Trayvon Martin Case

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

So those saying manslaughter, you have no doubts whatsoever that Zimmerman initiated the physical confrontation and wasn't in fear for his life.

Not asking if that's what you think is true. I am simply asking if you believe it absolutely could not have happened any differently.

There is no doubt in my mind its manslaugher. Negligent killing. I also believe in Zim's mind stand your ground qualified his actions. Not being talked enough in the case, but that was Zim's justification. Zim thought he had the right to even use force to protect his neighborhood. People need to understand, he's not a normal, reasonable person. After he actually killed Trayvon, only then did he think, oh no I shouldnt have done this; up until that point he thought he had every right to do what he did. The law has to be the line in the sand, his negligence and direct actions lead to the death of a completely innocent kid. Remember Trayvon did nothing...this wasnt a case of a kid breaking in cars or houses or dealing drugs etc.

[HailGreen28]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

There is no doubt in my mind its manslaugher. Negligent killing. I also believe in Zim's mind stand your ground qualified his actions. Not being talked enough in the case, but that was Zim's justification. Zim thought he had the right to even use force to protect his neighborhood. People need to understand, he's not a normal, reasonable person. After he actually killed Trayvon, only then did he think, oh no I shouldnt have done this; up until that point he thought he had every right to do what he did. The law has to be the line in the sand, his negligence and direct actions lead to the death of a completely innocent kid. Remember Trayvon did nothing...this wasnt a case of a kid breaking in cars or houses or dealing drugs etc.

You have beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman actually provoked violence against himself? If that's your opinion, it is what it is, but why are you so sure of that? SMH at the idea 84clark has expressed that getting out of your car and following someone is legally reason enough to be attacked.

The rest, good lord, where do you get the idea that what you said above is how Zimmerman justified shooting Martin? And what Zimmerman actually thought afterwards?

Zimmerman claimed his self-justification was that he called for help and nobody came, and that Martin had reached for Zimmerman's gun (not grabbed it, reached for it). This might or might not be true, but how did you come to be so sure otherwise?

You seem to ascribe all kind of bad thoughts to Zimmerman with little evidence, while saying you're positive the guy talking about "the creepy ass cracker" did nothing.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by HailGreen28

You have beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman actually provoked violence against himself? If that's your opinion, it is what it is, but why are you so sure of that? SMH at the idea 84clark has expressed that getting out of your car and following someone is legally reason enough to be attacked.

The rest, good lord, where do you get the idea that what you said above is how Zimmerman justified shooting Martin? And what Zimmerman actually thought afterwards?

Zimmerman claimed his self-justification was that he called for help and nobody came, and that Martin had reached for Zimmerman's gun (not grabbed it, reached for it). This might or might not be true, but how did you come to be so sure otherwise?

The most important piece of evidence is the call. Alot people giving Zim too much credit. Yes from what I see and hear from Zim, Im sure of that.

So as long as I yell help, I can shoot someone? Thats justification? Ill remember that.

[HailGreen28]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

The most important piece of evidence is the call. Alot people giving Zim too much credit. Yes from what I see and hear from Zim, Im sure of that.

So as long as I yell help, I can shoot someone? Thats justification? Ill remember that.

Well, do you think Zimmerman would have still shot Martin if someone had come to help? That's one risk Zimmerman was taking in calling for help if he wanted to shoot Martin, right?

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

So as long as I yell help, I can shoot someone? Thats justification? Ill remember that.

I won't insult your intelligence by asserting all Zimmerman did was innocently follow a guy he thought to be was suspicious. Please don't insult mine by asserting that Zimm yelling for help is the only evidence in support of Zimm's claim of reasonably being in fear of his life.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

There is no doubt in my mind its manslaugher. Negligent killing. I also believe in Zim's mind stand your ground qualified his actions. Not being talked enough in the case, but that was Zim's justification. Zim thought he had the right to even use force to protect his neighborhood. People need to understand, he's not a normal, reasonable person. After he actually killed Trayvon, only then did he think, oh no I shouldnt have done this; up until that point he thought he had every right to do what he did. The law has to be the line in the sand, his negligence and direct actions lead to the death of a completely innocent kid. Remember Trayvon did nothing...this wasnt a case of a kid breaking in cars or houses or dealing drugs etc.

To be clear, I understand that is what you think happened and why. I also agree that it is a reasonable explanation of what happened that night.

My question to you is - Is it the only reasonable explanation of what happened that night? For me, I just don't know with any degree of certainty who started the fight and I believe that, at the moment he fired the gun, Zimmerman really was reasonably in fear of his life. Are you saying that my belief is completely irrational and has no support from the evidence submitted?

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

To be clear, I understand that is what you think happened and why. I also agree that it is a reasonable explanation of what happened that night.

My question to you is - Is it the only reasonable explanation of what happened that night? For me, I just don't know with any degree of certainty who started the fight and I believe that, at the moment he fired the gun, Zimmerman really was reasonably in fear of his life. Are you saying that my belief is completely irrational and has no support from the evidence submitted?

Yes. My favorite quote and Zim's direct disregard of the request not to follow or approach is enough to decisively understand exactly who is the aggressor. There was a fight no doubt. They were rolling around in the dark on the ground.

Nobody really cant ask Trayvon if his life was in danger, can they?

Trayvon life was obviously in danger because the armed man following him had already made a decision he wasnt getting away by his own statement and decision to disregard instruction. The aggressor is clear as day.

There is no doubt Zim is responsible for the negligent death of Trayvon.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

Yes. My favorite quote and Zim's direct disregard of the request not to follow or approach is enough to decisively understand exactly who is the aggressor. There was a fight no doubt. They were rolling around in the dark on the ground.

Nobody really cant ask Trayvon if his life was in danger, can they?

Trayvon life was obviously in danger because the armed man following him had already made a decision he wasnt getting away by his own statement and decision to disregard instruction. The aggressor is clear as day.

There is no doubt Zim is responsible for the negligent death of Trayvon.

I strongly disagree that there is "no doubt" or that the aggressor is "clear as day". Merely following someone and verbally confronting them, despite anyone's instruction not to, does not make someone a physical aggressor or prove, under any standard of proof except speculation, that the person they were following was in imminent fear of physical harm. While it may have caused TM to be so, based on the testimony of Jeantel, it is just as reasonable for me to believe that Martin held a belief similar to G84C and saden1 that "you follow me, I'ma gonna whoop your ass" particularly as to this "creepy ass cracker".

There is a complete lack of any eyewitnesses of the fight's initiation and only one who had a clear view of the fight in progress - who testified that Martin had Zimmerman pinned to the ground. Even though Good "couldn't tell" if the flailing arms he saw were Martin striking Zimmerman, I believe that, based on the photos at the scene and shortly thereafter, and Zimmerman's cries for help, Martin had Zimmerman pinned on he ground and was beating the sh** out of him. The injuries to Zimmerman look significant to me and a neutral medical professional at the scene stated they could cause someone to reasonalby fear for their medical safety. Also, the fact that Martin exhibited almost no physical indications of being in a fight while Zimmerman was screaming for help and - according to an eyewitness and the photos at the scene - "looked like he had gotten his butt whooped" indicates to me that this was a vicious beat down and not a physical contest in any sense of the word. Zimmerman was not "simply losing a fist fight" as some have asserted - he was being beaten with a reckless abandon as to the injuries being caused.

Your belief as to how the events occurred, while one presenting reasonable scenario, ignores and disregards what I believe to be credible evidence that supports an entirely different and equally plausible description of the events of that evening. Clearly, if you and I were on the jury it would result in a mistrial, because nothing you have said erases the doubts I have as to the events and, obviously, nothing I could say at this point will convince you that it could have happened in any way other than as you have described it.

While I respect your opinion of the events as one sincerely and honestly held, I strongly disagree with it and I believe it to be supported, at least in part, by certain opinions you have held since this case initially hit the news - opinions held based on your own life's experiences rather than the evidence in this case. With that said, I confess that my opinion is likely to be influenced by the same. That's why we have juries - Different people bring different experiences to the discussion.

It's also why we have the law, so that all these differing experiences are held to the same standard. In this case, based on the evidence submitted, I firmly believe no one can state with any reasonable degree of certainty (1)exactly what happened that night or (2) without a doubt, Zimmerman's actions were unreasonable. Because of that, I firmly believe the law requires Zimmerman to found innocent. You disagree.

Finally, while we strongly disagree, I thank you for your (mostly ) respectful approach to the discussion.