Trayvon Martin

[Paulie Walnuts]

He doesn't have to be proven guilty, he confessed. He's guilty.

They just have to decide to what degree of what charge he is guilty.

This.

Anyone who argues with the above statement clearly has no respect for Trayvon's family.

I think that a few of you in this thread just like to argue.....

 

[Bocefish]

 

[Jupiter551]

Conversely, when there is a situation with two people, one of whom is dead, no witnesses, no major injuries and only the killer's story that it was self-defense - why should someone get away with cold-blooded murder?

Defending yourself is not a crime! The SYG law just removes the victim's duty to retreat. To what degree should you allow an unknown assailant to beat you to death before you can defend yourself and shoot the perpetrator? You don't know if their intent is just to incapacitate you or end your life.

But that's only the killer's story - how many times do you think they've shot knowing damn well they didn't feel their life was in danger? Even once is a travesty of justice. You could pretty much murder anyone you want, so long as there's no witnesses, have a friend beat you up, or just plant a gun on the dead person, and there's no one to contradict you and according to this you get immunity from prosecution!!

How the hell is THAT justice? I wonder how many people killed under this law WEREN'T going to use deadly force, but got killed anyway? This stupid, barbaric law allows any idiot to pronounce capital punishment, and execute someone for a crime they haven't yet committed and may never have!!

 

[Bocefish]

Conversely, when there is a situation with two people, one of whom is dead, no witnesses, no major injuries and only the killer's story that it was self-defense - why should someone get away with cold-blooded murder?

Defending yourself is not a crime! The SYG law just removes the victim's duty to retreat. To what degree should you allow an unknown assailant to beat you to death before you can defend yourself and shoot the perpetrator? You don't know if their intent is just to incapacitate you or end your life.

But that's only the killer's story - how many times do you think they've shot knowing damn well they didn't feel their life was in danger? Even once is a travesty of justice. You could pretty much murder anyone you want, so long as there's no witnesses, have a friend beat you up, or just plant a gun on the dead person, and there's no one to contradict you and according to this you get immunity from prosecution!!

How the hell is THAT justice? I wonder how many people killed under this law WEREN'T going to use deadly force, but got killed anyway? This stupid, barbaric law allows any idiot to pronounce capital punishment, and execute someone for a crime they haven't yet committed and may never have!!

What's your solution then since you don't think the SYG law of self-defense is justice?

 

[Harvrath]

If an individual is attacked by an individual and is justified in their use of lethal force, why should he face any civil liability?

Conversely, when there is a situation with two people, one of whom is dead, no witnesses, no major injuries and only the killer's story that it was self-defense - why should someone get away with cold-blooded murder? Why are the rights of someone to defend themselves considered less than the rights of families of victims who get to see their loved one's killer walk free and clear?

Surely even you can't argue that this law has effectively, certainly allowed people to get away with murder? It's one thing to be in favour of SYG when it's applied perfectly - when every shooter really was in danger or fear for their lives, but in application it's massively open to abuse, and in our society even murder itself is less serious than the fact of getting away with murder.

That's what I don't get - the demographic (white republican gun-owners) who are usually in favour of the harshest penalties for criminals, and capital punishment for murderers hypocritically appear to be in favour of a law that allows murderers to walk away from their crime laughing.

You forget evidence corroborating Zimmerman's account, an eye-witness corroborating Zimmerman's account. This is not a case of someone dead and there are no eye-witnesses, no evidence and only the killer's word, stop portraying it like it is. It is dishonest.

Zimmerman asserted self-defense. The police found no evidence to contradict that and eye-witnesses that corroborate Zimmerman's account. Nothing they found at the time gave probable cause that a crime was committed; self-defense is justified under the law. A mere shooting death does not mean a crime was committed.

If you are driving, a car wreck happens and someone dies, should you be automatically arrested and charged with vehicular manslaughter with zero evidence of wrong-doing? This is what you are arguing.

Ad don't resort to an ad hominem attack. It is not hypocrisy. Our court system is designed to give the defendant the benefit of a doubt. We all consider it better that a 100 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man go to prison. I am perfectly willing to let a guilty man walk away from murder if it means the 80 year old grandmother, the 28 year old mother of two or the 40 year old husband and father of 3 can defend themselves and their family on the spot and the police cannot arrest unless they can prove probable cause and prove self-defense didn't happen.

So yes, I'd let Zimmerman walk if it meant I and everyone else still have their rights to self-defense at any time and anywhere, without the duty to retreat and the best means of self-defense that being a concealed handgun.

 

[Jupiter551]

What's your solution then since you don't think the SYG law of self-defense is justice?

I think if someone is genuinely in fear for their life they should defend themselves appropriately - and be prepared to have their conduct investigated. Before taking someone's life for *any* reason people should understand there may be consequences and it isn't ever anything they should do lightly, but if you're *genuinely* in fear for your life then I doubt having the matter investigated and your conduct evaluated is really going to stop you pulling the trigger - especially when forensics will back you up if you're telling the truth.

The fact you only have to *think* you're in danger is outrageous - at some point a person needs to be held accountable if their judgement is lacking, whether the decision to use deadly force was appropriate, and face the consequences. Situations don't get any more serious than killing someone.

Use deadly force if it's absolutely necessary to defend yourself - but be aware that you better have a *DAMN* good reason - one that will stand up in front of your community. You should always have a damn good reason to kill another person.

 

[Jupiter551]

Ad don't resort to an ad hominem attack. It is not hypocrisy. Our court system is designed to give the defendant the benefit of a doubt. We all consider it better that a 100 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man go to prison. I am perfectly willing to let a guilty man walk away from murder if it means the 80 year old grandmother, the 28 year old mother of two or the 40 year old husband and father of 3 can defend themselves and their family on the spot and the police cannot arrest unless they can prove probable cause and prove self-defense didn't happen.

A fatal shooting doesn't just involve the shooter - you say it's better than 100 guilty go free than 1 innocent go to jail, well what about the innocents that are killed because of this law that shooters know protects them? How many dead victims are okay to spare killers a trial?

We're talking life and death here; self-defense and lethal force. On both sides of that argument hangs a human life, who the fuck cares about arrest, investigation or trial? That's not what's important... ask Trayvon Martin's family if they'd rather have their son back or Zimmerman in jail. I think you know the answer.

 

[Bocefish]

What's your solution then since you don't think the SYG law of self-defense is justice?

I think if someone is genuinely in fear for their life they should defend themselves appropriately - and be prepared to have their conduct investigated. Before taking someone's life for *any* reason people should understand there may be consequences and it isn't ever anything they should do lightly, but if you're *genuinely* in fear for your life then I doubt having the matter investigated and your conduct evaluated is really going to stop you pulling the trigger - especially when forensics will back you up if you're telling the truth.

The fact you only have to *think* you're in danger is outrageous - at some point a person needs to be held accountable if their judgement is lacking, whether the decision to use deadly force was appropriate, and face the consequences. Situations don't get any more serious than killing someone.

Use deadly force if it's absolutely necessary to defend yourself - but be aware that you better have a *DAMN* good reason - one that will stand up in front of your community. You should always have a damn good reason to kill another person.

Your version sounds amazingly similar to Florida's SYG law to me.

SYG law states that a person may use deadly force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm without an obligation to retreat first.

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

 

[Jupiter551]

Your version sounds amazingly similar to Florida's SYG law to me.

SYG law states that a person may use deadly force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm without an obligation to retreat first.

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

Well I dunno about the duty to retreat part, though I do think it wouldn't be a bad idea to try to defuse the situation before shooting someone. If what I said is similar to SYG then why such resistance to examining the evidence or bringing a case to trial?

People all over the world have been having a hell of a lot of trouble understanding how a man can pursue and shoot dead an unarmed teenager without even getting arrested until there was a public outcry. Zimmerman doesn't SEEM injured, he didn't seem to have life-threatening injuries the night of the shooting, a doctor didn't examine him until the next day and determined no stitches were needed. I mean cmon, how does a grown man get his ass beat so badly by a 17 year old with no history of violence, and WHY would Tray attack the guy he was running from? Zimmerman, according to the news reports was 190 pounds, and a few inches shorter than Tray who was 170 pounds. He was a tall, skinny, unarmed kid. I simply don't believe he's capable or likely to try to beat a grown man to death, and I certainly don't believe lethal force was warranted.

 

[Bocefish]

All our questions will be answered during the trial, if it gets that far. If this relatively young judge (less than a year on the bench) stays on the case, I can't see her being bold enough to throw the case out no matter how weak the prosecution's evidence is after discovery.

 

[Harvrath]

Ad don't resort to an ad hominem attack. It is not hypocrisy. Our court system is designed to give the defendant the benefit of a doubt. We all consider it better that a 100 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man go to prison. I am perfectly willing to let a guilty man walk away from murder if it means the 80 year old grandmother, the 28 year old mother of two or the 40 year old husband and father of 3 can defend themselves and their family on the spot and the police cannot arrest unless they can prove probable cause and prove self-defense didn't happen.

A fatal shooting doesn't just involve the shooter - you say it's better than 100 guilty go free than 1 innocent go to jail, well what about the innocents that are killed because of this law that shooters know protects them? How many dead victims are okay to spare killers a trial?

We're talking life and death here; self-defense and lethal force. On both sides of that argument hangs a human life, who the fuck cares about arrest, investigation or trial? That's not what's important... ask Trayvon Martin's family if they'd rather have their son back or Zimmerman in jail. I think you know the answer.

By Innocent I assume you mean truly innocent, i.e. done absolutely nothing to even warrant 'Reasonable Fear'. This supposed spree of shooters killing innocent people and hiding behind SYG and Self-Defense Laws is happening only in your head.

If by Innocent you mean the person who was shot did something stupid or criminal but the shooting wasn't warranted after all the facts came in? Happens more often but still a small number nationwide. Case in Point, Billy Kuch. Still willing to accept it.

Total claims of Self-Defense nationwide in 2010 was 327, it was 176 in 2000. Not a huge amount. In Comparison, Chicago has racked up +100 homicides since the beginning of 2012 and we aren't even into the year, Chicago could rack up nearly 500 by the end of the year.

The Take Away one should get on how to avoid Lead Poisoning is do not engage in criminal, stupid or asshole-like behavior, treat everyone with respect and think before you act.

 

[SweepTheLeg]

If Trayvon just would have been carrying a gun he could have killed Zimmerman by refusing to retreat standing his ground and we could have avoided this mess entirely. Lesson learned.

 

[Bocefish]

If Trayvon just would have been carrying a gun he could have killed Zimmerman by refusing to retreat standing his ground and we could have avoided this mess entirely. Lesson learned.

If Zimmerman broke Tray's nose and started smashing his head into the concrete, absolutely, Tray would have been justified shooting Zimmerman.

 

[Jupiter551]

If Zimmerman broke Tray's nose and started smashing his head into the concrete, absolutely, Tray would have been justified shooting Zimmerman.

Perhaps, but not if Zimmerman had caused only the most superficial of injuries, no apparent broken nose, no blood from apparently broken nose, no head trauma, nothing requiring hospitalisation or anything but the most cursory medical attention...boy I seriously CANNOT WAIT to see the paramedic who treated Zimmerman on the stand.

Legally, Tray was a child. Something people are all too eager to forget - SYG supposedly exists to allow citizens to protect themselves, but it never would have protected Tray because 17 year olds aren't allowed to carry concealed weapons.

Maybe that's the future - guns for kids being as common as cellphones, afterall what use is a law like SYG if a grown man can shoot dead a minor who's not even allowed to carry a gun?

 

[Kradek]

Maybe that's the future - guns for kids being as common as cellphones, afterall what use is a law like SYG if a grown man can shoot dead a minor who's not even allowed to carry a gun?

The future is already here. There are hundreds of homicides each year where the shooter is a minor. Why do you think most many schools now have metal detectors?

 

[SweepTheLeg]

If Trayvon just would have been carrying a gun he could have killed Zimmerman by refusing to retreat standing his ground and we could have avoided this mess entirely. Lesson learned.

If Zimmerman broke Tray's nose and started smashing his head into the concrete, absolutely, Tray would have been justified shooting Zimmerman.

Well, hypothetically if Trayvon had only done any of the physicality out of self-defense, no history of violence and armed with skittles, then the shooting of zimmerman would have been out of self defense too then. No? I still can't over the fact of how some are viewing the man with the gun as the real victim in all of this.

 

[Kradek]

he future is already here. There are hundreds of homicides each year where the shooter is a minor. Why do you think most many schools now have metal detectors?

Juvenile Arrests for Murders (DOJ)

Juvenile Population Statistics

So given ~4 arrests/100k juveniles (first link) and 70M total juvenile population in the USA, that's ~2800 juvenile arrests for murder/year.

 

[SweepTheLeg]

Did this become news because it was constituted as a "hate crime" or because the police did nothing? I thought it was because the police did nothing.

 

[sorrowfool]

If an individual is attacked by an individual and is justified in their use of lethal force, why should he face any civil liability?

Conversely, when there is a situation with two people, one of whom is dead, no witnesses, no major injuries and only the killer's story that it was self-defense - why should someone get away with cold-blooded murder? Why are the rights of someone to defend themselves considered less than the rights of families of victims who get to see their loved one's killer walk free and clear?

Surely even you can't argue that this law has effectively, certainly allowed people to get away with murder? It's one thing to be in favour of SYG when it's applied perfectly - when every shooter really was in danger or fear for their lives, but in application it's massively open to abuse, and in our society even murder itself is less serious than the fact of getting away with murder.

That's what I don't get - the demographic (white republican gun-owners) who are usually in favour of the harshest penalties for criminals, and capital punishment for murderers hypocritically appear to be in favour of a law that allows murderers to walk away from their crime laughing.

You forget evidence corroborating Zimmerman's account, an eye-witness corroborating Zimmerman's account. This is not a case of someone dead and there are no eye-witnesses, no evidence and only the killer's word, stop portraying it like it is. It is dishonest.

Zimmerman asserted self-defense. The police found no evidence to contradict that and eye-witnesses that corroborate Zimmerman's account. Nothing they found at the time gave probable cause that a crime was committed; self-defense is justified under the law. A mere shooting death does not mean a crime was committed.

If you are driving, a car wreck happens and someone dies, should you be automatically arrested and charged with vehicular manslaughter with zero evidence of wrong-doing? This is what you are arguing.

Ad don't resort to an ad hominem attack. It is not hypocrisy. Our court system is designed to give the defendant the benefit of a doubt. We all consider it better that a 100 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man go to prison. I am perfectly willing to let a guilty man walk away from murder if it means the 80 year old grandmother, the 28 year old mother of two or the 40 year old husband and father of 3 can defend themselves and their family on the spot and the police cannot arrest unless they can prove probable cause and prove self-defense didn't happen.

So yes, I'd let Zimmerman walk if it meant I and everyone else still have their rights to self-defense at any time and anywhere, without the duty to retreat and the best means of self-defense that being a concealed handgun.

You forget evidence that contradicts Zimmerman's account, eye-witnesses refuting his account. "The lead homicide investigator reportedly said he did not believe it was self-defense and he wanted to charge Zimmerman with manslaughter, but the state attorney's office said there was insufficient evidence for a conviction." It wasn't a matter of police believing his story, so much as needed to gather the evidence to convict him.

 

[Kradek]

Did this become news because it was constituted as a "hate crime" or because the police did nothing? I thought it was because the police did nothing.

That's a good question. Given the people involved (Sharpton, et al), and their history (Duke lacrosse a few years ago, Tawana Brawley, etc) I think it was because they considered it a hate crime, or that there was some racial issue in the police department.

 

[sorrowfool]

Did this become news because it was constituted as a "hate crime" or because the police did nothing? I thought it was because the police did nothing.

I think it was a combination of both, with the addition of Stand Your Ground already being controversial. However, if Zimmerman had been arrested at the time of the crime and held, I doubt most of us would have heard of this case.

 

[Harvrath]

If an individual is attacked by an individual and is justified in their use of lethal force, why should he face any civil liability?

Conversely, when there is a situation with two people, one of whom is dead, no witnesses, no major injuries and only the killer's story that it was self-defense - why should someone get away with cold-blooded murder? Why are the rights of someone to defend themselves considered less than the rights of families of victims who get to see their loved one's killer walk free and clear?

Surely even you can't argue that this law has effectively, certainly allowed people to get away with murder? It's one thing to be in favour of SYG when it's applied perfectly - when every shooter really was in danger or fear for their lives, but in application it's massively open to abuse, and in our society even murder itself is less serious than the fact of getting away with murder.

That's what I don't get - the demographic (white republican gun-owners) who are usually in favour of the harshest penalties for criminals, and capital punishment for murderers hypocritically appear to be in favour of a law that allows murderers to walk away from their crime laughing.

You forget evidence corroborating Zimmerman's account, an eye-witness corroborating Zimmerman's account. This is not a case of someone dead and there are no eye-witnesses, no evidence and only the killer's word, stop portraying it like it is. It is dishonest.

Zimmerman asserted self-defense. The police found no evidence to contradict that and eye-witnesses that corroborate Zimmerman's account. Nothing they found at the time gave probable cause that a crime was committed; self-defense is justified under the law. A mere shooting death does not mean a crime was committed.

If you are driving, a car wreck happens and someone dies, should you be automatically arrested and charged with vehicular manslaughter with zero evidence of wrong-doing? This is what you are arguing.

Ad don't resort to an ad hominem attack. It is not hypocrisy. Our court system is designed to give the defendant the benefit of a doubt. We all consider it better that a 100 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man go to prison. I am perfectly willing to let a guilty man walk away from murder if it means the 80 year old grandmother, the 28 year old mother of two or the 40 year old husband and father of 3 can defend themselves and their family on the spot and the police cannot arrest unless they can prove probable cause and prove self-defense didn't happen.

So yes, I'd let Zimmerman walk if it meant I and everyone else still have their rights to self-defense at any time and anywhere, without the duty to retreat and the best means of self-defense that being a concealed handgun.

You forget evidence that contradicts Zimmerman's account, eye-witnesses refuting his account. "The lead homicide investigator reportedly said he did not believe it was self-defense and he wanted to charge Zimmerman with manslaughter, but the state attorney's office said there was insufficient evidence for a conviction." It wasn't a matter of police believing his story, so much as needed to gather the evidence to convict him.

And that same Lead Investigator, Chris Serino, admits he has no evidence to contradict Zimmerman's account and no evidence to back up his suspicion, merely that he was unconvinced. Are you seriously going to argue that we should charge and try people at their great personal expense on nothing more than a hunch?

If there was an Eye-Witness that reported Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin in the back, Zimmerman would have been arrested on the spot and the DA would press charges immediately. That eye-witness doesn't exist.

Mary Cutcher and her roommate didn't see anything until some point after shots were fired. They make claims about what happens before based on what they see after. They didn't see the fight and that fight is witnessed by two individuals that corroborate Zimmerman's account. They claim Zimmerman was uninjured. The Police Report says Zimmerman did infact sustain injuries that was consistent with his account.

Interesting tidbit. Zimmerman waived his right to have an attorney present when he was questioned by the police for several hours following the shooting. He didn't have an attorney present when he walked the PD through the events later. And Police still had no evidence, no probable cause and no inconsistencies in his account.

 

[Anonymous]

Que? You have a problem with females posting in this thread?

I must've missed something, because I don't think you'd be stupid enough to say that on here (even if it is how you really feel).

 

[LadyLuna]

Que? You have a problem with females posting in this thread?

I believe that was simply in response to "I love a good argument". He seems to have no qualms about answering my posts in the same manner as all the others

 

[LadyLuna]

I just had a thought that might shed some light on things.

Hey Jupiter, what is the penalty where you are from of landing in jail? What is the penalty of being tried and acquitted?

Here, being tried and acquitted has a decent chance of ruining your life for good, and landing in jail will DEFINITELY set you back to worse than a high-school-drop-out. With the economy the way it's been, any history of trouble with the law at all is likely to land your resume or application in the trash. Even though the view in court is "innocent until proven guilty", on the streets and in the manager's office the common view is "if you landed in court you must've done SOMETHING wrong."

Also, cases are backed up ridiculously badly. I mean, it took 3 years for OJ Simpson to be put on trial, let alone convicted. Having a law in place that makes sure that the evidence is there before the trial is set cuts down on the backlog which keeps people who have the evidence from getting justice now.

Hence why a law that keeps innocent people from even being tried is important.

 

[Bocefish]

Que? You have a problem with females posting in this thread?

I believe that was simply in response to "I love a good argument". He seems to have no qualms about answering my posts in the same manner as all the others

It's rather interesting all the things I'm being accused of. I don't give a shit what color your skin is or what gender you are. I also never factored skin color into how I'm looking at the case and never did. If you look at where I posted the tits GIF, it was an attempt to lighten things up after seeing the GIF Sweep posted. I thought it was funny. How can you not laugh at Bugs & Daffy arguing about tits?

Anyway, as to LadyLuna's query about false arrest... I believe it's a serious no-no in Florida and rightly so. It leaves them open to all sorts of litigation. IIRC, I also read somewhere that if the state acquits Zim, the state has to pay for his legal fees, lost income, etc. As it is now, they'll be lucky to get a trial date before 6 months pass. One attorney thinks it will be more like a year.

 

[Nordling]

Who accused you of factoring in "race?" :dontknow:

 

[Bocefish]

I figured that would be next since just about everything else has all ready been thrown my way. It's too bad the media can't be held responsible for inciting so much racial animosity with their manipulation and lies.

 

[Nordling]

I figured that would be next since just about everything else has all ready been thrown my way. It's too bad the media can't be held responsible for inciting so much racial animosity with their manipulation and lies.

Assuming "what's coming next" is an awful lot like a straw dog. I think I'd wait before "pre-accusing."

 

[Harvrath]

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-01-05/news/30595165_1_face-murder-charges-killing-bus

Interesting case. A Florida Teen was jumped by another at the bus-stop. Jorge Saavedra produced a knife and killed his attacker, one Dylan Nuno. Jorge Saavedra was armed because of bullying The Judge dismissed the case under SYG.

http://m.naplesnews.com/news/2011/dec/08/judge-to-rule-on-saavedra-stand-your-ground-by/

The matchup of fists versus a knife is the root of the problem, the prosecution argued. Retaliating with punches would be meeting "force with force" in a classic legal definition of self-defense, they said.

Absence of bruising or other physical injuries to Saavedra from the punches meant there "was no danger of Jorge being maimed that day, being permanently disable, being killed. ... Nowhere near that," Assistant State Attorney Tom Gorman III said. "The defendant went so far beyond what was reasonable that day."

SYG is also a 'Stand-Against-Your-Bullies-Kill-Them-and-Get-Away-With-It-Law'. How is that for Anti-Bullying? I Fucking Love It.