Trayvon Martin Case

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Haven't watch any, but have read the stuff you all posted. I think its the media that wants to convict Zimmerman. Makes for a better storyline for them.

From a moral judgment standpoint a bunch of stuff matters that doesn't matter in a legal sense and vice-versa. He may not be "guilty" but he almost surely is responsible. That's why something like this is such a big deal media-wise. Responsible and guilty aren't the same thing. The media on the whole feeds the mentality that responsibility = guilt. Same thing happened in the OJ case. The prosecution didn't prove he was guilty. Everyone KNOWS he did it but that doesn't matter.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

From a moral judgment standpoint a bunch of stuff matters that doesn't matter in a legal sense and vice-versa. He may not be "guilty" but he almost surely is responsible. That's why something like this is such a big deal media-wise. Responsible and guilty aren't the same thing. The media on the whole feeds the mentality that responsibility = guilt. Same thing happened in the OJ case. The prosecution didn't prove he was guilty. Everyone KNOWS he did it but that doesn't matter.

How isd Z responsible. If he was attacked BY Trayvon then it Trayvon who is responsible for his own death. I know Z was told to not follow him but just following him does not make him guilty of anything.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by firstdown

How isd Z responsible. If he was attacked BY Trayvon then it Trayvon who is responsible for his own death. I know Z was told to not follow him but just following him does not make him guilty of anything.

Here's what we KNOW happened. A over-zealous neighborhood watchman followed around someone because he felt he was suspicious. He didn't engage the guy to find out what he was doing in a constructive way (that we know of) rather he acted in a way that created a situation of confrontation. Now TM may have gone too far in his reaction and gave Z a reason to defend himself (who knows) but what we KNOW is that Z should have handled the situation better and then an unarmed teenager wouldn't be dead. Does any of that make him guilty? No. But I am damn sure if it's me in that situation TM doesn't get shot because a more reasonable person doesn't manipulate a situation into being confrontational like that. I think it is hard to see the basic situation any different.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

Here's what we KNOW happened. A over-zealous neighborhood watchman followed around someone because he felt he was suspicious. He didn't engage the guy to find out what he was doing in a constructive way (that we know of) rather he acted in a way that created a situation of confrontation. Now TM may have gone too far in his reaction and gave Z a reason to defend himself (who knows) but what we KNOW is that Z should have handled the situation better and then an unarmed teenager wouldn't be dead. Does any of that make him guilty? No. But I am damn sure if it's me in that situation TM doesn't get shot because a more reasonable person doesn't manipulate a situation into being confrontational like that. I think it is hard to see the basic situation any different.

This. 100%.

[HailGreen28]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

Here's what we KNOW happened. A over-zealous neighborhood watchman followed around someone because he felt he was suspicious.

OK, but how do you KNOW any of the rest?

Originally Posted by FRPLG

He didn't engage the guy to find out what he was doing in a constructive way (that we know of) rather he acted in a way that created a situation of confrontation. Now TM may have gone too far in his reaction and gave Z a reason to defend himself (who knows) but what we KNOW is that Z should have handled the situation better and then an unarmed teenager wouldn't be dead. Does any of that make him guilty? No. But I am damn sure if it's me in that situation TM doesn't get shot because a more reasonable person doesn't manipulate a situation into being confrontational like that. I think it is hard to see the basic situation any different.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by HailGreen28

OK, but how do you KNOW any of the rest?

You're correct. "know" is the wrong word. "Strongly believe without much evidence, discussion, assertion, or testimony to the contrary" is better. The picture painted by almost everyone in general follows that line. The details of exactly how everything played out are being debated. No one makes much of an argument any other way. Given what has been testified to..if you're in that situation can you see it going down the way it did?

[HailGreen28]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

You're correct. "know" is the wrong word. "Strongly believe without much evidence, discussion, assertion, or testimony to the contrary" is better. The picture painted by almost everyone in general follows that line. The details of exactly how everything played out are being debated. No one makes much of an argument any other way. Given what has been testified to..if you're in that situation can you see it going down the way it did?

I could see things going down a lot of ways, plenty of idiots around, including yours truly. My point is that there's too much speculation, with people making Z or TM out to be guilty with zero evidence to their speculation.

If only there was video surveillance of the confrontation, like the cameras at schools. (I'm not really crazy about "Big Brother", but would come in handy now.)

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

From a moral judgment standpoint a bunch of stuff matters that doesn't matter in a legal sense and vice-versa. He may not be "guilty" but he almost surely is responsible. That's why something like this is such a big deal media-wise. Responsible and guilty aren't the same thing. The media on the whole feeds the mentality that responsibility = guilt. Same thing happened in the OJ case. The prosecution didn't prove he was guilty. Everyone KNOWS he did it but that doesn't matter.

Ultimately, I think both parties are "responsible" for what happened that night. Clearly, each had the opportunity to avoid escalation to a physical brawl. Right now, for me, the only thing I can say for certain is that this was an avoidable tragedy that has had its tragic consequences multiplied by the irresponsible coverage.

Also - Given my willingness to throw down back in the day and the mindless ferocity I approached it with, I am incredibly lucky to be alive and not in jail today.

[Gary84Clark]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Ultimately, I think both parties are "responsible" for what happened that night. Clearly, each had the opportunity to avoid escalation to a physical brawl. Right now, for me, the only thing I can say for certain is that this was an avoidable tragedy that has had its tragic consequences multiplied by the irresponsible coverage.

Also - Given my willingness to throw down back in the day and the mindless ferocity I approached it with, I am incredibly lucky to be alive and not in jail today.

Disagree,

1. Blaming the media is a common cop out. 2. Zimmerman is responsible, he did his job as a bitch boy wanna be and he told the cops. Putting his hands on someone after following them makes him responsible.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by Gary84Clark

Disagree,

1. Blaming the media is a common cop out. 2. Zimmerman is responsible, he did his job as a bitch boy wanna be and he told the cops. Putting his hands on someone after following them makes him responsible.

TM bears zero responsibility huh?

[Gary84Clark]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

TM bears zero responsibility huh?

zero follow me and Ima whoop yo ass.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by Gary84Clark

zero follow me and Ima whoop yo ass.

And you might get shot. It's the risk you're taking. And to me in that situation you absolutely bear some responsibility.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Gary84Clark

zero follow me and Ima whoop yo ass.

And I'll beat the crap out of you and then sue your ass into the poor house for starting the fight.

And I'll win again.

[over the mountain]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

And I'll beat the crap out of you and then sue your ass into the poor house for starting the fight.

And I'll win again.

lol this is funny to me.

under your logic and seeming support of zimmerman's defense - garyclark could just shoot you dead during the fight then point to the state v. zimmerman case as precedent that you can kill someone because they were winning the fist fight.

basically if zimmerman gets off - it totally changes the agreed upon rules of combat i thought all guys understood.

this is a bad case for pro-gun advocates imo.

edit - im not a criminal defense or FL atty but .. im guessing "self defense"is an affirmative defense and zimmerman has the burden of proving he was 1) not they aggressor, 2) he was in reasonable fear of his own life (not safety but life) and 3) there were no other non-lethal alternatives available.

i think he needs to take the stand to satisfy his burden. Mr. Good's testimony shows it was a fist fight, nothing more.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Ultimately, I think both parties are "responsible" for what happened that night. Clearly, each had the opportunity to avoid escalation to a physical brawl. Right now, for me, the only thing I can say for certain is that this was an avoidable tragedy that has had its tragic consequences multiplied by the irresponsible coverage.

Also - Given my willingness to throw down back in the day and the mindless ferocity I approached it with, I am incredibly lucky to be alive and not in jail today.

yes