Trayvon Martin

[Anonymous]

:lol: ya, I'm totally butthurt.

The first step is ADMITTING that you have a problem. Good for you.

 

[Nordling]

I'm not sure why the Zimmerman defenders are still in here whining. Bastard gets to go free.

The only one that seems to whining in this thread is you, as evidenced by your last post. The rest of us are discussing the case.

Yeah, right, Mr. "Devil's Advocate."

"The rest of us" = you and that turd in your pocket.

 

[Bocefish]

lol, y'all are the ones that seem butthurt.

 

[Nordling]

Maybe. But there's a difference.

I feel badly that a kid was murdered.

You feel badly that people don't join your bandwagon of defending "gun shit."

 

[Bocefish]

Wrong again.

 

[Nordling]

So you say.

 

[Anonymous]

Yeah, right, Mr. "Devil's Advocate."

"The rest of us" = you and that turd in your pocket.

 

[JickyJuly]

I don't see any point in arguing over Trayvon's age. YOU CAN'T STALK OUT AND MURDER SOMEONE IN THE STREET. The fact that anyone would believe that Zimmerman was the one in danger, is maddening. I would like to take him to Flint and let him play around the street there. He seriously deserves to feel some fear for his life after this bs.
I am butthurt. We should all be fucking butthurt when things like this happen.

 

[Paulie Walnuts]

I dunno about age... I'm almost twice Zims age, if I saw him following me in a dark rainy night and he caught up with me I'd probably try to beat his brains out on the pavement too.

Would I then be the aggressor and asking for it if he shot me?

:?

 

[sorrowfool]

I dunno about age... I'm almost twice Zims age, if I saw him following me in a dark rainy night and he caught up with me I'd probably try to beat his brains out on the pavement too.

Would I then be the aggressor and asking for it if he shot me?

:?

It's funny how shooting someone dead is a reasonable response to the threat of danger, but not knocking their head against the ground a few times.

 

[Harvrath]

I dunno about age... I'm almost twice Zims age, if I saw him following me in a dark rainy night and he caught up with me I'd probably try to beat his brains out on the pavement too.

Would I then be the aggressor and asking for it if he shot me?

:?

So, someone is trying to catch up to you because you left your wallet at the convenience store and you beat their head into the pavement until their brains ooze out their fractured skull.

Remind me not to hand you a pair of kiddy scissors, you might stab yourself.

 

[SweepTheLeg]

If I lose my wallet and someone slooooowwwwly drives behind me for ever how long, and gets out of his car without saying "Wait! I have your wallet!" and creepily gets closer to me, then knocking their head against the pavement may knock some sense into them.

 

[Nordling]

If I lose my wallet and someone slooooowwwwly drives behind me for ever how long, and gets out of his car without saying "Wait! I have your wallet!" and creepily gets closer to me, then knocking their head against the pavement may knock some sense into them.

I remember many years ago leaving a store and walking to my car when I heard a commotion behind me, and when I looked back I saw two people chasing me and yelling. My first thought was "wtf? run!" then I saw it was my checker and a customer who were trying to return my wallet that I stupidly left at the counter. :lol:

And neither of them said, "what are you doing here" and knocking a phone off my head.

 

[Jupiter551]

It's certain that all of this could have been avoided if a) Zimmerman minded his business rather than reporting a black guy walking along as "suspicious" (srsly, police must have loved this busybody), b) Had simply gotten back in his car after the dispatcher told him not to follow Trayvon or c) He had called out "hey wait up, I'm neighbourhood watch".

He didn't though, because a black guy walking around at night fitted his mental stereotype of criminal.

 

[Bocefish]

Sanford Police Chief Bill Lee is resigning tonight after temporarily stepping down following Trayvon Martin shooting. CBS News also reports an assistant chief in the department may resign as well.

If the prosecution intended the murder2 charge for a plea deal, the odds of that happening are drastically reduced now that Zimmerman is out of jail.

There's also rallies planned for Zimmerman this weekend.

 

[Jupiter551]

Why would a plea bargain be less likely? Zimmerman isn't "out of jail" so much as he's awaiting trial. Anyone who isn't a flight risk or likely to commit a crime gets bail, it doesn't mean he's any less likely to be convicted at trial.

 

[Bocefish]

Why would a plea bargain be less likely? Zimmerman isn't "out of jail" so much as he's awaiting trial. Anyone who isn't a flight risk or likely to commit a crime gets bail, it doesn't mean he's any less likely to be convicted at trial.

Think about it... if you were in solitary confinement for a year waiting for a trial, after about 3 months you'd probably be ready to plead out. He was in solitary for his own protection. Now that he's out of jail, that daily mounting pressure isn't there.

 

[Jupiter551]

Why would a plea bargain be less likely? Zimmerman isn't "out of jail" so much as he's awaiting trial. Anyone who isn't a flight risk or likely to commit a crime gets bail, it doesn't mean he's any less likely to be convicted at trial.

Think about it... if you were in solitary confinement for a year waiting for a trial, after about 3 months you'd probably be ready to plead out. He was in solitary for his own protection. Now that he's out of jail, that daily mounting pressure isn't there.

I dunno, jail is kinda scarier when you're NOT in it - besides he's looking at a lot of time either way, and I don't actually think the prosecution is looking for a manslaughter charge. Maybe they have something that disproves his story? Who knows, but his story is crucial because if he followed Trayvon and got into a fight SYG doesn't apply, he's required to retreat.

 

[Bocefish]

if he followed Trayvon and got into a fight SYG doesn't apply, he's required to retreat.

Wrong again, that's the whole point of SYG. YOU'RE NOT REQUIRED TO RETREAT. Under SYG, it doesn't legally matter who was the initial aggressor.

 

[Nordling]

if he followed Trayvon and got into a fight SYG doesn't apply, he's required to retreat.

Wrong again, that's the whole point of SYG. YOU'RE NOT REQUIRED TO RETREAT. Under SYG, it doesn't legally matter who was the initial aggressor.

If true, then it's just another example of what an idiotic law SYG is.

 

[Bocefish]

if he followed Trayvon and got into a fight SYG doesn't apply, he's required to retreat.

Wrong again, that's the whole point of SYG. YOU'RE NOT REQUIRED TO RETREAT. Under SYG, it doesn't legally matter who was the initial aggressor.

If true, then it's just another example of what an idiotic law SYG is.

I agree, that part of the law should be reworked and limit the circumstances it may be applied.

Also, I said being out of jail drastically reduces the plea deal odds, it doesn't eliminate them.

 

[Nordling]

SYG doesn't need to be "reworked," it needs to be shitcanned. In America, we've always had the right to defend ourselves when our lives are threatened. Also, if someone can show that a law DOES need to be written, it should be written in committee by LEGISLATORS, not a pseudo-lobby group like ALEC. We, the citizens of this country did not elect ALEC to write boilerplate laws for us; we elected legislators to write laws, and consider them carefully.

 

[Jupiter551]

776.041 Use of force by aggressor. —The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

 

[Bocefish]

That escape clause only applies if Zimmerman is proven to be the aggressor. If he was proven to be the aggressor, how was he supposed to escape with Travon on top of him banging his skull into the sidewalk? It's a moot point in the Zimmerman case anyway because the prosecution has all ready admitted they have zero proof that Zimmerman was the initial aggressor.

 

[Jupiter551]

I must have missed where they admitted that.

 

[IsabelleL]

Because Zimmerman created the situation! He followed Trayvon in his car, when Trayvon was in an area he had every right to be in. We know this part to be a fact.

It doesn't matter what happened after that, really. If anything, *Trayvon* was the one standing his ground. Because he'd been followed. So what, he's not allowed to defend himself from some giant sketchy guy following him around in a van? I don't want to be in a world where I can be followed by some guy in a van down the street in my own neighborhood, and when he (who has at least 50 lbs on me, and is a lot fucking denser than I am) gets out of the van and comes toward me--and if any sort of physical alteration goes down, if I feel threatened as fuck because this guy is giant, if I try and show any sort of bravado or a show of aggression to show him that I'm going to put up a fight if he wants to start something, that I'm not going to just be a passive victim--that I can be shot and it's fine because he was just standing his ground.

America should not be a place where anyone walking down the street can be presumed suspicious and shot if they act aggressive when you have them cornered.
America should not be a place where people of color are automatically "suspicious" in some people's eyes for just exiting in places you aren't used to seeing them.
America should not be a place where the victim is blamed. Where irrelevant details that the murderer (fuck accused--we know Zimmerman shot Trayvon, that's not in question) had no way of knowing can be used to twist the image of a murdered boy.


EDIT: Wait I cannot have possibly read that statute right. Does it seriously say that if you attack someone, you're not allowed to use the law in your favor, unless the person may kill you? So if I go up to some random person on the street, and start just kicking the shit out of them, really messing them up, and then they manage to get away and I see that they have picked up a knife or a rock or anything that looks like it could hurt me, and it looks like they're going to grievously injure me--I can just take out a gun and shoot them? And that's okay? I'm really assuming I interpreted this wrong. Please, someone correct me. I can't wrap my head around that.

 

[Bocefish]

They BOTH had a legal right to be where they were. Regardless of how it started, it escalated into a life threatening event and it is now the burden of the prosecution to disprove self-defense.

I must have missed where they admitted that.

You probably did because they showed the bond hearing on TV here in the states and O'mara point blank asked the prosecution's lead investigator on the witness stand if they had any evidence pointing to Zimmerman being the aggressor and he said no.

 

[Bocefish]

Because Zimmerman created the situation! He followed Trayvon in his car, when Trayvon was in an area he had every right to be in. We know this part to be a fact.

It doesn't matter what happened after that, really. If anything, *Trayvon* was the one standing his ground. Because he'd been followed. So what, he's not allowed to defend himself from some giant sketchy guy following him around in a van? I don't want to be in a world where I can be followed by some guy in a van down the street in my own neighborhood, and when he (who has at least 50 lbs on me, and is a lot fucking denser than I am) gets out of the van and comes toward me--and if any sort of physical alteration goes down, if I feel threatened as fuck because this guy is giant, if I try and show any sort of bravado or a show of aggression to show him that I'm going to put up a fight if he wants to start something, that I'm not going to just be a passive victim--that I can be shot and it's fine because he was just standing his ground.

America should not be a place where anyone walking down the street can be presumed suspicious and shot if they act aggressive when you have them cornered.
America should not be a place where people of color are automatically "suspicious" in some people's eyes for just exiting in places you aren't used to seeing them.
America should not be a place where the victim is blamed. Where irrelevant details that the murderer (fuck accused--we know Zimmerman shot Trayvon, that's not in question) had no way of knowing can be used to twist the image of a murdered boy.


EDIT: Wait I cannot have possibly read that statute right. Does it seriously say that if you attack someone, you're not allowed to use the law in your favor, unless the person may kill you? So if I go up to some random person on the street, and start just kicking the shit out of them, really messing them up, and then they manage to get away and I see that they have picked up a knife or a rock or anything that looks like it could hurt me, and it looks like they're going to grievously injure me--I can just take out a gun and shoot them? And that's okay? I'm really assuming I interpreted this wrong. Please, someone correct me. I can't wrap my head around that.

OK, first of all... Zimmerman only had about a ten pound advantage but Trayvon had about a 5 inch height advantage. Secondly, if you are the aggressor and the altercation somehow turns deadly... the law says you then have a duty to retreat if possible. It can be very confusing.

 

[Jupiter551]

When Zimmerman was on the stand, Mr. De La Rionda asked him about whether, when police asked him about inconsistencies in his story, he began to say that he didn’t remember exactly what happened. The judge cut off that line of questioning, saying it veered into evidence that should be introduced at trial.

But during his turn on the stand, Gilbreath drew attention to Zimmerman's assertion to police that Trayvon was at one point running around Zimmerman's car. Gilbreath questioned why that should make Zimmerman fear for his life. “[Zimmerman] was so scared that he still got out of the car and chased Mr. Martin,” Gilbreath said skeptically.

Under questioning from O’Mara, Gilbreath also described new details that Zimmerman told police, including the claim that Trayvon allegedly tried to suffocate Zimmerman and grab for his gun before Zimmerman “scooted away” and shot Trayvon at close range.

So Zimmerman could have escaped, or held him at gunpoint, or just lied about what happened. He's changed his story.

 

[Bocefish]

I only caught the tail end of the bond hearing on TV and missed that part. If Zimmerman does indeed have inconsistencies in his story, then he's in deep doo-doo.