Trayvon Martin Case

[JoeRedskin]

Condemnation, tort and administrative (both regulatory and quasi-prosecutorial).

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by mlmdub130

In my opinion the only positive that can come from this tragedy would be severe modifications to the stand your ground law. As I have said before my opinion based on a confrontation between a unarmed teen and an armed adult resulting in the unarmed teen dying should be murder. And when I say that, that is coming from someone with a lot of training with firearms and a respect for the lethal potential of a loaded gun. But based on the "facts" so far it seems like Zimmerman broke no law in the state of Florida. Hopefully that law will change, and I wish the media would focus on that rather than sensationalizing each of the persons involved. Right now it seems like everyone would rather quiver over who is right or wrong in this case rather than trying to prevent something like this from ever happening again.

I am fine with the law as it is in every other state (unless, they have a law like Florida's). If you are in reasonable fear of your life (or the life of wife/child, etc.), and can prove that your fear was reasonable, it doesn't matter who the attacker was - you have the right to defend with whatever force is necessary including deadly force. You just damn well better be able to prove that a real life threatening situation existed.

IMHO, the neighborhood watch should have some rules about carrying weapons - as in, don't! Again, it was a situation that could most likely been easily avoided with common sense at any number of levels.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

IMHO, the neighborhood watch should have some rules about carrying weapons - as in, don't! Again, it was a situation that could most likely been easily avoided with common sense at any number of levels.

I'd be very surprised if the CC & R's of the Homeowners association don't already state something like that but the FL law contradicts it.

I'd love to be on the jury for this case as long as Chico and Saden1 are out at voir dire.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

I'd be very surprised if the CC & R's of the Homeowners association don't already state something like that but the FL law contradicts it.

I'd love to be on the jury for this case as long as Chico and Saden1 are out at voir dire.

Its jaw dropping how irresponsible it is to be roaming a neighborhood with a gun question people. Thats why it seems to me this type of person is looking for trouble or if he generally afraid of his neighborhood he has to carry a gun he needs to stay on the sideline. I wonder did his neighbors knew he was carrying a side arm?

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

Its jaw dropping how irresponsible it is to be roaming a neighborhood with a gun question people.

And what if he was a martial arts expert?

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

And what if he was a martial arts expert?

well Martin would probably be still alive and Zimmy probably locked up for assault on a minor. Crazy right?

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

well Martin would probably be still alive and Zimmy probably locked up for assault on a minor. Crazy right?

I meant that people with enough skill and lacking in control can still kill.

[jdlea]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

I am fine with the law as it is in every other state (unless, they have a law like Florida's). If you are in reasonable fear of your life (or the life of wife/child, etc.), and can prove that your fear was reasonable, it doesn't matter who the attacker was - you have the right to defend with whatever force is necessary including deadly force. You just damn well better be able to prove that a real life threatening situation existed.

IMHO, the neighborhood watch should have some rules about carrying weapons - as in, don't! Again, it was a situation that could most likely been easily avoided with common sense at any number of levels.

I'm pretty sure that I heard there are handful of states that have a law similar to Florida's.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

I am fine with the law as it is in every other state (unless, they have a law like Florida's). If you are in reasonable fear of your life (or the life of wife/child, etc.), and can prove that your fear was reasonable, it doesn't matter who the attacker was - you have the right to defend with whatever force is necessary including deadly force. You just damn well better be able to prove that a real life threatening situation existed.

IMHO, the neighborhood watch should have some rules about carrying weapons - as in, don't! Again, it was a situation that could most likely been easily avoided with common sense at any number of levels.

I have a really really hard time justifying self-defense on the part of Zimmerman when he trailed him despite being told to stop following him. I have a hard time believing there exists a neighborhood watchman that doesn't know the streets in his own neighborhood. I have an even harder time believing getting out of your car to look at a street sign. Most of all I have a really hard time believing the down right disregard for what self-defense means in this country by so many.

It is irrelevant whether Trayvon was on top beating him or below getting beat up, or who was screaming for help. What is truly relevant is that you can apparently follow someone and shoot them and then claim self-defense.

It's very difficult to not wish you all or your children to suffer the same fate as Trayvon and experience Zimmermanian self-defense first hand.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by saden1

It's very difficult to not wish you all or your children to suffer the same fate as Trayvon and experience Zimmermanian self-defense first hand.

I don't have any kids, but I welcome anyone to try to inflict harm on me.

You're obviously still too emotionally unstable to post anything of value. Why not just read and wait until you've calmed down?

[mlmpetert]

Originally Posted by saden1

I have a really really hard time justifying self-defense on the part of Zimmerman when he trailed him despite being told to stop following him. I have a hard time believing there exists a neighborhood watchman that doesn't know the streets in his own neighborhood. I have an even harder time believing getting out of your car to look at a street sign. Most of all I have a really hard time believing the down right disregard for what self-defense means in this country by so many.

It is irrelevant whether Trayvon was on top beating him or below getting beat up, or who was screaming for help. What is truly relevant is that you can apparently follow someone and shoot them and then claim self-defense.

It's very difficult to not wish you all or your children to suffer the same fate as Trayvon and experience Zimmermanian self-defense first hand.

Those are definitely very good points. The fact that Zimmerman's face didnt look red or anything either makes me question how just how assaulted he was.

But i havent seen/heard anything that makes me think Zimmerman kept following Martin after it was suggested to stop. Once the dispatcher told him to stop it looks like he stopped.

I think for me its did Zimmerman retreat, and if so did Martin then go towards Zimmerman and pick a fight? If so i think Zimmerman was justified to shoot Martin if during the fight he became reasonably fearful of being killed. If someone smashed my head into the pavement or reached for my gun i would be fearful of my life.

While i dont approve of the conditions that Zimmerman used to "stalk" Martin, i really just dont think that of everything we know of what Zimmerman did, Martin never had the right to assult him or should have felt reasonable provoked to assault him (espicially if Zimmerman did indeed turn around or retreated).

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by saden1

It's very difficult to not wish you all or your children to suffer the same fate as Trayvon and experience Zimmermanian self-defense first hand.

I don't need to suffer it to understand the tragedy and, if it is difficult for you to accept that people can know that and still try to live under the rule of law without wishing tragedy upon them, I simply don't have a retort for that kind of evil desire. Regardless of anyone's opinion in this matter, I hope they are never visited by such tragedy.

You have a hard time believing his story. You are not alone. You think wrong was done. Again, you are not alone.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

I don't need to suffer it to understand the tragedy and, if it is difficult for you to accept that people can know that and still try to live under the rule of law without wishing tragedy upon them, I simply don't have a retort for that kind of evil desire. Regardless of anyone's opinion in this matter, I hope they are never visited by such tragedy.

You have a hard time believing his story. You are not alone. You think wrong was done. Again, you are not alone.

I don't have hard time believing Zimmerman, I have a hard time believing a murderous assailant that perpetuated the confrontation can reasonably claim self-defense in this country. Such claim is beyond preposterous and indefensible from any angle. It's murder and if anyone has grounds to justify their actions based on Florida's Stand Your Ground law it's Trayvon.

I mean, this Zimmerman character once called police to report "a suspicious black male, 7-9 years old, skinny build." That's not normal and here we are assuming that he's normal, justified, and acted in self-defense when in fact the only person that can reasonably claim self-defense is Trayvon.

[budw38]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Okay, so why is it inflammatory if a white person shoots a black teenager under suspicious circumstances but not inflammatory if a Hispanic individual shoots a black teenager under suspicious circumstances? Explain to me why this is not base hypocracy or demagougery.

It's between two minorities? So minorities can shoot each other and society won't bring out the pitchforks, only white folks have to answer to the mob? This doesn't strike you as wrong? A young man is dead - If unjustified, shouldn't outrage flow regardless of who shot him or the colors involved?

Unfortunately yes . No different than a "pretty " white girl is missing or feared dead , the media goes crazy and it is a national story . However it seems like we never hear about Black or latino girls missing . If Zimmerman were black , we would have never heard about it . Here is a violent crime where some black teens set a white kid on fire , how many people have heard this story ? Teens set kid on fire for being 'white boy' - New York Daily News

[skinsfaninok]

It is somewhat true black on black crime never gets reported and imo if Martin was white Zimmerman would have not followed him and started shit.. it's a sad world sometimes and racism is never going to go away .