Trayvon Martin Case

[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.

[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.

[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.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by Gary84Clark

Trayvon was 5' 11" the doctor testified today.

Thanks for correcting me. How old is 5' 11"?

Originally Posted by Gary84Clark

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.

I hadn't heard about Game being passed off as Martin. Thankfully the race baiting Lefties didn't run pictures of a young, fresh-faced Trayvon......

Originally Posted by Gary84Clark

Fist fights don't give you a right to murder.That is unusual. He was not armed.

Are you saying because he (Martin) was black he SHOULD have been armed?

Still, not the point I was intending to make. He didn't appear to be a 'child' to Zimmerman, he didn't act like a scared 'child' when he challenged Zimmerman. Sorry if that wasn't obvious.

[mlmpetert]

I think gary84clark is just ****in with you redskinsjoe...... at least I hope he is. Either way thank you for all your helpful and insightful legal explanations.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by mlmpetert

I think gary84clark is just ****in with you redskinsjoe...... at least I hope he is. Either way thank you for all your helpful and insightful legal explanations.

I don't think he is. I think he believes a real man "whoops yo' ass" if you bother him and f***' em if they start to lose - they shouldn't been bothering his ass.

Your welcome. I find the work by the lawyers in this matter fascinating.

I am also fascinated - and discouraged - by the ease with which some here are willing to ignore the requirements of the law to accomplish what they believe should be the "right" outcome and their failure to see this logic as anything more than an old style mob lynching.

Equally disconcerting to me is the belief of some here that, even if TM initiated the physical confrontation b/c Z followed (or stalked if you would like the more emotionally charged word) and aggressively verbally confronted him, TM would somehow be justified in attacking Z.

The rule of law is not dead in this country, but I firmly believe it is on life support.

[mlmpetert]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

Thanks for correcting me. How old is 5' 11"?



I hadn't heard about Game being passed off as Martin. Thankfully the race baiting Lefties didn't run pictures of a young, fresh-faced Trayvon......

Tupac is 5'11".

[Gary84Clark]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

Thanks for correcting me. How old is 5' 11"?



I hadn't heard about Game being passed off as Martin. Thankfully the race baiting Lefties didn't run pictures of a young, fresh-faced Trayvon......



Are you saying because he (Martin) was black he SHOULD have been armed?

Still, not the point I was intending to make. He didn't appear to be a 'child' to Zimmerman, he didn't act like a scared 'child' when he challenged Zimmerman. Sorry if that wasn't obvious.

what law states he should even acknowledge Zimmerman. What law states he should have feared Zimmerman. What law says Zimmerman had the right to harass another residents guest?

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Gary84Clark

what law states he should even acknowledge Zimmerman. What law states he should have feared Zimmerman. What law says Zimmerman had the right to harass another residents guest?

If TM felt unlawfully harrassed by Zimmerman, what law says TM could initiate a physical confrontation?

[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 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.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by Gary84Clark

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.

100% correct. You can't simply claim fear of death and kill someone. BUT it's one of the main issues of the trial. Was Z REASONABLY in fear for his life? You say no. But a) you weren't there and b) they have testimony from an EMT lending credence to the notion that he could have been. Your personal opinion on how one should react in some vaguely familiar situation is irrelevant (otherwise...someone quick call the prosecutor so G84C can testify). Are there situations in which you can't shoot and kill someone during a fist-fight? Yes. Are there situations where you can? Yes. It's not either or. The context of the situation matters above all. Why is that hard to understand?

[Gary84Clark]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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

Even in the days of the wild west that is murder. Everyone knows you can not shoot somebody just cause they beat you in a fist fight.