Trayvon Martin's Murder

Uh?

The one where he shot and killed and unarmed minor?

That's my final answer, Alex.

Oooh. And it's good for 1000$.

 

you don't get out much do you??

 

CNN told her who attacked first. They also told everyone that Martin was on the bottom and that he was killed execution style.

 

You know?

Both stumpy and pani are correct and I'm so wrong. After all, since no LAW was broken its a figment of everyone's imagination that Georgie boy is even on trial. It's all a ruse so that black men like Martin can go out and rape poor, stupid white girls like me.

My bad.

And gtfoh with that CNN shit.

 

You know?

Both stumpy and pani are correct and I'm so wrong. After all, since no LAW was broken its a figment of everyone's imagination that Georgie boy is even on trial. It's all a ruse so that black men like Martin can go out and rape poor, stupid white girls like me.
And not get caught and convicted.
My bad.

And gtfoh with that CNN shit.

 

That's not even the point!!! GZ was a self-appointed NHW captain. The SMART thing to do was to follow him in his vehicle and observe TM's actions, while calling the police. He got it half right - he did call the police. But why call them if you're going to take matters into your own hands anyway?????? They gave him instructions and he ignored them. He was in no danger, at that point. Had he used common sense and listened to what he was told to do, he would be a free man and TM would be alive.

 

Alright, whoa, whoa... I HOPE we can all agree on at least a couple of things:
1) It is a tragedy that Trayvon has been murdered.
2) We want justice done.

We appear to differ (paniro and the other guy vs everyone else) as to whether or not the shooting was justified and whether Trayvon provoked it. And I feel (and I think I'm not alone here) that even if Trayvon struck him, that being followed by an unknown adult male (who was told by officials not to) in the dark who bears no official insignia might be cause for alarm/panic on the part of a 17-year old boy. Further, that said adult, being armed with a deadly weapon and after being told to stop pursuit, had no cause to fear for his life and that the situation was brought on by his willful refusal to obey instructions. If Trayvon pursued and harmed him I would feel differently. I don't think anyone on the forum is arguing in favor of unwarranted aggression if it's done by a black male.

However, the Stand Your Ground law, by removing the requirement that an individual seek to avoid a life-threatening situation, effectively empowers individuals to provoke unnecessary confrontations and then use deadly force once that situation escalates, even when the confrontation is solely their fault. It is wholly possible that the jury might find Zimmerman not guilty according to the specific defense allowed by this state statute. This is the basis of my opposition to the statute.

CORRECTION: After being notified by bliss, I have removed her name from the above statement. She has state she is not in support of the position I have attributed to paniro and the other gentleman whose name escapes me.

 

Zimmerman is charged with 2nd degree murder, "Reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life (sometimes described as an "abandoned and malignant heart"). His defense will have a difficult time with a self defense argument, given that he was armed and TM was not despite who attacked who first.

Florida's stand your ground law will not apply as well, "Florida's law, called "stand your ground" by supporters and "shoot first" by critics, was passed in 2005 and permits residents to use deadly force if they "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." "He has no protection under my law," former Sen. Durell Peaden (the author of the law) told the newspaper.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_...bably-be-arrested-for-killing-trayvon-martin/

 

Sorry, but 'Assault' is defined as putting someone under the immediate fear or apprehension of an unwanted contact. You don't have to touch someone to assault them. That's battery. As for the charges of 2nd degree murder, what Loki said. Zimmerman's armed pursuit of Trayvon Martin can be used to show his indifference to the potential threat to TM's life that Zimmerman knew could result.

 

I got a memo in my inbox that based on you and stumps stupid line of questioning that we were just doing stupid posts in this here posty thing.

 

I don't think that's vague. It basically means that you, knowing you were armed and in a position to kill someone, disregarded the potential for murdering someone and jumped into a situation and killed someone when it wasn't absolutely necessary. It's unclear to me how the Stand Your Ground law complicates matters. Counselor Loki?

 

If you shoot another person dead when YOUR LIFE IS NOT IN DANGER, that's um....against the law.:vom:

I've been in a handful of fights as an adolescent, and have been cut up and bruised. And not once did I ever think, 'Oh God, I'm about to DIE.'

The only way that shooting was justified is if you really believe Trayvon Martin carrying his loaded bag of skittles with a mag round of ice tea was a mortal threat to Zimmerman.

MMA is some of the hardest training out here. Zimmerman was doing MMA training for 8 months. I just don't think Zimmerman really believed he was about to die because Trayvon broke his nose and scratched his head up.

Also if you listened to the testimony from the trial, several witnesses told of seeing both Trayvon Martin AND George Zimmerman on top of the other, which assumes this was a dynamic confrontation with both combatants at one point in the dominant position.

 

Concealed and carry doesn't give you a right to pursue people and provoke confrontations. It gives you a right to carry a weapon to use for the defense of your person. Like all rights, it is a limited right.

 

Okay, will do. I was under the impression that you shared paniro's point of view regarding concealed carry and the Trayvon as aggressor line of reasoning.

I didn't think she was in favor of him being shot or anything extreme like that. I don't believe anyone thinks that, regardless of political opinion. I thought she was supportive of Zimmerman's acts IF AND ONLY IF Trayvon was the aggressor. I do remember her statements in support of Trayvon if he was attacked.

 

You are correct that the stand your ground law does not apply whatsoever in this case, see my link above. There is nothing vague in the elements of 2nd degree murder for Florida, they are as follows.

1.The victim is dead;
2.The death was caused by the criminal act of the defendant;
3.There was an unlawful killing of the victim by an act imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life.

These are what the prosecution will have to prove to gain conviction. The job of the defense is to muddy the waters and try to bring doubt to any one of the three elements.

 

Never in my life. I repeatedly said he unjustifiably killed Trayvon and I have at least 50 posts saying this. From day one, in 3 different threads, actually. I have told you his mother Sabryna Martin sent an email to my inbox via an advocacy group, and I have fully supported her before this ever went national in the media. I even posted her letter last year.

I am in support of gun rights, as is TDK and Beasty and several others, but to stretch that it means support for Zimmerman is plain wrong on your part.

 

Can the defense employ 'stand your ground' to defeat element #2?

 

Thank You. I know.

WTH! You need to just quit expressing your line of thinking on 'what I think" right now. You are dead wrong. I say he should not have ever followed him and tray was fighting for his life, regardless of how punches he threw or when.

 

Note that I acknowledge my error. I was simply explaining to paniro what I thought that caused me to make the erroneous statement. No need to be angry. I have apologized and made the requested correction.

 

According to the author of the law, they cannot. Stand your ground law, permits residents to use deadly force if they "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." "He has no protection under my law," former Sen. Durell Peaden (the author of the law) told the newspaper.

It is the fact that Zimmerman ignored the 911 operator's advice not to follow Martin that former Sen. Peaden says disqualifies him from claiming self-defense under the law.
"The guy lost his defense right then," Peaden told the Miami Herald. "When he said 'I'm following him,' he lost his defense."


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_1...rayvon-martin/

I would doubt that the judge in the case would go against this interpretation, but you never know, depends on how good GZ's lawyers are at muddying the water, please remember, the law often times has NOTHING to do with justice.

Often times the winner in any case rests not on who is guilty or not guilty, but as who is the best at arguing and muddying the waters.