Trayvon Martin Case

[Gary84Clark]

I agree with Mountain. Fist fight with teenager not life threatening reason to murder said teenager.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by Gary84Clark

I agree with Mountain. Fist fight with teenager not life threatening reason to murder said teenager.

/end thread

[Gary84Clark]

Originally Posted by mlmpetert

Ill try and check this out.

With regards to your first post, im just trying to figure out what would it take for you to not think Zimmerman is guilty of murder or manslaughter. In your opinion once Zimmerman started following Martin, does that in your opinion place responsibility on Zimmerman regardless if he stopped and turned around?

He started a confrontation with a stranger, that puts his behavior outside the norm. Gentlemen, have any of you read the interview Z gave the cops 2 days later? Apparently Z said he followed the punk to get an address. Evidently he knew Martin was headed somewhere in the complex. He did not think it was a break in artist.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by Gary84Clark

Outrage and weed. Smoking weed is not known to encourage aggression.

But it does alter perception, right?

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Gary84Clark

He started a confrontation with a stranger, that puts his behavior outside the norm. Gentlemen, have any of you read the interview Z gave the cops 2 days later? Apparently Z said he followed the punk to get an address. Evidently he knew Martin was headed somewhere in the complex. He did not think it was a break in artist.

Who threw the first punch? Why? Prove it.

Someone aggressively starting a verbal confrontation with you DOES NOT LET YOU START WAILING ON THEM OR EVEN TOUCH THEM. If you do, you are at fault.

Damn. The willingness to ignore legal requirements, innocent until proven guilty and the State's burden to prove their case when you're offended is mind boggling. Pitchforks and torches all around.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Gary84Clark

I agree with Mountain. Fist fight with teenager not life threatening reason to murder said teenager.

Bullshit. It most certainly can be. You are either blinded by bias or an idiot.

[DynamiteRave]

I'm pretty sure this is going to end up a mistrial.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by DynamiteRave

I'm pretty sure this is going to end up a mistrial.

Why?

[DynamiteRave]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Why?

Hung jury.

Else I'm leaning towards not guilty.

Doesn't make me happy, but the prosecution is stinking it up.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Bullshit. It most certainly can be. You are either blinded by bias or an idiot.

So i can legally walk around my neighborhood egging on teenagers to assault me and then shoot them in the name of "my life was threatened?"

They are under 18, that the set age to be considered a child and not able to reason as an adult, because of that inept ability to reason they will fight and assault me...so then I can start shooting?

where am i wrong? not trying to be an asshole, just trying to get the reasoning behind my right kill a child

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

So i can legally walk around my neighborhood egging on teenagers to assault me and then shoot them in the name of "my life was threatened?"

Dafuq?

Originally Posted by Chico23231

They are under 18, that the set age to be considered a child and not able to reason as an adult,

How old does 6'2" look?

Originally Posted by Chico23231

because of that inept ability to reason they will fight and assault me...so then I can start shooting?

where am i wrong?

Yeah, once you turn 18 you get that shit squared away immediately.

Originally Posted by Chico23231

not trying to be an asshole, just trying to get the reasoning behind my right kill a child

Your example is laughably extreme, no one is suggesting taunting a toddler and then drawing down, unless it's an exceedingly vicious toddler, obviously.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

So i can legally walk around my neighborhood egging on teenagers to assault me and then shoot them in the name of "my life was threatened?"

1. Show me where Z "egged [TM] on to assault him". Z clearly confronted him in a verbally aggressive fashion. To my knowledge, however, there is no evidence that Z said "Okay pal, let's duke it out" or any words to that effect. Teenager or not, even in light of someone aggressively questioning you in a public place, you simply do not DO NOT DO NOT have the right to throw the first punch. Simply put, there is just too much unknown about how this fight actually started to prove - beyond a reasonable doubt - that Z either started the fight or that this was a "mutual combat situation".

I can walk around my neighborhood and confront teens and ask them questions. I can do so aggressively as long as I don't do so in a way that reasonably threatened imminent physically harm.

2. There has been conflicting evidence as to whether the injuries demonstrated constituted enough to put him in reasonable fear of his life. You think no teenager in a fight could put an "adult" combatant in fear for his life. I disagree, strongly. [I was a teenager and I promise you I put the fear of God in a couple 20 something guys as I pounded them to a pulp - fortunately for me (and them), others were always there to pull me off].

Originally Posted by Chico23231

They are under 18, that the set age to be considered a child and not able to reason as an adult, because of that inept ability to reason they will fight and assault me...so then I can start shooting?

See, it's not from Martin's perspective but from Z's. If Z reasonably fears for his safety, it matters not that it was from a 10 year old or an 80 year old. The only question is, as he was on the pavement, blood running down his throat, feeling the effects of possible concussive or brain injury (per the EMT), yelling for help (per Good) and pinned to the ground - did he reasonably fear for his life. It doesn't matter if the person who put him into that position was a teen or not.

You don't have to let a teen pound you death just b/c he is a teen.

Originally Posted by Chico23231

where am i wrong? not trying to be an asshole, just trying to get the reasoning behind my right kill a child

"The right to kill a child"? Could you please couch in more emotionally charged language?

You have the right to defend yourself and use deadly force and will suffer no threat of criminal prosecution anytime someone (anyone) assaults you and then uses force that reasonably puts you in fear of your life. While the ages of the combatants are relevant, they are not in and of themselves determinative.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

1. Show me where Z "egged [TM] on to assault him". Z clearly confronted him in a verbally aggressive fashion. To my knowledge, however, there is no evidence that Z said "Okay pal, let's duke it out" or any words to that effect. Teenager or not, even in light of someone aggressively questioning you in a public place, you simply do not DO NOT DO NOT have the right to throw the first punch. Simply put, there is just too much unknown about how this fight actually started to prove - beyond a reasonable doubt - that Z either started the fight or that this was a "mutual combat situation".

I can walk around my neighborhood and confront teens and ask them questions. I can do so aggressively as long as I don't do so in a way that reasonably threatened imminent physically harm.

2. There has been conflicting evidence as to whether the injuries demonstrated constituted enough to put him in reasonable fear of his life. You think no teenager in a fight could put an "adult" combatant in fear for his life. I disagree, strongly. [I was a teenager and I promise you I put the fear of God in a couple 20 something guys as I pounded them to a pulp - fortunately for me (and them), others were always there to pull me off].



See, it's not from Martin's perspective but from Z's. If Z reasonably fears for his safety, it matters not that it was from a 10 year old or an 80 year old. The only question is, as he was on the pavement, blood running down his throat, feeling the effects of possible concussive or brain injury (per the EMT), yelling for help (per Good) and pinned to the ground - did he reasonably fear for his life. It doesn't matter if the person who put him into that position was a teen or not.

You don't have to let a teen pound you death just b/c he is a teen.



"The right to kill a child"? Could you please couch in more emotionally charged language?

You have the right to defend yourself and use deadly force and will suffer no threat of criminal prosecution anytime someone (anyone) assaults you and then uses force that reasonably puts you in fear of your life. While the ages of the combatants are relevant, they are not in and of themselves determinative.

im sure you never hear that being a lawyer Probably as emotionally charged as the leak that T is a thug gangster. We know teenagers never act tough in general and dress in hoodies these days.

Yeah the age thing is very relevant in my trying to make my point, but that is a good way to put it above.

[Gary84Clark]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

Dafuq?



How old does 6'2" look?

Trayvon was 5' 11" the doctor testified today. The rapper Game is 6' 2" and photos of Game are the photos conservatives have been trying to pass off as Trayvon. Stick to facts rat. Fist fights don't give you a right to murder. That is unusual. He was not armed.

[Gary84Clark]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

1. Show me where Z "egged [TM] on to assault him". Z clearly confronted him in a verbally aggressive fashion. To my knowledge, however, there is no evidence that Z said "Okay pal, let's duke it out" or any words to that effect. Teenager or not, even in light of someone aggressively questioning you in a public place, you simply do not DO NOT DO NOT have the right to throw the first punch. Simply put, there is just too much unknown about how this fight actually started to prove - beyond a reasonable doubt - that Z either started the fight or that this was a "mutual combat situation".

I can walk around my neighborhood and confront teens and ask them questions. I can do so aggressively as long as I don't do so in a way that reasonably threatened imminent physically harm.

2. There has been conflicting evidence as to whether the injuries demonstrated constituted enough to put him in reasonable fear of his life. You think no teenager in a fight could put an "adult" combatant in fear for his life. I disagree, strongly. [I was a teenager and I promise you I put the fear of God in a couple 20 something guys as I pounded them to a pulp - fortunately for me (and them), others were always there to pull me off].



See, it's not from Martin's perspective but from Z's. If Z reasonably fears for his safety, it matters not that it was from a 10 year old or an 80 year old. The only question is, as he was on the pavement, blood running down his throat, feeling the effects of possible concussive or brain injury (per the EMT), yelling for help (per Good) and pinned to the ground - did he reasonably fear for his life. It doesn't matter if the person who put him into that position was a teen or not.

You don't have to let a teen pound you death just b/c he is a teen.



"The right to kill a child"? Could you please couch in more emotionally charged language?

You have the right to defend yourself and use deadly force and will suffer no threat of criminal prosecution anytime someone (anyone) assaults you and then uses force that reasonably puts you in fear of your life. While the ages of the combatants are relevant, they are not in and of themselves determinative.

Joe I disagree, you can't claim your life was in danger and then kill people. Sorry, proclaiming your life is in danger has to be supported by evidence. Z's injuries were characterized as insignificant by the doctors today. He killed someone we know this. Was his life in danger? The person he shot was not armed. Even cops can't get away with that.