White man shoots innocent black teen....

[saveliberty]

Florida's law is what makes this most important going forward.

Why? Laws are written and revised in legislatures, not in courts.

I agree that the attention is good for changing bad laws, but the courts have a different responsibility.

Did I say the courts should change this law? Nope. I said the law should be changed.

 

[saveliberty]

Maybe this discussion was good it appears it's made you more neutral instead of aggressive against Zimmerman. If Zimmerman is guilty it will be found out.,

Your speculating AGAIN. Death by violence should be throughly investigated. Media should stay out of active investigations. Florida's law needs to be changed.

There's nothing wrong with the law.

Oh really? Then why can police be charged with excessive force? Most states still have reasonable actions law. The facts are far ans away against you on this subject, but flail around all you want.

 

[Si modo]

Florida's law is what makes this most important going forward.

Why? Laws are written and revised in legislatures, not in courts.

I agree that the attention is good for changing bad laws, but the courts have a different responsibility.

Did I say the courts should change this law? Nope. I said the law should be changed.

OK. Let's review: I said the law is bad. You said that is the reason this should go forward.

Going forward means going to court.

What effect is going to court going to have on changing the law?

 

[paulitician]

She had a name. Too bad this shameful racist Democrat opportunist forgot it...


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxs5Woss__k]Rep. Corrine Brown has a Meltdown - YouTube[/ame]

 

[saveliberty]

Why? Laws are written and revised in legislatures, not in courts.

I agree that the attention is good for changing bad laws, but the courts have a different responsibility.

Did I say the courts should change this law? Nope. I said the law should be changed.

OK. Let's review: I said the law is bad. You said that is the reason this should go forward.

Going forward means going to court.

What effect is going to court going to have on changing the law?

The case going forward will highlight the issues created by this bad law. The legislature will hopefully recognize the problems and correct the law. If you want a fight, go find one where there actually is one. Thanks.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

She had a name. Too bad this shameful racist Democrat opportunist forgot it...


Rep. Corrine Brown has a Meltdown - YouTube

Some people aren't foolish enough to accept her bullshit. All she's doing is pandering for votes. She doesn't give a damn about the children unless they vote for her.

 

[Si modo]

She had a name. Too bad this shameful racist Democrat opportunist forgot it...


Rep. Corrine Brown has a Meltdown - YouTube

Oh.......

my.......

Gawd!

What a ******* tool she is.



Good for the CNN reporter! (She likely got reprimanded for that, too. )

 

[Si modo]

Did I say the courts should change this law? Nope. I said the law should be changed.

OK. Let's review: I said the law is bad. You said that is the reason this should go forward.

Going forward means going to court.

What effect is going to court going to have on changing the law?

The case going forward will highlight the issues created by this bad law. The legislature will hopefully recognize the problems and correct the law. If you want a fight, go find one where there actually is one. Thanks.

Damn, you're getting touchy again.

Asking for clarification is not indicative of one desiring a fight. Not in my world, at least.

Regardless, I understand what you're saying, but the legislature has already announced that they will review this law.

So, if the reason to go to court is to effect that end, that end is already effected. As far as that is concerned, going to court is a waste of time and taxpayer money.

 

[saveliberty]

OK. Let's review: I said the law is bad. You said that is the reason this should go forward.

Going forward means going to court.

What effect is going to court going to have on changing the law?

The case going forward will highlight the issues created by this bad law. The legislature will hopefully recognize the problems and correct the law. If you want a fight, go find one where there actually is one. Thanks.

Damn, you're getting touchy again.

Asking for clarification is not indicative of one desiring a fight. Not in my world, at least.

Regardless, I understand what you're saying, but the legislature has already announced that they will review this law.

So, if the reason to go to court is to effect that end, that end is already effected. As far as that is concerned, going to court is a waste of time and taxpayer money.

So you're not interested in where the evidence ends up pointing?

 

[uptownlivin90]

This Florida law works just fine.

It's only been in effect for a short amount of time. I want to see it demonstrated in this case more, but honestly the implications look extremely dangerous to me, the more I look into it. I think the self-defense laws in most other states work pretty well.

If Martin's body does not have any damage as some have suggested is the case, it proves Zimmerman did not landed any punches. Then there is no way Zimmerman threw the first punch & started the fight.

That's not necessarily the case. It just proves that the struggle may not have been the death match Zimmerman's father and brother are portraying this to be. I say father and brother because I have yet to hear actual statements from Zimmerman about his version of what actually happened that night. Witnesses do not seem to support a fight to the death taking place. There were loud screams and WE DON'T know who those screams were coming from, I assume they were from Zimmerman, but if they were we know he was yelling at a kid (who was 13 years old btw and I thought that was strange) to help him and I think another guy who said he was calling the police. Let's say Zimmerman's goal was detaining Trayvon to keep him from "getting away". Maybe his screams were less blood curdling screams out of agony and more screams for assistance in making sure the youngin doesn't escape.

Zimmerman has injuries consistent with his statements.

Zimmerman has not made a statement that has been released to the public that I'm aware of, so I don't know how you can say this with a straight face. His injuries are consistent with the released police report, witness testimony, and the video showing minor injuries not consistent with the "head being banged into cement" narrative.

He was sucker punched by Martin in the nose, went down. Martin jump on top of him, grabbed his head and slammed it against the concrete while Zimmerman screamed "HELP!". Verified by eye-witness & 911 tape.

We do not have any evidence that the emboldened part happened at all.

It is not in the police report.
No witness has come forward with a story remotely suggesting any of that happened.

Zimmerman probably was the one screaming "help", witnesses verify this as do 911 tapes, however it's still held in contention. It's far more likely the yells for help are Zimmerman.

If Zimmerman intended to take Martin out he would not have called 911 to set himself up as the vigilante stalker & Martin as standing his ground.

We cannot assume this at all. We don't know Zimmerman's mental state at the time of the shooting. To me he doesn't look intoxicated in the police surveillance video but I'm not an expert at determining that.

Drunk or not though, people do weird things. Plus why wouldn't he call the cops? He's not going to apprehend this kid by himself, lock the kid up in his basement, put him on a leash like a dog. He knows cops are on their way, but while scuffling on the ground it's a possibility that he didn't think about the cops. Strangely enough, Zimmerman had it in his mind that this "guy" was going to get away because "they always get away". Could it be possible that Zimmerman has called the cops before and felt like they were slow to respond? Or that the cops are used to his calls for some reason about strange kids walking around the neighborhood and take their time coming? In such a case maybe Zimmerman felt the NEED to apprehend this kid.

Those are SERIOUS questions by the way.

Timing the finding of Martin, getting him to attack with out someone seeing it & when to shoot Martin between hanging up on 911 & the police arriving would have been extraordinary. If Zimmerman were to set Martin up he would have just made it look like he was suddenly attacked by Martin like a mugging.

I never asserted Zimmerman set Martin up for the record. I feel that it's a 50-50 chance Martin attacked Zimmerman or Zimmerman attacked Martin. For both there are motives. Zimmerman didn't want Martin to "get away". Martin had no clue who this random guy following him was. It's also a possibility Martin's just a thug who saw a guy get out of his car and thought this was a chance to randomly rob someone on his way back from 7-11. I find that last part a little bit hard to believe, but it's a possibility.

If Martin was innocent then why did he run when Zimmerman first approached?

Let's get one thing straight for the record. There's no evidence that Trayvon Martin did anything illegal on his way back from 711. If we're going to go on and on about innocent until prove guilty, then we have to have the same respect for the kid. He wasn't doing anything illegal that we know of.

We know Zimmerman said he looked suspicious. I really do doubt this however, and the big reason why is nobody else that we know of called the police or even has come forward to say they saw Trayvon Martin and thought he was suspicious. I've always wondered, why? It's a pretty large neighborhood and it seems like the neighbors are pretty nosey. Witnesses have been coming forward about everything BUT seeing the kid act suspiciously and I have to ask why Zimmerman was the only person who saw the kid and thought he was worth following.

As for Trayvon running. Let's cut the crap and stop acting like Zimmerman looks like some useless weakling. He does not. I don't know how "Hispanic" he actually looked that night, but if I'm an African American male, which I am, and I'm by myself in a neighborhood that I'm unfamiliar with, which I have been, and I see a man looking at me talking on his cell phone and he looks hispanic, there's a good chance I'm not staying there that long.

That should be self-explanatory.

Also why did Martin sneak back up on Zimmerman as he was heading back to his vehicle?

That is allegedly Zimmerman's account.

That's ONE account of what MAY have happened that night. There's no evidence to suggest that that happened or did not happen. So let's not make it sound like Zimmerman's word is Bible here.

The reason Martin was there is because he was in the middle of serving his school suspension for transporting drugs. His on-line identity is that of a extremely violent gangster thug rap song. He was in possession of jewelry that was not his & refused to say who's it was. He has tattoos before the age 17. He was not even scared of the gun that was exposed as Zimmerman tried to retreat, but in-fact tried to take it from Zimmerman. Young Martin has been is this violent type of situation before.

Most of this is as completely irrelevant as bringing up Zimmerman's criminal record. If the story that the kid had jewelry in his bookbag checks out, that's the only thing that could make this case any different because it'd lead us to the conclusion that it's very possible that he was casing the houses or at least thinking about it. I personally believe it's a 70-30 chance that he was. I have my own personal reasons why I think he was actually a burglar. I think it's more likely he was moreso looking around in a "what if" mode. I don't think he actually was planning on breaking into the houses, because he lived hours away from Sanford. Could be wrong though. It's all speculation on BOTH of our parts.

 

[Si modo]

The case going forward will highlight the issues created by this bad law. The legislature will hopefully recognize the problems and correct the law. If you want a fight, go find one where there actually is one. Thanks.

Damn, you're getting touchy again.

Asking for clarification is not indicative of one desiring a fight. Not in my world, at least.

Regardless, I understand what you're saying, but the legislature has already announced that they will review this law.

So, if the reason to go to court is to effect that end, that end is already effected. As far as that is concerned, going to court is a waste of time and taxpayer money.

So you're not interested in where the evidence ends up pointing?

The phrase, "As far as[changing law] is concerned", confused you so.

That's pretty sad.

 

[saveliberty]

Damn, you're getting touchy again.

Asking for clarification is not indicative of one desiring a fight. Not in my world, at least.

Regardless, I understand what you're saying, but the legislature has already announced that they will review this law.

So, if the reason to go to court is to effect that end, that end is already effected. As far as that is concerned, going to court is a waste of time and taxpayer money.

So you're not interested in where the evidence ends up pointing?

The phrase, "As far as[changing law] is concerned", confused you so.

That's pretty sad.

Yes, I thought the same thing when you tried it on me earlier. Just checking.

 

[Si modo]

So you're not interested in where the evidence ends up pointing?

The phrase, "As far as[changing law] is concerned", confused you so.

That's pretty sad.

Yes, I thought the same thing when you tried it on me earlier. Just checking.

So, when you said you didn't want to fight, you were lying. Obviously.

Florida's law is what makes this most important going forward.

You're being an ass, now, just to be an ass.

When you can be less defensive and emotional, I'll take your posts seriously.

 

[uptownlivin90]

Uptown, there's a link to the statute in the earlier portion of one of these Zimmerman/Martin threads. If you can find it, look at the language yourself. C _Clayton_Jones posted a legal analysis of what it says as well, it's either in this thread or the other oldest one. Read those, and see if you agree with me. Yes, in this case, I think either party really could have killed the other, and then claimed self defense, so long as there was no evidence he attacked the other first. Obviously, if that's the case, this law HAS to be changed.

Under Florida Law what would be considered an attack? That's another question. When does this become either party's responsibility?

From looking at your analysis (and I'll look for the analysis given by C_Clayton_Jones and then read the law for myself today while at work...) in most other states it's believable that Zimmerman would have been arrested, charged, and prosecuted on spot and would have had to then claim self-defense as an affirmative defense and prove that his defense meets the 4 criteria you listed above which would be an extremely hard task to accomplish, even though it can be done. (Correct me if I'm wrong about that assumption). However it looks like the law flipped the script, and there's nothing the prosecuter can do in this case, so the "special prosecuter" granted by the Governor has her hands tied as much as the local states attorney. Making this all one big idiotic free-for-all. It makes sense that reports are coming out that police were absolutely confused about how the law applied to the case, and why he was not taken into custody and charged. He should not have been, Florida Law pretty much forbids it.

In the 911 call Zimmerman says Martin ran and you can tell by the sounds in the video that statement is true.
You can hear the ding ding of key's in the ignition you can hear Zimmerman slam/ shut his vehicle door, you can hear the huffing and puffing of Zimmerman's Breath. Zimmerman also says he doesn't know where he is. Which would leave a normal person to believe Martin did run
Now Martin ran he should have kept going but he didn't but came back to where Zimmerman was and confronted him which made Martin the aggressor.

I don't think we can assume Zimmerman went back to his car. He might have kept looking, just not running. Could have kept following the general direction.

The "I don't know where this kid is" comment could be interpreted two ways.

One: He doesn't know where the kid is so he gave up.

Two: He's still actually looking for this kid.

 

[Foxfyre]

Uptown is right. Martin's background and Zimmerman's background have nothing to do with what happened in this particular incident.

All we really know is this:

Martin did not live in the neighborhood and in his hoodie was likely not dressed as most people in that neighborhood dressed. He was on the street at night carrying something and any one of us could easily think that looked out of the ordinary or out of place. Any one of us serving on neighborhood watch patrol would likely have given Martin a second look. And, if there had been recent burglaries in the area might well have called in a 'suspicious person' report.

And it would have been a normal thing for Zimmerman to follow Martin to see what he was up to. Our local neighborhood watch guys do the same thing if they think something looks suspicious.

Did Martin's dad have a cell phone with him? We don't know. If he did, it would have been more believable that if Martin was worried about Zimmerman, he would have called his dad instead of his girlfriend to express that concern. I can, however, see Martin calling his girlfriend to pass the time on his walk and mentioning that this guy was following him.

Was Zimmerman's version of the story the way it happened? We don't know that either. But 'false reports" and speculation in the media and on message boards aren't helping anybody get any closer to the truth.

At the end of the day, a young man is tragically dead. His parents are grieving and understandably angry and don't deserve the pain they are going through.

And the man who shot him may have indeed acted in self defense and that will be the final judgment, but his parents are already being terrorized by celebrities tweeting their address to the world. They don't deserve that either. Their lives will likely never be the same whether or not the Grand Jury determines to acquit or indict. And if the verdict is to indict, they and their son have a long, painful, expensive legal process ahead of them. If Zimmerman is judged guilty, then hopefully justice will be served.

But if Zimmerman is judged innocent he will still be a marked man, will still have people accusing him and wanting him dead, and he will likely never again be able to live without looking over his shoulder.

And that isn't justice.

 

[GUNSIDEAUG]

Trayvon Martin's mother moves to trademark phrases that have become rallying cries in wake of son's death - NY Daily News

 

[saveliberty]

The phrase, "As far as[changing law] is concerned", confused you so.

That's pretty sad.

Yes, I thought the same thing when you tried it on me earlier. Just checking.

So, when you said you didn't want to fight, you were lying. Obviously.

Florida's law is what makes this most important going forward.

You're being an ass, now, just to be an ass.

When you can be less defensive and emotional, I'll take your posts seriously.

How you take a post is entirely up to you. Perhaps when your in a less offensive mood you'll reread the posts and think differently. I typically reply as I am originally addressed.

 

[koshergrl]

Si, get rid of that offensive mood, HAHAHA

Ok, I get it, saveliberty just doesn't have a good handle on the English language.

 

[uptownlivin90]

Trayvon Martin's mother moves to trademark phrases that have become rallying cries in wake of son's death - NY Daily News

:Rolls eyes: That's standard procedure.

She won't be making any money off of her son's death.

The point of the trademark is to insure that nobody else makes money off of his death. People will make a buck off of a tragedy quickly, this is absolutely standard procedure to protect the name of the dead.

Nothing to see here folks... back to the actual case...

 

[The Gadfly]

Under Florida Law what would be considered an attack? That's another question. When does this become either party's responsibility?

From looking at your analysis (and I'll look for the analysis given by C_Clayton_Jones and then read the law for myself today while at work...) in most other states it's believable that Zimmerman would have been arrested, charged, and prosecuted on spot and would have had to then claim self-defense as an affirmative defense and prove that his defense meets the 4 criteria you listed above which would be an extremely hard task to accomplish, even though it can be done. (Correct me if I'm wrong about that assumption). However it looks like the law flipped the script, and there's nothing the prosecuter can do in this case, so the "special prosecuter" granted by the Governor has her hands tied as much as the local states attorney. Making this all one big idiotic free-for-all. It makes sense that reports are coming out that police were absolutely confused about how the law applied to the case, and why he was not taken into custody and charged. He should not have been, Florida Law pretty much forbids it.

In the 911 call Zimmerman says Martin ran and you can tell by the sounds in the video that statement is true.
You can hear the ding ding of key's in the ignition you can hear Zimmerman slam/ shut his vehicle door, you can hear the huffing and puffing of Zimmerman's Breath. Zimmerman also says he doesn't know where he is. Which would leave a normal person to believe Martin did run
Now Martin ran he should have kept going but he didn't but came back to where Zimmerman was and confronted him which made Martin the aggressor.

I don't think we can assume Zimmerman went back to his car. He might have kept looking, just not running. Could have kept following the general direction.

The "I don't know where this kid is" comment could be interpreted two ways.

One: He doesn't know where the kid is so he gave up.

Two: He's still actually looking for this kid.

Uptown, I'll take the bolded question first; in an instance like this one it became an "attack" at the point at which one party physically assaulted the other, since assault is an "unlawful act" by statute. It could have become an "attack", if the first "unlawful act" had been unlawfully presenting a weapon, making an unlawful verbal threat (example:"I'm gonna kill you!") or an unlawful verbal demand (example:: "Give me your wallet!"). We have no evidence that any of those three things actually happened, that we know of, so we are left with physical assault as the initiating "unlawful act".

Your earlier post on this page is a very thorough and rational analysis, by the way-one of the more sane commentaries I've seen so far. Thanks for that.

On the self defense law (common law type) It's possible to mount a successful defense under that; in fact, it quite often happens. It could have happened in this situation under just slightly different circumstances from what actually went down. Suppose Party A is on Neighborhood Watch. He notices Party B, walking in the dark, looking around,. From that perspective there are two reasonable assumptions-party B is unfamiliar with the area, visiting, maybe, or just lost, or, Party B is casing the area (there have been a number of recent burglaries). Party A gets out of his car, walks over to Party B, and says "Hi. I don't think I've seen you before. Are you lost? Can I help you"? At that point, Party B reacts with hostility; he lashes out verbally, then while Party A is just standing there, taken aback, Party B suddenly punches him in the face, knocks him down, and begins beating him. Party A tries to defend himself, but Party B overpowers him, and continues the assault. Party A yells for help, but no one responds. Party A is carrying, concealed, with a permit, and in desperation, fatally shoots Party B. THAT meets all the requirements for self defense. Party A acted reasonably in approaching Party B; he did nothing physically or verbally which could be reasonably expected to provoke Party B; Party B attacked without reasonable provocation, AND continued the assault, leading Party A to reasonably fear that Party B is either going to seriously injure or even kill Party A. Party A then draws his weapon, and shoots Party B. If all the evidence backs up Party A's account of the incident, and there is no evidence to suggest otherwise, a coroner's inquest might well conclude that Party B's death was the result of justifiable homicide, by reason of self defense. That might be the end of it, then and there, or Party A might go to trial (if he has a smart attorney, depending on the statute and precedent in his state, he might even REQUEST a trial, just to legally clear himself beyond all doubt). The trial proceeding would be a pro forma affair, quite possibly with a judge instructing a directed verdict of acquittal, on statutory grounds. Remember what "reasonable" means; ordinary common sense. Of course, if this incident had happened that way, there most likely would have never been a fight, much less a shooting; the hypothetical example is simply of a set of actions that WOULD have met the test of common law self defense in a similar situation.