Trayvon Martin Case

[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.