Warpath  

Home | Forums | Salary Cap Info | Shop | Donate | Stay Connected




Go Back   Warpath > Off-Topic Discussion > Debating with the enemy


Trayvon Martin Case

Debating with the enemy


Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-02-2013, 07:03 PM   #706
MVP
 
Chico23231's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Richmond, VA
Age: 37
Posts: 11,262
Re: Trayvon Martin Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary84Clark View Post
I agree with Mountain. Fist fight with teenager not life threatening reason to murder said teenager.
/end thread
__________________
Ditka for President
Chico23231 is offline  

Advertisements
Old 07-02-2013, 07:25 PM   #707
Impact Rookie
 
Gary84Clark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 760
Re: Trayvon Martin Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by mlmpetert View Post
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.
Gary84Clark is offline  
Old 07-02-2013, 07:39 PM   #708
New HC, new hope!
 
RedskinRat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: I'm in LA, trick!
Posts: 8,702
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary84Clark View Post
Outrage and weed. Smoking weed is not known to encourage aggression.
But it does alter perception, right?
RedskinRat is offline  
Old 07-02-2013, 08:21 PM   #709
Contains football related knowledge
 
JoeRedskin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Second Star On The Right
Age: 51
Posts: 8,530
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary84Clark View Post
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.
__________________
You aren't worth the water in my spit but, maybe, just maybe, you're worth the lead in my shotgun.
JoeRedskin is offline  
Old 07-02-2013, 08:23 PM   #710
Contains football related knowledge
 
JoeRedskin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Second Star On The Right
Age: 51
Posts: 8,530
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary84Clark View Post
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.
__________________
You aren't worth the water in my spit but, maybe, just maybe, you're worth the lead in my shotgun.
JoeRedskin is offline  
Old 07-02-2013, 08:48 PM   #711
MVP
 
DynamiteRave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Washington DC
Age: 27
Posts: 11,852
Re: Trayvon Martin Case

I'm pretty sure this is going to end up a mistrial.
__________________
Establishment, establishment, you always know what's best.

"We're officially horrible." -RedskinRat

I'm a chick, damnit.
DynamiteRave is offline  
Old 07-02-2013, 09:10 PM   #712
Contains football related knowledge
 
JoeRedskin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Second Star On The Right
Age: 51
Posts: 8,530
Re: Trayvon Martin Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by DynamiteRave View Post
I'm pretty sure this is going to end up a mistrial.
Why?
__________________
You aren't worth the water in my spit but, maybe, just maybe, you're worth the lead in my shotgun.
JoeRedskin is offline  
Old 07-02-2013, 09:15 PM   #713
MVP
 
DynamiteRave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Washington DC
Age: 27
Posts: 11,852
Re: Trayvon Martin Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeRedskin View Post
Why?
Hung jury.

Else I'm leaning towards not guilty.

Doesn't make me happy, but the prosecution is stinking it up.
__________________
Establishment, establishment, you always know what's best.

"We're officially horrible." -RedskinRat

I'm a chick, damnit.
DynamiteRave is offline  
Old 07-02-2013, 09:36 PM   #714
MVP
 
Chico23231's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Richmond, VA
Age: 37
Posts: 11,262
Re: Trayvon Martin Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeRedskin View Post
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
__________________
Ditka for President
Chico23231 is offline  
Old 07-02-2013, 10:16 PM   #715
New HC, new hope!
 
RedskinRat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: I'm in LA, trick!
Posts: 8,702
Re: Trayvon Martin Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chico23231 View Post
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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chico23231 View Post
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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chico23231 View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chico23231 View Post
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.
RedskinRat is offline  
Old 07-02-2013, 10:19 PM   #716
Contains football related knowledge
 
JoeRedskin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Second Star On The Right
Age: 51
Posts: 8,530
Re: Trayvon Martin Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chico23231 View Post
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].

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chico23231 View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chico23231 View Post
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.
__________________
You aren't worth the water in my spit but, maybe, just maybe, you're worth the lead in my shotgun.
JoeRedskin is offline  
Old 07-02-2013, 10:37 PM   #717
MVP
 
Chico23231's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Richmond, VA
Age: 37
Posts: 11,262
Re: Trayvon Martin Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeRedskin View Post
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.
__________________
Ditka for President
Chico23231 is offline  
Old 07-02-2013, 11:26 PM   #718
Impact Rookie
 
Gary84Clark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 760
Re: Trayvon Martin Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by RedskinRat View Post
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 is offline  
Old 07-02-2013, 11:31 PM   #719
Impact Rookie
 
Gary84Clark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 760
Re: Trayvon Martin Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeRedskin View Post
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.
Gary84Clark is offline  
Old 07-02-2013, 11:36 PM   #720
Impact Rookie
 
Gary84Clark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 760
Re: Trayvon Martin Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeRedskin View Post
OTM - To a certain degree, you are correct and I am in full agreement with you. You cannot resort to deadly force simply b/c you are losing a fight. You can, however, resort to deadly force w/out being guilty of manslaughter or murder if (1) you are losing a fight, (2) in fear of your life - and (3) are not responsible for starting the fight.

If you start a fight, begin to lose it but have no reasonable fear for your life, and kill someone, that's murder 1 (By the way, this is the scenario applicable to my following G84C, him starting a fight, me kicking his butt and him shooting me. So long as all I do is kick his ass in a fight and pull off when he inevitably starts screaming for help).

If you start a fight, begin to lose and have reasonable fear for your life, and use deadly force, that's murder 2 (This is the scenario applicable to my following G84C, him starting a fight, me going beyond just beating him, and him shooting me);

If both parties enter into mutual combat (e.g. - two guys in a bar say "let's take it outside"), one begins to lose but has no reasonable fear for his life and kills his opponent anyway, murder 2.

If both parties enter into mutual combat, one begins to lose, has reasonable fear for his life and kills his opponent, manslaughter.

If a party does not start the fight, begins to lose, then has reasonable fear of his life, and kills his opponent - innocent.

[Disclaimer: I am not a criminal lawyer. The various degrees and factors going into determining the "level" of a homicide are dependent on State law and are not particularly straightforward. The breakdown above is based on some research I had previously done and my understanding of certain basic principles].

Here, there is clear evidence of a fight between Martin and Zimmerman. For any charge to stick, however, the Prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that either Zimmerman started the fight or there was an agreement (tacit or otherwise) between Z and TM to enter into mutual combat. Unless I missed it, there is simply no evidence of who started the fight (who moved it from a verbal confrontation to a physical one). There is lots and lots of speculation based on what people believe the parties were thinking or who the type of person they believe TM or Z to be.

I simply don't think the evidence to date does (or ever will) show how this fight started. B/c of that, I don't think, as a matter of law, the prosecution can prove its case. To me, it's that simple. For those who say, well, it's Martin's word against Z and Martin is dead. True enough. But unless you are willing to radically and fundamentally change the burden we place on the State when trying to deprive a person of their life or liberty, it's the price we pay for requiring innocent until proven guilty. Worse men than Z have been found innocent of much worse for lack of the dead witness.

However, I am sure that the prosecution is hoping for folks like you, OTM, on the jury. "There's a dead kid. I don't care about legal elements, burden of proof, or innocent until proven guilty ... You can't kill shoot a kid just b/c you got in his face and he may have over reacted. Hell, for all we know, you started the fight. You better prove to me you didn't start this and that you really were in fear of your life."

Until the EMT and Good testified, I think the prosecution has a good chance of accomplishing (what I presume to be) its goal. Before then, they had Z following and confronting Martin, confusion, a fight and a dead kid with Z ending up on top.

After the EMT and Good, the details changed a bit. Good made it clear there was a point where TM was on top and appeared to be hitting Z with Z clearly yelling for help. The EMT testified that a person in Z's condition and on his back would have blood running down his throat, be likely feeling the effects of brain or concussive injuries and would probably be in reasonable fear for his life. IMHO, These two witnesses provided enough evidence to create a prima facia showing of reasonable fear of life on Z's part -- without the need for Z's testimony -- such that the burden again shifts to the State to prove Z wasn't reasonable in that fear.

Maybe your view prevails OTM. Perhaps, despite the lack of evidence, the State's burden to show who started this fight, and the protections against self-incrimination, maybe emotion prevails and Z's failure to testify dooms him.

Personally, I hope the rule of law prevails and that innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by the State through legally admissable evidence remains the standard.
Two figures tussling on the ground then one pulls out a gun, bloody murder!!!!
Gary84Clark is offline  
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:16 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site is not officially affiliated with the Washington Redskins or the NFL.
Page generated in 0.36104 seconds with 9 queries

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0 RC5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25