Trayvon Martin

[Hamma]

I think it proves this kid is less than perfect like the media trys to lead us all to believe. Additionally new news has been coming out about some kind of altercation between the two prior to the shooting.

He probably should not have been following him of course but it sounds like he didn't just shoot him just because.

Lots of empty spaces in what we know.

[TheSHiFT]

Originally Posted by ArcIyte

Do you know what character is? We were given an image, by the media, of a kid who couldn't possible attack Zimmerman and force him to defend himself. Every single piece of media is painting this guy as a good kid. Shamelessly using this guys picture from when he was 12 years old, stating that he isn't the violent type and would never start a fight.

Now we figure out he punched his busdriver, sells drugs, was taken out of school for possessing stolen jewelry, and is a typical "gangsta thug".

Seems to me the whole "little angel" image has been shattered. If you don't believe a history of violence and theft is relevant you are deliberately biased and should be ignored.

This would be relevant if we were weighing Martin's words vs. Zimmerman's. We aren't doing that, because Martin is dead.

Facts are:
Zimmerman has a history of violence and paranoia.
Zimmerman was advised by PD dispatch not to follow Martin, he did. (Showing intent to be aggressive)
Martin tried to avoid the initial confrontation.
The Stanford PD did a shitty job investigating: Zimmerman wasn't drug tested, they made no effort to ID Martin (despite his cell phone being nearby), they 'corrected' witnesses, they didn't confiscate Zimmerman's weapon and they have changed the story 3 times now.

The current story is implausible, stating that Zimmerman had just gotten out of his car to check a street sign when Martin jumped him: 1) Zimmerman is head of his faux-neighborhood watch and regularly ran patrols, how did he not know the name of one of 4 streets in his community? 2) Martin was shot near a sidewalk in the BACKYARD of house, half a block from any street sign and well away from Zimmerman's truck.

Zimmerman admits to killing Martin, claiming self-defense. Self-defense is an affirmative defense (HE has to prove it). Could Zimmerman have simply asked Martin what he was doing, then turn and get jumped by Martin and be in such duress he legitimately feared for his life? Yes. But there are many doubts. The outrage here is because Zimmerman is still free, when he should be awaiting at least a bail hearing.

[RodenyC]

Originally Posted by Movac

What a fucking piece of shit, good thing he's dead now.

Wow.Really? Uncalled for.
Yup Travyon wasn't a saint.I'm honestly not surprised that he was the "gangsta" type of guy.What should be discussed is why Zimmerman shot him.

[TheSHiFT]

Originally Posted by Hamma

I think it proves this kid is less than perfect like the media trys to lead us all to believe. Additionally new news has been coming out about some kind of altercation between the two prior to the shooting.

He probably should not have been following him of course but it sounds like he didn't just shoot him just because.

Lots of empty spaces in what we know.

IANAL, but given what we currently know, it sounds like Zimmerman was being tough-guy wannabe cop. He likely accosted Martin and one of the two threw the first punch. If Zimmerman did, he was the aggressor all along, and it's likely murder.

If Martin did, it maybe within his right (under the same statute Zimmerman is currently using) as it could be reasonably believe Martin feared for his safety and used non-lethal force. In that case it's probably negligent homicide.

If Martin later jumped Zimmerman (or jumped him initially), Zimmerman can claim self-defense if he feared for his life.

[Malorn]

Meh.

[Malorn]

Meh.

[TheSHiFT]

http://media.photobucket.com/image/r...lionis/Map.jpg

A: Where Zimmerman made the initial call.

B: Where Police were called too.

C: Where Martin was shot.

[TheSHiFT]

Originally Posted by Malorn

To put events into context, Zimmerman's neighborhood had multiple burglaries lately, and he was out there to help stop it. He saw a suspicious guy and called the police. Then it sounds like he was upset that the kid was going to get away before the cops got there (which is why he said "they always get away"), so it is reasonable conjecture that he went after him to keep tabs until the police arrived so they can see if he was holding stolen belongings or if there was another burglary or to at least get his name. That all seems like reasonable things to do if you've had your home or several neighbors homes recently broken into.

But the fact that he chased him could have cornered him, leading him to attack Zimmerman, who then shot him in self defense.

Certainly suspcious that the kid approaches Zimmerman, and then flees. I would think a normal citizen on his way home would keep on walking home and not stop to poke around cars. Thus, he was suspicious and Zimmerman called it in.



Any reports show exactly how/where the kid was shot? All i saw was it said he was shot in the chest, which leads me to believe he was facing his shooter. I'd be interested in seeing the crime scene photos and the injuries were I investigating the situation. Was the kid against a wall/corner? (to where he couldn't flee) Was he in the open street facing the attacker (in which case he could have easily fled)?

Really the only evidence to convict one way or another is whether the guy

Unfortunately the president's careless and stupid public statement to try to turn this into a gun issue also made it impossible for Zimmerman to ever get a fair trial, so a conviction is highly unlikely at this point unless there's some really clear new evidence.

Why the president feels compelled to get involved and jump to conclusions in any issue involving race blows my mind. It's purely political. If he wanted justice he wouldn't have done anything to sabotage the case.

The whole thing reeks of political bias now which means no fair trial, no justice, and tons and tons of spin on the issue.

How did Obama make this a gun issue?

[Malorn]

Meh.

[TheSHiFT]

Originally Posted by Malorn

By personally raising the issue. It won't be long before they start attacking the "Stand your ground" laws that exist in some states that say you don't have to flee when attacked and you can lawfully shoot when your life is threatened.

Its why Zimmerman hasn't been arrested. Under Florida law, he has committed no crime.

So they claim outrage and "how could this have happened?" and then point fingers at the gun law and call for reform.

Case in point, stupid articles like this one:
http://www.newsdaytonabeach.com/Radi...-Loophole.html

Um, what? He brought attention to a shitty law (which isn't necessarily a gun law). Florida's stand your ground law is apparently unique in that it DOESNT have a provision against being the one to throw the first punch, so to speak.

For example, we could be down in Florida, I could, literally, walk up to you, hit you, and when you go to defend yourself, shoot you dead. As you say, under Florida law, I did not commit a crime. This, of course, doesnt take into account your side of what happened. I just murdered you and got away with it. It's a shitty law and what this case is about. There is reasonable doubt to Zimmerman's story.

[Malorn]

Meh.

[TheSHiFT]

Originally Posted by Malorn

Wow don't you think if it really worked like that we'd see more cases about it? Oh right, because it doesn't work that way.



Just being hit by someone isn't justification for use of deadly force.

Also that "reasonably believes" is legal language for "evidence"

Who starts it really isn't relevant. I could accidentally rear-end your car and you could then escalate it into an altercation. Is that my fault because it "started it"?

Proving who started something is nearly impossible and the definition could extend for a long distance. Are verbal words counted? What about body language?

What matters is the escalation of the situation, not who started it. Innumerable thing scan initiate a confrontation and many of them are perfectly legal.

Zimmerman's statement was that he was returning to his car after unsuccessfully attempting to chase the guy and then he was jumped by Martin. By that account Martin was the aggressor, and the initiator doesn't really matter. Maybe the words they exchanged was the initiation. It's a really gray area.

You're right, hitting isn't justifiable use for deadly force. But if one person is dead you have a hard time of figuring out who escalated it first, dont you? After all, I may have hit you, but then you hit me back, and now Im bleeding. I had to defend myself, I feared for my life. Because of this law many people who claim self-defense haven't even been prosecuted:

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—
(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.
(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).

Here is one example of a guy who chased down someone stealing from his car, stabbed and killed him, denied it, found out it was caught on camera, then claimed self-defense. The victim was unarmed: http://jonathanturley.org/2012/03/23...ur-ground-law/
Edit (non-bloggy source): http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/2...-the-back.html

It is a terrible law that has too much ambiguity and has the chance to let killers walk free. It needs to change to a better law.

Also, Zimmerman has yet to release a statement. The latest story(out of three) was that Zimmerman exited his vehicle to check a street sign. Martin was killed in a backyard. I made a post about this earlier.

[Malorn]

Meh.

[TheSHiFT]

I agree with the presumption of innocence. And I have not judged Zimmerman guilty. I believe that everyone has a right to defend themselves. I also believe that Florida's SYG law is a shitty law. None of these are in conflict with each other.

To be perfectly clear, I am NOT against self-defense laws, just Florida's remarkably bad one.

Zimmerman admits to killing Martin. He claims self-defense. Self-defense is an affirmative defense, that is, he has to prove it. But yet another shitty aspect of Florida's SYG law, makes it possible that he might not even be tried, therefore he doesnt have to prove it. And that is complete bullshit. Couple this with a shitty investigation by the local PD, and we have this problem.

The statement I was commenting on was from the Stanford PD.

[Malorn]

Meh.