Trayvon Martin Case

[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.

[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.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

He's in the wrong no question whether the law says so or not, i could careless.

Wow.......

[SmootSmack]

Way to go Spike....sigh

Spike Lee tweets wrong address of Trayvon Martin's shooter; elderly couple flees after threats | syracuse.com

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Way to go Spike....sigh

Spike Lee tweets wrong address of Trayvon Martin's shooter; elderly couple flees after threats | syracuse.com

Posted by mlmpetert yesterday at 03-27-2012, 11:35 AM but thanks for the reminder.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

Posted by mlmpetert yesterday at 03-27-2012, 11:35 AM but thanks for the reminder.

You can see how much attention I've been paying to this thread

[mlmpetert]

i heard Trayvon's mom say this yesterday at a news conference. I honestly didt see this as a racial issue at all. I think i may be waaayyyy to naive when it comes to this kind of stuff.

"They killed my son and now they're trying to kill his reputation."

Read more: Trayvon Martin case: He was suspended three times and caught with 'burglary tool' | Mail Online

[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.

[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.

[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

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

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

You sound like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton back when the Duke LaCrosse players were being accused of rape. They stated similar things and even offered to pay this woman's tuition without knowing the full details. Little did they know, they were all being lied to by the woman they were defending.


You don't know the details, and neither does anybody outside the investigation. I say we let this play out and have all the facts come out before we start proclaiming somebody innocent or guilty.

I'm quite positive we have a "equal force" type of defense laws here in NC. If a person comes at you with bare hands, a gun isn't equal force. However, somebody slamming your head into a sidewalk would be considered deadly force. I'm more interested in hearing the witnesses.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

You sound like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton back when the Duke LaCrosse players were being accused of rape. They stated similar things and even offered to pay this woman's tuition without knowing the full details. Little did they know, they were all being lied to by the woman they were defending.


You don't know the details, and neither does anybody outside the investigation. I say we let this play out and have all the facts come out before we start proclaiming somebody innocent or guilty.

I'm quite positive we have a "equal force" type of defense laws here in NC. If a person comes at you with bare hands, a gun isn't equal force. However, somebody slamming your head into a sidewalk would be considered deadly force. I'm more interested in hearing the witnesses.

Duke lacross vs Shooting death of Martin...ummmm not close comparison. Yeah I appreciate the Sharpton, Jackson insult.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

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.

It also assumes facts not proven, facts in dispute, and facts relating to Zimmerman's and Martin's thought processes. You say things like "chasing him down" as if it undisputed that Zimmerman was trying to catch and tackle the Martin rather than make sure he know where Martin was when the police arrived. Maybe Zimmerman was trying to "chase him down" as you say - I don't think it's shown by the known facts but possible. If true and Zimmerman initiated the physical confrontation, then - yup - he would be liable for murder.

Would your opinion change, however, if Martin saw Zimmerman following him, lay in wait for Zimmerman to pass, then sucker punched Zimmerman first and attempted to bash Zimmerman's skull on the sidewalk? Not saying this happened just asking if, under those facts, you think Zimmerman would be the guilty party.

A dispatcher said, don't follow and Zimmerman did. Bad judgment no doubt, but not illegal. Perhaps, just perhaps Zimmerman had seen one too many break-ins in his neighborhood (there had been eleven in the last month) and too many slow police responses so he just wanted to be sure he know where Martin was going. He was legally allowed to do that as long as he didn't threaten Martin with physical harm.

Originally Posted by Chico23231

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.

He can "say anything he wants to" so long as he didn't threaten physical harm with the weapon - please show me one piece of evidence that Zimmerman's gun even made an appearance before the gun shot. One statement from any witness that Zimmerman threatened physical harm to Martin. I have not seen it. Please show me something that would indicate it is more than speculation or more emotionally charged rhetoric on your part. Quite simply, it's just as easy to speculate from the facts known or disputed that Martin was responsible for causing the situation to esculate.

Sorry, I just keep coming back to the facts.

Originally Posted by Chico23231

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

Zimmerman may have been wrong. Martin did not deserve to die. If Martin was the initial aggressor, if Zimmerman was truly acting iin self-defense, and if Martin was bashing Zimmerman's head into the sidewalk, I simply disagree with your assertion that Zimmerman was at fault.

You assume it was not self-defense based on your personal resolution of facts that I assert are disputed or not proven. Fair enough. I simply say, it may well be as you say, but the facts are in dispute and you are operating on a lot of speculation. I don't want to put anyone in jail based on speculation.