Trayvon Martin Case

[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.

[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.

[DynamiteRave]

I'm pretty sure this is going to end up a mistrial.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by DynamiteRave

I'm pretty sure this is going to end up a mistrial.

Why?

[DynamiteRave]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Why?

Hung jury.

Else I'm leaning towards not guilty.

Doesn't make me happy, but the prosecution is stinking it up.

[Gary84Clark]

A medical examiner who reviewed video and photographs of George Zimmerman's injuries suffered during his fatal confrontation with Trayvon Martin called the neighborhood watch captain's wounds "insignificant" and "non-life threatening."

Dr. Valerie Rao testified that Zimmerman was struck as few as three times by Martin during the fight that night. She also asserted his head may have only been slammed on the concrete a single time. Zimmerman, who faces second-degree murder charges for the death of the unarmed teenager, said Martin repeatedly slammed his head on the concrete.

"Are the injuries on the back of the defendant's head consistent with one strike against a concrete surface?" asked prosecutor John Guy

"Yes," Rao said.

"And why do you say that?" asked Guy

"Because if you hit the head one time, it is consistent with having gotten those two injuries at that one time," she testified.

Rao's testimony could contradict Zimmerman's assertion that he was involved in a potentially life-threatening struggle with the Florida teenager.

Catch up on all the details from the George Zimmerman murder trial.

Zimmerman, 29, claims he shot Martrin, 17, in self defense on Feb. 26, 2012 as Martin repeatedly banged his head against the pavement and reached for Zimmerman's gun.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Gary84Clark

A medical examiner who reviewed video and photographs of George Zimmerman's injuries suffered during his fatal confrontation with Trayvon Martin called the neighborhood watch captain's wounds "insignificant" and "non-life threatening." ...

Dr. Valerie Rao testified that Zimmerman was struck as few as three times by Martin during the fight that night. She also asserted his head may have only been slammed on the concrete a single time. Zimmerman, who faces second-degree murder charges for the death of the unarmed teenager, said Martin repeatedly slammed his head on the concrete.

"Are the injuries on the back of the defendant's head consistent with one strike against a concrete surface?" asked prosecutor John Guy

"Yes," Rao said.

"And why do you say that?" asked Guy

"Because if you hit the head one time, it is consistent with having gotten those two injuries at that one time," she testified. ...

Dr. Rao is the first, and to my knowledge, the only direct evidence offered by the prosecution to contradict Z's assertion that he was reasonably in fear of his life. Rao, however, was not at the scene, did not see or examine Z at the time of the incident, and reached her conclusions about the injuries only from reviewing photos and videos after the fact.

Further, Rao's testimony conflicts with that of the EMT who examined Z at the scene. (And does not address in any way the testimony of Good that Z was on the ground with TM on top of him with Z yelling for help).

IMHO, much of Rao's testimony was simple conjecture in hindsight and was highlighted as such by the defense's cross exam. Here is what the Cross-X brought out:

- Rao admitted that Martin could have hit Zimmerman in the face more than one time.

- Rao said it is possible there could have been more than one blow to the concrete.

- Rao said the bruise to the right side of Zimmerman's head could be consistent with his head hitting concrete. She said it was a small bruise, but there was some swelling.

So, while I fully expect the prosecution to hang their hat on Rao's testimony and hope for biased, emotional mobs participants like G84C to ignore everything else presented on the issue, to me, it's the same speculative evidence that the prosecution has been presenting all along.

It's very possible that it happened as Rao said - one strike against the concrete caused the two injuries. It's also possible that it happened just as Z said it did and as the EMT opined - multiple strikes againat the concrete causing disorientation and reasonalbe fear for medical safety.

It's that whole burden of proof thing again - always a stumbling block to the pitchfork and torches crowd.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

...

It's that whole burden of proof thing again - always a stumbling block to the pitchfork and torches crowd.

so "she turned me into a newt" is not sufficient proof when you got better?

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

so "she turned me into a newt" is not sufficient proof when you got better?

Let's just throw Z in the water - if he floats, he's guilty. If he drowns, he's innocent.

[Chico23231]

so if T woulda shot Zim in this outcome...? innocent

Or in both instances, just because Zim apparently was getting his ass handed to him by a kid by a confrontation initiated by Zim, is T guilty?

I think regardless of technical details, Zim should be punished by jailtime because this situation was started by him.

To say Zim holds some type of authority to walk around his neighborhood with a gun, harrassing children or anybody is just about as foolish a thing ive ever heard of. His actions and reasoning is idoitic to the nth degree.

It sounds like Zim finally got the ass kicking he rightfully deserved and when he couldnt handle it, he shot a child.

I dont seriously think his life was ever in danger. He's lying because thats his "out." He's a coward and a liar.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

It sounds like Zim finally got the ass kicking he rightfully deserved and when he couldnt handle it, he shot a child.

What are you basing this on? All the other times he harassed children?

You don't like Zimmerman, fine. Don't let it cloud your impartiality, otherwise you come off like some kind of bigot.