have is the assertion that both had a legal reason to be where they were. I still don't understand why Martin was in a gated community that he didn't live in with his drink and snack he would have purchased elsewhere.

I read the community was where his father's friend lived. They were visiting that friend when he went to get the snack.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by drew54

I read the community was where his father's friend lived. They were visiting that friend when he went to get the snack.

If evidence of Trayvon’s 911 call really does exist, it would blow apart Zimmerman’s claims that he acted in self defense when he shot and killed the Miami Gardens teenager who was trying to make it back home, with a bag of candy and a drink, in time to watch the 2nd half of the NBA All Star game.

I'm hearing all kinds of differing opinions on where Martin was heading and why.

It seems odd that if you're visiting a friend (or a friend of someone else) you'd go looking for snacks. At some point it will be apparent where he was walking to/from and all will be clearer, hopefully.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by mooby

I feel like you should make a distinction between children and Trayvon. I seperate the two terms 'children' and 'teenagers', the latter of which is Trayvon. It wasn't like he shot an 8 year old playing on a playground.

Doesn't fit the narrative of racial hostility.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by mooby

I feel like you should make a distinction between children and Trayvon. I seperate the two terms 'children' and 'teenagers', the latter of which is Trayvon. It wasn't like he shot an 8 year old playing on a playground.

It really doesn't matter if it's a child, teenager or senile 80 year old - use whatever emotionally charged adjective you wish. Ultimately, for deadly force to be allowed, you have to be in reasonable fear of your life. I agree that it would take a lot of extrinsic evidence to show that an 8 year old attacked you and put you in reasonable fear of your life - that would be a hard sell under the best of circumstance. Regardless, if he/she did, then you (in Florida and I would assume elsewhere) can use deadly force.

As witnessed by the neighbor, Martin had Zimmerman on his back and was beating him and attempting to create serious head trauma. Zimmerman had injuries consistent with such a beating. If Zimmerman did something first that left Trayvon no choice but to resort to physical violence (pull the gun out, maybe even flash it and say "I can't wait for you to turn around"), then Martin is the wronged party and murder is the appropriate charge. That may well have been what happened BUT - and I'll say this yet again - THERE IS NO PROOF THAT THIS HAPPENED.

Otherwise, you don't like me "harrassing" you, you don't like me following you on a public street? Tough shit. If we are in public, and I don't touch or threaten you with imminent physical harm, you aren't allowed to use violence first. This is what Zimmerman alleged happened and - here it is again - THERE IS NO PROOF TO CONTRADICT HIS ALLEGATION.

There is no proof one way or the other of the ultimate determinative fact. It is simply conjecture based on your perceptions of the two parties (Kid, thug, vigilante, family man), the known facts and the disputed facts.

but whatever ... popular opinion and lynchmobs can never be wrong.

[mooby]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

It really doesn't matter if it's a child, teenager or senile 80 year old - use whatever emotionally charged adjective you wish. Ultimately, for deadly force to be allowed, you have to be in reasonable fear of your life. I agree that it would take a lot of extrinsic evidence to show that an 8 year old attacked you and put you in reasonable fear of your life - that would be a hard sell under the best of circumstance. Regardless, if he/she did, then you (in Florida and I would assume elsewhere) can use deadly force.

As witnessed by the neighbor, Martin had Zimmerman on his back and was beating him and attempting to create serious head trauma. Zimmerman had injuries consistent with such a beating. If Zimmerman did something first that left Trayvon no choice but to resort to physical violence (pull the gun out, maybe even flash it and say "I can't wait for you to turn around"), then Martin is the wronged party and murder is the appropriate charge. That may well have been what happened BUT - and I'll say this yet again - THERE IS NO PROOF THAT THIS HAPPENED.

Otherwise, you don't like me "harrassing" you, you don't like me following you on a public street? Tough shit. If we are in public, and I don't touch or threaten you with imminent physical harm, you aren't allowed to use violence first. This is what Zimmerman alleged happened and - here it is again - THERE IS NO PROOF TO CONTRADICT HIS ALLEGATION.

There is no proof one way or the other of the ultimate determinative fact. It is simply conjecture based on your perceptions of the two parties (Kid, thug, vigilante, family man), the known facts and the disputed facts.

but whatever ... popular opinion and lynchmobs can never be wrong.

I'm not saying it makes a difference in the case, it just makes it sound like he's trying to garner sympathy for the teenager. And if that's his MO, then w/e.

But I do agree with you when you look at it from the standpoint you laid out above, it's hard to throw charges at Zimmerman from the facts at hand. It's like you said though, facts shouldn't get in the way of emotion.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Introducing Chico2321 - the new and improved rant.

The law is neither right nor wrong. It's application sometimes leads to unfair or unsatisfactory results. When the application of a law results in unfair or unsatisfactory results often enough - it gets changed by the society subject to it. Until it is changed, however, the law is the guideline we are bound to follow b/c it's what, we as a society, originally agreed to follow.

As to you emotionally based, factually debatable rant - - If the child attacks you, breaks your nose, starts bashing your head into a sidewalk causing you legitimate fear for your life b/c you said something that offended him and you have a legally authorized deadly weapon, guess what - you have every right to use it. That ain't anything new.

At the same time, under those facts and in Maryland, you would likely be arrested. In Florida, however, as long as no evidence contradicts your claim of self-defense, guess what? You are legally arrest proof. Do I think that's a bad law? I think it's overbroad and creates this type of situation where what was once a defense to be proved is now a presumptive defense. I think that part of the law should be modified but it ain't up to me (or you) - it's up to the good people of Florida. Don't like the law? Don't live in Florida.

You make lots of assumptions both about Zimmerman, about Martin and about what happened. If that is all it takes to convict someone of murder, well, I got the rope if you got the tree.

its not emotional but certainly disagrees with interpretation of law. But by your assessment you support law that say you can kill a child if you fear for his your life after chasing down, after harrassing him. Which is fine. Wasnt Zimmerman told by someone not to go after him...blotchy on that. And i guess people who disagree with that interpretation are a lynch mob, which is common but expected.

Zimmerman is responsible for the child's death. And Martin was harrassed by an unknown person to him not of any authority but some joe on the street. Who knows what Zim said to him, but i guess he can say anything he wants to him considering he's packing a gun like a damn coward.

Zimmerman was clearly in the wrong and Martin did not deserved to be killed. Gotta be a law that was broken somewhere.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

It really doesn't matter if it's a child, teenager or senile 80 year old - use whatever emotionally charged adjective you wish. Ultimately, for deadly force to be allowed, you have to be in reasonable fear of your life. I agree that it would take a lot of extrinsic evidence to show that an 8 year old attacked you and put you in reasonable fear of your life - that would be a hard sell under the best of circumstance. Regardless, if he/she did, then you (in Florida and I would assume elsewhere) can use deadly force.

As witnessed by the neighbor, Martin had Zimmerman on his back and was beating him and attempting to create serious head trauma. Zimmerman had injuries consistent with such a beating. If Zimmerman did something first that left Trayvon no choice but to resort to physical violence (pull the gun out, maybe even flash it and say "I can't wait for you to turn around"), then Martin is the wronged party and murder is the appropriate charge. That may well have been what happened BUT - and I'll say this yet again - THERE IS NO PROOF THAT THIS HAPPENED.

Otherwise, you don't like me "harrassing" you, you don't like me following you on a public street? Tough shit. If we are in public, and I don't touch or threaten you with imminent physical harm, you aren't allowed to use violence first. This is what Zimmerman alleged happened and - here it is again - THERE IS NO PROOF TO CONTRADICT HIS ALLEGATION.

There is no proof one way or the other of the ultimate determinative fact. It is simply conjecture based on your perceptions of the two parties (Kid, thug, vigilante, family man), the known facts and the disputed facts.

but whatever ... popular opinion and lynchmobs can never be wrong.

I can walk the street with a gun harrassing people? Ummm no

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

...considering he's packing a gun like a damn coward.

Why would you say using technology is cowardice?

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

Why would you say using technology is cowardice?

because he is neighborhood watch. you watch and call police if there is a problem. you dont fight people and shoot them. Zim holds zero authority over anybody

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

I can walk the street with a gun harrassing people? Ummm no

Define "harrasing":

Asking questions, without showing the gun or indicating you are am armed?

Making accusations about my right to be there without threatening me with physical harm, showing the gun or indicating that you are am armed?

Without showing the weapon or giving me knowledge that you have a weapon, following me at a reasonable distance and not physically interfering with my ability to walk to my intended destination?

Without showing the weapon or giving me knowledge that you have a weapon, following closely and obviously on a public street. Running when I run, walking when I walk but never physically hindering my ability to go where I choose?

As soon as you start waving the gun or incorporating it into the "harrassment", then I would agree you got problems - at that point you are threatening life and limb. Again, there is no evidence that Zimmerman did this. He may have been an ass to Martin, but, that doesn't entitle Martin to attack him as Zimmerman alleges and for which there is no evidence to contradict.

You don't like someone verbally harrassing you or following you on public property - call the police and ignore. Short of a credible threat of physical harm, such "harrassment" does not entitle you to use physical force against the harraser.

[Chico23231]

Joe when im following Zimmerman around with a gun and he tells me to stop, Im just gonna use the "tough shit" defense. Can I retain you?

[RedskinRat]

That doesn't answer my question. Why does carrying a gun (using technology) make him (or anyone) a coward?

You'll find Zimmerman DID call 911.