Trayvon Martin

Sgt Shultz · 2012-03-28, 01:07 PM

Originally Posted by Quovatis

It's just stupid they couldn't arrest him. The law needs to be amended.

I think we have a better understanding of why the DA did not push for an arrest. You have two witnesses with one being dead and the other advised to say nothing by a defense attorney.

The evidence is most likely not enough at this time to do anything but pontificate about the series of events. Furthermore the information about the victims past would likely be brought in during a trial and would create serious doubts. I can't see any sane DA actually pushing for an arrest at this time.

Vash02 · 2012-03-28, 01:19 PM

Originally Posted by Sgt Shultz

I think we have a better understanding of why the DA did not push for an arrest. You have two witnesses with one being dead and the other advised to say nothing by a defense attorney.

The evidence is most likely not enough at this time to do anything but pontificate about the series of events. Furthermore the information about the victims past would likely be brought in during a trial and would create serious doubts. I can't see any sane DA actually pushing for an arrest at this time.

Well Zimmerman has a record for violent crimes and a motive ("they always get away"). pretty clean cut for US justice standards.

**Malorn** · 2012-03-28, 02:30 PM

Meh.

RodenyC · 2012-03-28, 02:38 PM

Originally Posted by Malorn

The only "evidence" people have presented in this thread to the contrary is Zimmerman's use of a pronoun "they" which somehow translates into a premeditated hate crime. Oh and the fact that Zimmerman was half white and Martin was black, which immediately makes it a hate crime. What a joke.

So the fucking coons part,nothing wrong with that?

Originally Posted by Warborn

Martin has not broken the law though, and there is no evidence he started the fight with Zimmerman apart from Zimmerman's own testimony, for whatever that's worth when he's the only one alive who saw it. I'm not sure what you're asserting here. Does having tattoos and having been suspended make him more liable to have been a threat to Zimmerman's life, than Zimmerna was to Martin's? Again, Zimmerman is the one who has multiple criminal charges for violent offenses in his past.

So Martin, with no criminal record, talking to his girlfriend on the way back home after buying snacks during a break in the football game, decided to attack a stranger in a neighborhood where people knew who he was -- after attempting to run away from Zimmerman first -- simply because the guy was watching him? That sounds plausible to you?

I have a counter-proposal. How about Zimmerman, a violent criminal offender and overzealous wannabe-cop who, was tired that "these assholes, they always get away" after committing crimes in his area, not to mention he didn't like the "fucking coons" in the first place. So he decided he would detain Martin for when the cops arrive, which would also make him look good in the eyes of the cops. Zimmerman was hoping to become a cop himself, and this could be his first arrest. So, he chases Martin down, asks him what he's doing there, and moves to grab him to detain him. Martin hits Zimmerman in self-defense (as any of us would if a stranger chased us and made a move at us at night), a scuffle ensues, and it ends with the 110-lbs-heavier Zimmerman on top of Martin. Martin screams for help, struggling against the much larger Zimmerman. Then, Zimmerman panics (or is just a homicidal asshole angry he got hit in the face), pulls out his gun, and shoots Martin in the chest, killing him. That sounds more plausible to me.

Either way it needed to go to trial.

Also this.

**Malorn** · 2012-03-28, 02:40 PM

Meh.

Firefly · 2012-03-28, 02:53 PM

Originally Posted by ItsTheSheppy

It's just a shame we'll never know, because Zimmerman stood his ground harder than Martin did. If only Martin had stood HIS ground harder, then it would be Zimmerman we'd be holding rallies for.

Sure, a 17yr old kid can stand his ground harder against a guy with a gun. Right. Okay.

Originally Posted by Malorn

Last I checked free speech is protected in this country, so yeah, nothing wrong with that. If he in fact said that.

Everyone has a different interpretation of what he said, not that it matters.

Edit: what he said prior to the struggle that resulted also has no bearing on the events that transpired in struggle itself.

Actually, in the eyes of the law, it does. If you say something like "fucking coon", a racially-charged slur, and then proceed to accost someone and then either murder or manslaughter them, that constitutes a hate crime. So yeah, you can say whatever you want. When it leads to violence or when it becomes part of a violent encounter, it becomes a hate crime.

ItsTheSheppy · 2012-03-28, 02:44 PM

It's just a shame we'll never know, because Zimmerman stood his ground harder than Martin did. If only Martin had stood HIS ground harder, then it would be Zimmerman we'd be holding rallies for. Just another example of why more people should own guns, really. you never know when the other guy might stand his ground all over your face and you won't be able to stand your ground back!

**Malorn** · 2012-03-28, 02:49 PM

Meh.

Sgt Shultz · 2012-03-28, 02:55 PM

Originally Posted by Malorn

You could contribute better to this discussion by providing evidence that things did not go down as Zimmerman claims rather than inane shit posting.

Actually Malorn I think his point is worth entertaining. He may have not intended to make a relevant point, but stumble upon it he did.

The best I can make of this situation is its a tragic accident. If Mr. Martin had been caring a firearm yes Mr. Zimmerman would be dead or maybe both would have been dead. The past histories of both parties indicate they are not angels, but not devils worthy of a death sentence either.

ItsTheSheppy · 2012-03-28, 02:59 PM

Originally Posted by Malorn

You could contribute better to this discussion by providing evidence that things did not go down as Zimmerman claims rather than inane shit posting.

Man, do I have some bad news for you. You might wanna sit down for this.

You see, Malorn... none of us have any evidence. Nobody. Certainly not in this forum. Not me, and not you. We're all just wanking pointlessly on an internet forum about shit we've been told from second- and third-hand sources.

So really, the only thing we can talk about are the philosophical implications of this or that. I'm happy to comment on those! I have been, in fact. Such as my many hilarious satirical posts going on about how the 'Stand Your Ground' law is complete excrement.

It's really only when people speak with some sort of (hilarious) authority on what 'actually' happened when they don't know any better than the rest of us that I am tempted to hop on my trollercycle and peddle around a bit.

**Malorn** · 2012-03-28, 03:04 PM

Meh.

Warborn · 2012-03-28, 02:51 PM

If Martin were armed and Zimmerman were attempting to physically detain him until police arrived, and Martin shot and killed Zimmerman, he would have had a more compelling defense than Zimmerman has right now. Zimmerman was physically larger, had a violent criminal record, and Martin even attempted to flee. It's funny to think about how easily it becomes okay to just shoot people dead when people are packing heat.

Originally Posted by Malorn

Edit: what he said prior to the struggle that resulted also has no bearing on the events that transpired in struggle itself.

It would make it very easy for prosecutors to construct a motive for why the shooting took place, and why it wasn't self-defense but rather murder.

**Malorn** · 2012-03-28, 03:01 PM

Meh.

Vash02 · 2012-03-28, 03:23 PM

Originally Posted by Malorn

"Beyond reasonable doubt" <- that is the standard for a murder conviction. An unintelligible word that some believe is a racial slur is not beyond reasonable doubt of premeditated murder, which is what you are indicating.

They would also have to disprove that it did not happen exactly as Zimmerman and the witness say it did.

Here is the heart of the matter:
Was he reasonably in a life or death situation? If the answer is yes, he is justified in the shooting. If no, it was criminal.

I think getting beaten and having ones head smashed into concrete is reasonably a life-threatening situation. Do you disagree?

Thats not true. you have a trial by a jury of your peers and sadly reasonable doubt is not consistant.

You can get convicted based on what you said and based on any grievances you had. Which is why you should not talk to the police.
http://youtu.be/i8z7NC5sgik

Vash02 · 2012-03-28, 03:15 PM

Originally Posted by Malorn

No, that isn't a motive for shooting someone. It's a motive for chasing someone who he believed was a burglar in his neighborhood so said burglar wouldn't get away from the police he had just called but had not yet arrived.

911 said to stop chasing and he said OK and then said "He ran", as in he had gotten away.

and if some guy ran after you and started grabbing you would you not defend yourself? Zimmerman obviously instigated the confrontation with his actions and he should be held accountable for the consequences.