Trayvon Martin Case

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by RGIII

All of you burn in hell.

You believe in hell? <point_laugh>

[skinsfaninok]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Why are people so shocked about the verdict? Casey Anthony was also given a not-guilty verdict, but the fact still remained that it couldn't be proven "without a shadow of a doubt". This isn't about whether you think they are guilty, it's whether or not the evidence shows they are guilty.

Good point

[DynamiteRave]

Originally Posted by RGIII

All of you burn in hell.

Wait, why?

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by RGIII

All of you burn in hell.

See you there.

[RedskinRat]

Prediction: Zimmerman murdered within 3 months.

[DynamiteRave]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

Prediction: Zimmerman murdered within 3 months.

Better get his hiding tips from Casey Anthony.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by saden1

Does he even have anything worth going after?

Doesn't matter...I'd sue his pants off. Wrongful death is exactly what this was.

[Hog1]

Hopefully the regular season will.....commence prior to the.....wrongful trial

[RGIII]

Originally Posted by DynamiteRave

Wait, why?

Just because it's legal, it doesn't mean it's right. If you're gonna be a bitch, don't be a play cop. If you're gonna be a bitch, stay your bitch ass in the car. If you're gonna be a bitch, take a beat down from a kid almost half your age without pulling a gun.

[DynamiteRave]

Originally Posted by RGIII

Just because it's legal, it doesn't mean it's right. If you're gonna be a bitch, don't be a play cop. If you're gonna be a bitch, stay your bitch ass in the car. If you're gonna be a bitch, take a beat down from a kid almost half your age without pulling a gun.

I'm with you. Not guilty is bullshit and no legal mumbo jumbo by anyone changes that. Just thought that was a very visceral way to come across. Its a rough day though, no doubt.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by RGIII

All of you burn in hell.

What's that now?

[mlmpetert]

Originally Posted by RGIII

Just because it's legal, it doesn't mean it's right. If you're gonna be a bitch, don't be a play cop. If you're gonna be a bitch, stay your bitch ass in the car. If you're gonna be a bitch, take a beat down from a kid almost half your age without pulling a gun.

Almost sounds like he wasn't gonna be a bitch by your logic?

[mlmpetert]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

What do you mean "this outcome"? If the only fact you change is that T shoots Z, you still have much of the speculative issues presented. T claims he was in fear of his life but testimony places him on top of Z in "ground and pound" mode with Z yelling for help. Next thing we know, Z is dead. (assume also the other witnesses come out and say they see TM get off the ground with a prone Z next to him).

I think the case against TM would be stronger especially since his body showed no evidence of injury. But, essentially, and assuming TM asserts self-defense, you would have much the same issues - speculation as to who started the fight and what happened during it. Certainly, the underlying principles - burden of proof, legal elements of the crime charged and innocent until proven guilty would be applicable to TM just as they now apply to Z.

And to be clear - "a confrontation initiated by Z" is a generalization that encompasses both legal and illegal acts in this situation. Z can initiate a verbal confrontation. TM can initiate a verbal confrontation. NEITHER can initiate a physical confrontation.

People can yell at you and aggressively taunt you in public. They can call you dirty names. They can call you the N word. They can call you a crazy cracker. They can insult your parents, sister and kids. They can make general threats of harm so long as they do so from a position where they can't reasonably be expected to carry out the threat (Shouting "I'm gonna kick your ass" from 10 feet away). They can stay at more than arms length and "flinch" as if to strike you. ...

You know what you (be you a teen, child or adult) can do in these situations? Yell back, call the cops or simply ignore it. [If they make a threat and then move to carry it out - that's different e.g. saying they are going to kick your ass and then charging you. While you would still have a duty to retreat (in MD) - you only need do so if you believe you can reasonably get to a safe place]



Those "technical details" are, again, what I like to refer to as "law" and "burden of proof".

Z, through his actions, initiated the "situation" of a verbal confrontation - there is no evidence as to who started the "situation" of a physical confrontation. Leading up to the physical confontation, Z - IMHO - clearly exercised bad judgment. Bad judgment, however, is not a crime. Initiating a physical attack is - and that "situation" may have been "started" by Z or TM.

Before sending Z to jail, the State bears the burden of proof and persuasion to show BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that Z committed all the elements of the crime for which he is accused.



Who has alleged he has authority to harass anyone?? True, much as you don't like it, Z was legally authorized to carry a concealed weapon in public spaces. Assuming Z was harassing folks, however, if that harrasment was limited to following people and verbally confronting them, the appropriate response is to CALL THE F'ING POLICE. YOU DO NOT get to take matters into your own hands.

DAMN - why is this such a hard concept for folks to comprehend. Had TM said to his friend, "I'll call you back, I gotta call the police some crazy cracker is followng me." Maybe, just maybe, it would have been straightened out quickly. Instead, we get macho wannabe crime stopper versus macho wannabe teen and a tragic outcome with nothing but speculation on the key elements of legal responsibilty.

I gotta say, the willingness and ease with which some of you think violence is a proper response to being challenged, "harrased" or otherwise inconvenienced is disconcerting. Why does violence exist? B/c people still fundamentally believe it is the right way to resolve personal problems.



Well, screw the trial then - the line for pitchforks and torches starts behind G84C.

http://www.thewarpath.net/debating-w...ml#post1014278

The most valuable thing said in this thread, at least imho.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by mlmpetert

http://www.thewarpath.net/debating-w...ml#post1014278

The most valuable thing said in this thread, at least imho.

Truth.

The case came down to this...

The prosecution had to prove GZ initiated the physical altercation. Not only did they not do this thy didnt even come close. The gap between what happened when GZ got out of the car and a dead body laying on the ground was wide. The only people who know were either dead or on trial for their life. Neither side made a truly convincing argument as to what happened. People can THINK they know what GZ did and what his state of mind was but they're only presuming on that point because there wasn't much evidence of that either. I think a trigger happy zilch got confronted, someone made a shove (probably even minor), the shove was reciprocated and all hell broke loose. Who did the initiating matters legally...and none of us know.

[skinsfaninok]

I think the white on black stuff is stupid, first of all Zimmerman is Hispanic and has claimed it .