Trayvon Martin

[Harvrath]

So if we look at those same figures from Florida over a ten year period but only looking at homocides with firearms - can you see a trend occurring after 2005?

If we take only firearms into account as you suggest (which I do not necessarily agree with, if firearms are involved in the vast majority of cases, the numbers are not going to be very skewed) and use the rolling three year trend you're using vs year on year that I did, you see a bump, but it's still also trending down and even in your chart near the original level. You want to make the claim that the bump is because of SYG, but I think that claim is fairly specious. The rate is back down to the level before SYG.

But beyond that, it doesn't make much sense, which is why I raised my question originally. Nordling baldly stated that SYG was encouraging people to go out and commit homicide. Any such claim requires knowing the minds of the perpetrators which we obviously can't do unless they tell us. The reason SYG may or may not be a bad law is because it could be misused after the fact. I seriously doubt there are a bunch of residents in Florida who know about the law, want to kill someone, believe they can use SYG as a get out of jail free card, perform the act, and are finally able to convince investigators and possibly a judge/jury that it was legitimate.

Total Self-Defense claims nationwide is less than 400. It was less than 200 in 2000. Does not mean people are planning to kill someone in such away that they successfully claim SYG protection.

It can be attributed to the rise in gun-ownership and handgun carry. People who would have run or let the criminal victimize them, instead are able to defend themselves.

Honestly, is there anything wrong with dead rapists, burglars, gang-bangers, would be thieves and drug-addicts trying to steal stuff to finance their habit?

 

[Paulie Walnuts]

If I had nothing to hide, I wouldn't run in a gated community.

You assume everyone living in that gated community is above reproach. There are probably more perverts and weirdos in a gated community than an ungated one.

Lets flip the semi veiled racism going on in this whole issue and let me observe the above pic of Zim...

Ok, if I was walking in the dark, in the rain and some stocky little Mexican gang banger looking asshole is following me in a car then gets out and chases me... fuck yeah, I'm gonna run.

And lets be honest.... Zimmerman doesn't look like a typical middle aged white harmless gated community dweller. He looks like a little Mexican thug.

:shock: Assumptions are a little uncomfortable when you flip em around, aint they?

If treyvon was a Trevor and white, no doubt in my mind the news would be "Mexican shoots innocent child" and worse.

You can cry it aint about race. Zimmerman wouldn't have chased a tall blonde white kid, it just wouldn't have happened.

The idea that you don't run of you have nothing to hide is what white people say. Place them in the dark and have someone who looks like Zim start to chase them, and they will run like a scared rabbit.

 

[Paulie Walnuts]

Honestly, is there anything wrong with dead rapists, burglars, gang-bangers, would be thieves and drug-addicts trying to steal stuff to finance their habit?

Nope. I agree, if you are one of these and you get killed in the act, nobody should be weeping over your corpse. The victim should not be charged in any way. This idea behind the SYG laws I support 100%.

HOWEVER... just because YOU say that's why you killed em shouldn't be taken as the truth, until witnesses, evidence and all the proof to back you up is presented. You may very well be innocent and were only standing your ground, but to assume because I'm standing over a dead body in a parking lot and I tell the cops "Oh man thank god you're here this guy tried to kill me" makes it true is stupid.

I could shoot the dumb ass who dents my truck with his door and if nobody is around just say "whew! that guy was gonna kill me!"

It's a flawed law, but it is a good idea. It needs some serious rewriting.

There is a very obvious line between "I need to kill to survive" and "I killed because the law said I can".

Zim was in no danger until he took great effort to inject himself INTO the "danger". That one fact alone should be enough to make him guilty of at least manslaughter. (The unjustifiable, inexcusable, and intentional killing of a human being without deliberation, premeditation, and malice. The unlawful killing of a human being without any deliberation, which may be involuntary, in the commission of a lawful act without due caution and circumspection.)

But the fact that he called 911.... watched the kid... brought a gun to the watch (which NW people don't do) and then after a few minutes of clearly expressed anger, took off after him shows some degree of premeditation. I think they have a good case for 2nd degree murder, if not at least Voluntary manslaughter. He had intent, and that's why we have a very functional justice system, to give him his day in court and dissect the case and prove his intent.

As I said he is already confessed and guilty..... of what degree of what offense is the question. No doubt, in the least he is guilty of

Involuntary manslaughter stems from unintentional, but criminally negligent behavior. A drunk driving-related death is typically involuntary manslaughter. Note that the "unintentional" element here refers to the lack of intent to bring about the death. ....... involuntary manslaughter is "unintentional," because the killer did not intend for a death to result from his intentional actions.

 

[SweepTheLeg]

Also to go back of if Trayvon had nothing to hide he shouldn't have ran, does Zimmerman have anything on his truck to say something that he's a liscensed guard of the neighborhood watch and can and will stop anyone he deems worth questioning? Or did he go too far above and beyond what he is allowed to do? Does he even identify himself in anyway or what his intentions are to Trayvon? Any of that could have prevented any killing that had to happen.

Knowing that I get paranoid and filled with anxiety when I'm driving and a car behind me takes the same turns I do, I can only imagine how i'd feel if a plain looking suv being driven by a plain looking grown man is driving slow enough behind me to know he's following me before getting out to track me on foot- To approach him in a defensive possibly hostile manner is much more possible than me thinking because I have nothing to hide I have no reason to fear why the person is going out of his way to catch up to me in a suspicious manner.

 

[Harvrath]

Honestly, is there anything wrong with dead rapists, burglars, gang-bangers, would be thieves and drug-addicts trying to steal stuff to finance their habit?

Nope. I agree, if you are one of these and you get killed in the act, nobody should be weeping over your corpse. The victim should not be charged in any way. This idea behind the SYG laws I support 100%.

HOWEVER... just because YOU say that's why you killed em shouldn't be taken as the truth, until witnesses, evidence and all the proof to back you up is presented. You may very well be innocent and were only standing your ground, but to assume because I'm standing over a dead body in a parking lot and I tell the cops "Oh man thank god you're here this guy tried to kill me" makes it true is stupid.

I could shoot the dumb ass who dents my truck with his door and if nobody is around just say "whew! that guy was gonna kill me!"

It's a flawed law, but it is a good idea. It needs some serious rewriting.

There is a very obvious line between "I need to kill to survive" and "I killed because the law said I can".

Zim was in no danger until he took great effort to inject himself INTO the "danger". That one fact alone should be enough to make him guilty of at least manslaughter. (The unjustifiable, inexcusable, and intentional killing of a human being without deliberation, premeditation, and malice. The unlawful killing of a human being without any deliberation, which may be involuntary, in the commission of a lawful act without due caution and circumspection.)

But the fact that he called 911.... watched the kid... brought a gun to the watch (which NW people don't do) and then after a few minutes of clearly expressed anger, took off after him shows some degree of premeditation. I think they have a good case for 2nd degree murder, if not at least Voluntary manslaughter. He had intent, and that's why we have a very functional justice system, to give him his day in court and dissect the case and prove his intent.

As I said he is already confessed and guilty..... of what degree of what offense is the question. No doubt, in the least he is guilty of

Involuntary manslaughter stems from unintentional, but criminally negligent behavior. A drunk driving-related death is typically involuntary manslaughter. Note that the "unintentional" element here refers to the lack of intent to bring about the death. ....... involuntary manslaughter is "unintentional," because the killer did not intend for a death to result from his intentional actions.

A case can be made for Involuntary Manslaughter but 2nd Degree is over the top. Over-charge in hopes that Zimmerman pleads down to the original charge the lead investigator was wanting, Manslaughter for Unnecessary killing to prevent Unlawful Act, Zimmerman doesn't feel that he committed a crime and is acquitted by the Jury and cannot face another trial for the killing (Double Jeopardy). If the Judge finds for the Defendant in the pre-trial motion for Immunity under SYG, he cannot be prosecuted or face civil liability.

This case is reminding me an awful lot of the the Bernhard Goetz case. I'd be surprised if the Special Prosecutor doesn't suffer a fate similar to Nifong.

 

[Paulie Walnuts]

He can face civil liability for wrongful death in a civil court, because he confessed, and he is guilty.

Since he confessed, a civil suit would be a slam dunk.

 

[Harvrath]

He can face civil liability for wrongful death in a civil court, because he confessed, and he is guilty.

Since he confessed, a civil suit would be a slam dunk.

No.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ng=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html

Title XLVI
CRIMES

Chapter 776
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE


776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle 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 entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
(5) As used in this section, the term:
(a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
(b) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
(c) “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...032&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.032.html

Title XLVI
CRIMES

Chapter 776
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE

View Entire Chapter
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).

 

[Bocefish]

Smart move on their part.

SANFORD, Florida (AP) — The neighborhood watch volunteer charged with killing an unarmed black teenager in Florida asked a judge in the case to step down Monday after she revealed a potential conflict of interest.

George Zimmerman's attorney, Mark O'Mara, filed the request and said Circuit Judge Jessica Recksiedler revealed the potential conflict last week.

Zimmerman was charged last week with second-degree murder in Trayvon Martin's Feb. 26 death. The lack of an arrest in the shooting inspired weeks of protests nationwide.

Zimmerman is pleading not guilty, saying it was self-defense.

Recksiedler's potential conflict involves her husband, who works with attorney Mark NeJame. Zimmerman's family first approached NeJame about representing Zimmerman. He declined and referred them to O'Mara.

Also Monday, Florida's governor rejected any suggestions that charges were filed in the case because of public pressure. Rick Scott said he doesn't believe special prosecutor Angela Corey is influenced by anything but the facts.

News organizations in Florida, including The Associated Press, are challenging the sealing of records related to the case against Zimmerman.

O'Mara asked for the records to be sealed last week.

 

[Paulie Walnuts]

mmm I learn something new every day.

I stand corrected.

 

[Jupiter551]

Total Self-Defense claims nationwide is less than 400. It was less than 200 in 2000. Does not mean people are planning to kill someone in such away that they successfully claim SYG protection.

It can be attributed to the rise in gun-ownership and handgun carry. People who would have run or let the criminal victimize them, instead are able to defend themselves.

Honestly, is there anything wrong with dead rapists, burglars, gang-bangers, would be thieves and drug-addicts trying to steal stuff to finance their habit?

My contention is not that people necessarily decide to commit murders because SYG is there (though honestly, I wouldn't put it past some people, I supect it's at least been attempted) but rather that
a)I suspect a great deal of firearm homocides in Florida that weren't a matter of self-defense are attempting to use SYG immunity to avoid prosecution, and seeing this law in apparent action I bet a number each year are succeeding
and
b) That if the law wasn't there, or wasn't quite so favourable to the shooter, people might attempt to resolve the situation in a non-lethal way, but feeling they're protected by SYG are emboldened to just say "fuck it." and shoot to kill.

Look at it this way, (this is just hypothetical) let's say for example just for the sake of argument Zimmerman shot Trayvon during a heated argument and in fact wasn't in any danger. Since there were apparently no witnesses and the only person who could contradict Zimmerman's account of how it went down was the victim, it would actually be better to put a second bullet in and finish him.

That's a hypothetical scenario where the existence of SYG actually encourages the perpetrator to kill, rather than maim, his intended victim - regardless of whether or not he was (actually) justified in shooting at all.

 

[Jupiter551]

Smart move on their part.

Why? I don't get why that's a smart move, or even a necessary one. The judge's hubby is a non-criminal lawyer in the same firm as Zimmerman contacted but wasn't taken as a client. How the hell is that even a conflict? lol

 

[sorrowfool]

Smart move on their part.

Why? I don't get why that's a smart move, or even a necessary one. The judge's hubby is a non-criminal lawyer in the same firm as Zimmerman contacted but wasn't taken as a client. How the hell is that even a conflict? lol

Yeah, I don't get that either. Also, the lawyer he ended up with was the one referred to him by the one who turned him down.

 

[Jupiter551]

Smart move on their part.

Why? I don't get why that's a smart move, or even a necessary one. The judge's hubby is a non-criminal lawyer in the same firm as Zimmerman contacted but wasn't taken as a client. How the hell is that even a conflict? lol

Yeah, I don't get that either. Also, the lawyer he ended up with was the one referred to him by the one who turned him down.

Only thing I can think of is they are using it to delay or hoping for a judge more sympathetic to self-defense rulings.

 

[Chamaeleon]

1. I own guns.
2. I have my carry permit.
3. I have a possible issue with Zimmerman.

Yes, to the average reader those three points are not in harmony. But here is why #3 exists.

In my state, the first step in obtaining a carry permit is an eight hour class. A key element in the class is outlining the potential danger in carrying a firearm. One danger is a sense of power. "I have a gun therefore I am ready for any situation that may arise."

We who carry are not police officers. We are not trained to that level. If we walk into a convenience store and see a man pointing a weapon at another man, which one is the bad guy? Perhaps the store clerk overpowered the robber and is holding him at gun point until the cops come.

My possible issue with Zimmerman is poor judgement in carrying a firearm while patrolling the neighborhood. A high-powered flashlight, cell phone and perhaps taser would be my choice. The object is to scare not confront.

Regardless of what really happened, a life was taken and two families devastated.

 

[Harvrath]

1. I own guns.
2. I have my carry permit.
3. I have a possible issue with Zimmerman.

Yes, to the average reader those three points are not in harmony. But here is why #3 exists.

In my state, the first step in obtaining a carry permit is an eight hour class. A key element in the class is outlining the potential danger in carrying a firearm. One danger is a sense of power. "I have a gun therefore I am ready for any situation that may arise."

We who carry are not police officers. We are not trained to that level. If we walk into a convenience store and see a man pointing a weapon at another man, which one is the bad guy? Perhaps the store clerk overpowered the robber and is holding him at gun point until the cops come.

My possible issue with Zimmerman is poor judgement in carrying a firearm while patrolling the neighborhood. A high-powered flashlight, cell phone and perhaps taser would be my choice. The object is to scare not confront.

Regardless of what really happened, a life was taken and two families devastated.

Zimmerman wasn't 'on patrol', he was engaged in personal business and thus had every right to carry his handgun.

My issue with Zimmerman is that he put himself in a position where a physical confrontation ultimately could very well happen.

I've listened to a few of the 911 calls from the witnesses in this case. Someone was screaming for their life before the gunshot.

 

[Bocefish]

Smart move on their part.

Why? I don't get why that's a smart move, or even a necessary one. The judge's hubby is a non-criminal lawyer in the same firm as Zimmerman contacted but wasn't taken as a client. How the hell is that even a conflict? lol

Yeah, I don't get that either. Also, the lawyer he ended up with was the one referred to him by the one who turned him down.

Only thing I can think of is they are using it to delay or hoping for a judge more sympathetic to self-defense rulings.

1) A more experienced judge will not yield to public pressure to go to trial if the prosecution doesn't have the necessary evidence to prove murder2

2) To avoid any possible hint of impropriety for an excuse to appeal

 

[Harvrath]

782.04 Murder.—

(1)(a) The unlawful killing of a human being:

1. When perpetrated from a premeditated design to effect the death of the person killed or any human being;

2. When committed by a person engaged in the perpetration of, or in the attempt to perpetrate, any:

a. Trafficking offense prohibited by s. 893.135(1),

b. Arson,

c. Sexual battery,

d. Robbery,

e. Burglary,

f. Kidnapping,

g. Escape,

h. Aggravated child abuse,

i. Aggravated abuse of an elderly person or disabled adult,

j. Aircraft piracy,

k. Unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb,

l. Carjacking,

m. Home-invasion robbery,

n. Aggravated stalking,

o. Murder of another human being,

p. Resisting an officer with violence to his or her person,

q. Felony that is an act of terrorism or is in furtherance of an act of terrorism; or

Aggravated Stalking is what the Prosecution is going to try to claim.

784.048
Willful, malicious, and repeated following or harassing. (704.048(2)); Aggravated stalking: willful, malicious and repeated following or harassing another with credible threats with the intent to place person in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury; or willfully, maliciously, repeatedly follows or harasses minor under 16; or after injunction for protection or any court-imposed prohibition of conduct, knowingly, willfully, maliciously and repeatedly follows or harasses another person.

What kind of Stalker notifies Cops that they are stalking someone? And he was a crappy stalker considering he lost sight of TM twice.

If the Prosecution is going to argue that Zimmerman intentionally followed TM with the intent to lure TM into a Self-Defense shooting, why not charge with Murder 1?

 

[Jupiter551]

Btw, the whole issue of whether or not Zimmerman is a racist, or "just" a gun-toting psycho wannabe-cop, reminded me of this Onion vid:

 

[JickyJuly]

I call bullshit. That pic of him with the gold teeth is indeed Trayvon, if you can't see that you're blind.

We're blind? LOL. If you think that every Trayvon picture that pops up on the 'net is really him, then you're naive. You must be one of those people who sees the cover of The National Enquirer at the store and believes that Michael Jackson's ghost REALLY did appear at Beyonce and Jay-Z's wedding. :roll:

But it's somehow disrespectful to bring up questions that may show Tray in reality instead of the cherubic image of a 12 year old the media keeps using? Yeah right.

Yeah, it is disrespectful. I think when JickyJuly created this thread, it was to show how much her heart goes out to Trayvon's family. I don't think she intended for it to be turned into a "That bad Trayvon kid had it coming!" thread. If you don't give a shit about Trayvon and his family, fine. But stop getting all upset with the people who DO give a damn and DO want to see justice. The more I read from you in this thread, the more I'm convinced that you really don't have a heart.

So you've called Nordling an idiot, and you've called me and others on here are blind. I could call you an asshole who has no heart, but I won't do that.

I actually haven't looked in here for fear of what might be going on. :geek:
I think it doesn't matter WHO Trayvon Martin was as a person. He was a minor. He was unarmed, and he wasn't doing anything harmful to anyone at the time he was murdered. There was no fathomable reason for him to be shot. He was a victim. Period. George Zimmerman and his lawyers are attempting to twist a law that was created with the intention of protecting people to fit what he did, but it doesn't.

I can be a huge bitch all day every day. I can shake my ass on the internet, get hideous tattoos and listen to death metal music. Maybe that won't make everyone like me, but it doesn't make me less of a victim if someone shoots me in the street, while I beg for my life unarmed. It's shitty that victims are so often the ones put on trial. Trayvon may not be here to watch his character be needlessly dissected, but his family shouldn't have to see it either.

 

[Jupiter551]

I actually haven't looked in here for fear of what might be going on. :geek:
I think it doesn't matter WHO Trayvon Martin was as a person. He was a minor. He was unarmed, and he wasn't doing anything harmful to anyone at the time he was murdered. There was no fathomable reason for him to be shot. He was a victim. Period. George Zimmerman and his lawyers are attempting to twist a law that was created with the intention of protecting people to fit what he did, but it doesn't.

I can be a huge bitch all day every day. I can shake my ass on the internet, get hideous tattoos and listen to death metal music. Maybe that won't make everyone like me, but it doesn't make me less of a victim if someone shoots me in the street, while I beg for my life unarmed. It's shitty that victims are so often the ones put on trial. Trayvon may not be here to watch his character be needlessly dissected, but his family shouldn't have to see it either.

:text-yeahthat:

 

[Harvrath]

I call bullshit. That pic of him with the gold teeth is indeed Trayvon, if you can't see that you're blind.

We're blind? LOL. If you think that every Trayvon picture that pops up on the 'net is really him, then you're naive. You must be one of those people who sees the cover of The National Enquirer at the store and believes that Michael Jackson's ghost REALLY did appear at Beyonce and Jay-Z's wedding. :roll:

But it's somehow disrespectful to bring up questions that may show Tray in reality instead of the cherubic image of a 12 year old the media keeps using? Yeah right.

Yeah, it is disrespectful. I think when JickyJuly created this thread, it was to show how much her heart goes out to Trayvon's family. I don't think she intended for it to be turned into a "That bad Trayvon kid had it coming!" thread. If you don't give a shit about Trayvon and his family, fine. But stop getting all upset with the people who DO give a damn and DO want to see justice. The more I read from you in this thread, the more I'm convinced that you really don't have a heart.

So you've called Nordling an idiot, and you've called me and others on here are blind. I could call you an asshole who has no heart, but I won't do that.

I actually haven't looked in here for fear of what might be going on. :geek:
I think it doesn't matter WHO Trayvon Martin was as a person. He was a minor. He was unarmed, and he wasn't doing anything harmful to anyone at the time he was murdered. There was no fathomable reason for him to be shot. He was a victim. Period. George Zimmerman and his lawyers are attempting to twist a law that was created with the intention of protecting people to fit what he did, but it doesn't.

I can be a huge bitch all day every day. I can shake my ass on the internet, get hideous tattoos and listen to death metal music. Maybe that won't make everyone like me, but it doesn't make me less of a victim if someone shoots me in the street, while I beg for my life unarmed. It's shitty that victims are so often the ones put on trial. Trayvon may not be here to watch his character be needlessly dissected, but his family shouldn't have to see it either.

But if that person that shot you has wounds, has a few eye-witnesses backing up his claim of self-defense and the Original Investigator claims you were acting unlawfully, the person that shot you has a credible claim to self-defense. And your character, associations and past comes into play.

Like it or not, TM's character, associations and past actions are on trial just like Zimmerman's. That is the nature of less clear-cut Self-Defense cases. not allowing it is tantamount to railroading Zimmerman.

 

[Nordling]

Where did the "original investigator claim Trayvon was acting illegally? I was under the impression the original investigator wanted to charge Zimmerman with manslaughter.

 

[Shaun__]

Where did the "original investigator claim Trayvon was acting illegally? I was under the impression the original investigator wanted to charge Zimmerman with manslaughter.

I think Harvrath is really Zimmerman's mom or something. Nobody else would waste so much time trying to convince people of his innocence.

 

[Harvrath]

Where did the "original investigator claim Trayvon was acting illegally? I was under the impression the original investigator wanted to charge Zimmerman with manslaughter.

http://cnninsession.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/martinpolicreport.pdf

 

[Harvrath]

Where did the "original investigator claim Trayvon was acting illegally? I was under the impression the original investigator wanted to charge Zimmerman with manslaughter.

I think Harvrath is really Zimmerman's mom or something. Nobody else would waste so much time trying to convince people of his innocence.

Duke LaCrosse team. Jared Loughner. Tawana Brawley.

Answer:

All cases where people rushed to judgement, where the media tried to spin a narrative for political benefit and it came out that everything you were told about the case, about the defendants and about the victim was wrong.

 

[JickyJuly]

But if that person that shot you has wounds, has a few eye-witnesses backing up his claim of self-defense and the Original Investigator claims you were acting unlawfully, the person that shot you has a credible claim to self-defense. And your character, associations and past comes into play.

Like it or not, TM's character, associations and past actions are on trial just like Zimmerman's. That is the nature of less clear-cut Self-Defense cases. not allowing it is tantamount to railroading Zimmerman.

You can't bring a gun to a hair pulling fight. If you are a physically healthy person with a gun, standing in the street with an unarmed, thin minor there is every opportunity to avoid confrontation escalation. I've been punched, knifed and once stabbed with a key. If I'd shot someone in any of those situations, jail would be on the other end. Maybe the other person would go as well, but that wouldn't lessen my crime. If Zimmerman got a few scratches out of the ordeal, good on Trayvon for trying to fight off a dude with a gun no matter how futile that is.

 

[Shaun__]

Where did the "original investigator claim Trayvon was acting illegally? I was under the impression the original investigator wanted to charge Zimmerman with manslaughter.

I think Harvrath is really Zimmerman's mom or something. Nobody else would waste so much time trying to convince people of his innocence.

Duke LaCrosse team. Jared Loughner. Tawana Brawley.

Answer:

All cases where people rushed to judgement, where the media tried to spin a narrative for political benefit and it came out that everything you were told about the case, about the defendants and about the victim was wrong.

You are not defending Trayvon though just Zimmerman so that is a not a valid argument for your actions in this thread. If you truly wanted things to be fair you would be standing in the middle and explaining how the conflicting testimony from multiple people make it impossible to be sure what is going on.

You are not doing that. You are focused on protecting Zimmerman, not justice.

 

[Jupiter551]

Where did the "original investigator claim Trayvon was acting illegally? I was under the impression the original investigator wanted to charge Zimmerman with manslaughter.

http://cnninsession.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/martinpolicreport.pdf

Uhh that isn't an investigator's report, that's observations of the first officers on the scene, briefly, without having questioned the suspect. All their job is, is to attend, secure the scene and any suspects, and hand the case over to investigators.

They are not trained to, and nor did they attempt to, ascertain the extent of his injuries, speculate on where they came from, or question the suspect in any way.

 

[Harvrath]

But if that person that shot you has wounds, has a few eye-witnesses backing up his claim of self-defense and the Original Investigator claims you were acting unlawfully, the person that shot you has a credible claim to self-defense. And your character, associations and past comes into play.

Like it or not, TM's character, associations and past actions are on trial just like Zimmerman's. That is the nature of less clear-cut Self-Defense cases. not allowing it is tantamount to railroading Zimmerman.

You can't bring a gun to a hair pulling fight. If you are a physically healthy person with a gun, standing in the street with an unarmed, thin minor there is every opportunity to avoid confrontation escalation. I've been punched, knifed and once stabbed with a key. If I'd shot someone in any of those situations, jail would be on the other end. Maybe the other person would go as well, but that wouldn't lessen my crime. If Zimmerman got a few scratches out of the ordeal, good on Trayvon for trying to fight off a dude with a gun no matter how futile that is.

I will spell it out for you. If you are not engaged in a crime, are someplace you have a legal right to be and are attacked in such a way that you have a reasonable fear for your life or a reasonable fear that grievous bodily harm will be inflicted upon you, you can draw your handgun and fire as many rounds as it takes to drop your attacker and walk away without criminal charges or civil liability for wounding or killing your attacker.

 

[Jupiter551]

I will spell it out for you. If you are not engaged in a crime, are someplace you have a legal right to be and are attacked in such a way that you have a reasonable fear for your life or a reasonable fear that grievous bodily harm will be inflicted upon you, you can draw your handgun and fire as many rounds as it takes to drop your attacker and walk away without criminal charges or civil liability for wounding or killing your attacker.

Right, but to the majority of people an unarmed 17 year old with no history of violence, a highschool honors student according to his older brother, and so skinny as to be almost underweight, on his way home is so NOT likely to cause life-theatening injuries that this is just...perverse.
Where did this skinny highschool kid learn to (apparently) almost beat a man to death in the matter of a couple of minutes? Was he trained by Chuck Norris after school or something?