Trayvon Martin Case

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

<sigh> Bring on the pitch forks and lynch mobs. Damn the facts and law. Justice is malleable and means only what popular opinion says it is.

A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS

WILLIAM ROPER: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!

SIR THOMAS MORE: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

ROPER: I’d cut down every law in England to do that!

MORE: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!

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.

[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.

[mooby]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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.

I'm not saying it makes a difference in the case, it just makes it sound like he's trying to garner sympathy for the teenager. And if that's his MO, then w/e.

But I do agree with you when you look at it from the standpoint you laid out above, it's hard to throw charges at Zimmerman from the facts at hand. It's like you said though, facts shouldn't get in the way of emotion.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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.

I can walk the street with a gun harrassing people? Ummm no

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

I can walk the street with a gun harrassing people? Ummm no

Define "harrasing":

Asking questions, without showing the gun or indicating you are am armed?

Making accusations about my right to be there without threatening me with physical harm, showing the gun or indicating that you are am armed?

Without showing the weapon or giving me knowledge that you have a weapon, following me at a reasonable distance and not physically interfering with my ability to walk to my intended destination?

Without showing the weapon or giving me knowledge that you have a weapon, following closely and obviously on a public street. Running when I run, walking when I walk but never physically hindering my ability to go where I choose?

As soon as you start waving the gun or incorporating it into the "harrassment", then I would agree you got problems - at that point you are threatening life and limb. Again, there is no evidence that Zimmerman did this. He may have been an ass to Martin, but, that doesn't entitle Martin to attack him as Zimmerman alleges and for which there is no evidence to contradict.

You don't like someone verbally harrassing you or following you on public property - call the police and ignore. Short of a credible threat of physical harm, such "harrassment" does not entitle you to use physical force against the harraser.

[jdlea]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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.

I see the point you're making. However, I feel the need to point out that there could at least be a little more dispute about the facts of the case had one of the two parties not committed homicide.

I mean, it sure would be easier to prove that Trayvon threw the first punch if he were around to admit that he did, wouldn't it?

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by jdlea

I see the point you're making. However, I feel the need to point out that there could at least be a little more dispute about the facts of the case had one of the two parties not committed homicide.

I mean, it sure would be easier to prove that Trayvon threw the first punch if he were around to admit that he did, wouldn't it?

Maybe. Or, maybe it's simply a case of two guys saying "He punched me first".

It's a tragedy, plain and simple. Sometimes tragedies occur and their is no good resolution, no story book ending. Sometimes bad things happen and, after all the durm and strang, all your left with is the bad thing. It sucks but it's reality.

Seek truth, accept that you will not always find it.