Trayvon Martin Case

[JoeRedskin]

It's testimony like the EMT's that no one normally hears about that turns cases and has everyone who wasn't in the courtroom going "WTF - how could they rule that way?". Next time you see that happen, don't be so quick to judge the jury as idiots - they hear a ton of sh** nobody else does b/c it's just not sexy testimony. Ten minutes of testimony can drastically alter the outcome of a case.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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

[over the mountain]

joe - i havent had a chance to follow the trial live .. im actually pretty much following it from your synopsis at this point ..... if the jury find for the defense after hearing and considering all the evidence and testimony then i can live with the verdict but .... i hope forensic evidence concludes that martin never had control of the gun and the jury can hang their guilty verdict hat on that bc i dont believe a person should be able to use deadly force on an unarmed person.

either way, one side of this is going to be very upset.

is there a lesser included charge in play? man 2?

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by over the mountain

joe - i havent had a chance to follow the trial live .. im actually pretty much following it from your synopsis at this point .....

Great. Now JR becomes the WP Legal Analyst.

Originally Posted by over the mountain

if the jury find for the defense after hearing and considering all the evidence and testimony then i can live with the verdict but ....

They will unless they go all OJ. The facts will come out and show that Martin was the aggressor.

Originally Posted by over the mountain

i hope forensic evidence concludes that martin never had control of the gun and the jury can hang their guilty verdict hat on that bc i dont believe a person should be able to use deadly force on an unarmed person.

Just because someone doesn't have a weapon shouldn't stop the use of defensive lethal response. You'd want a gun if Chuck Norris threw down with you.

Originally Posted by over the mountain

either way, one side of this is going to be very upset.

is there a lesser included charge in play? man 2?

Not guilty. Cue the riots.

[over the mountain]

Just because someone doesn't have a weapon shouldn't stop the use of defensive lethal response. You'd want a gun if Chuck Norris threw down with you.

---------------------------------------------------

I have a big problem accepting the use of deadly force on an unarmed combatant. Just bc you are losing the fist fight doesnt mean you get to shoot them.

and no the sidewalk or fist doesnt count as a deadly weapon imo.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by over the mountain

Just because someone doesn't have a weapon shouldn't stop the use of defensive lethal response. You'd want a gun if Chuck Norris threw down with you.

---------------------------------------------------

I have a big problem accepting the use of deadly force on an unarmed combatant. Just bc you are losing the fist fight doesnt mean you get to shoot them.

and no the sidewalk or fist doesnt count as a deadly weapon imo.

If an 80 year old is attacked by a teenager I'd like the 80 year old to be armed.

There are a lot of people who can kill with a single punch/kick. More amateurish attempts can take longer to kill, affording the victim the opportunity to fight back without being physically even to the aggressor.