Trayvon Martin Case

It is not semantics to say you cannot be the first to throw a punch.

What you and others call "semantics", I call law and burden of proof.Zimmerman/Han Solo's presumed innocence re: the first punch/shot is solely a function of obstruction of justice (non-capitalized) because there's no credible witness around to dispute his contention. Greedo is dead, and cannot dispute any accounts of the events, because of the circumstances of the events.

It's the prosecution's duty to frame an easy case in a way so that it is semantics. They cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt that Han shot first, so they need to point out what should be obvious to everyone: that it is non applicable to the case.

If the prosecution cannot do that, they are incompetent (and their case is in trouble).

If the prosecution had made a better case, it shouldn't have mattered who started the fight. The open/shut nature of the case is because of the way the fight ended. How the fight began is simply not a newsworthy national event. It's semantics. You can just say "they fought" and the facts of the case are unchanged.The evidence is what it is, including gaps, and including just enough to know that Zimmerman *might* have feared for his life. How the fight started, how it ended, both are important in a self-defence case.

GZ was acquitted because his team of lawyers was able to make Trayvon Martin's death a footnote in a series of semantics. They decided a 17 year old's life was collateral damage to Zimmerman's perception of the events.C'mon, you've been fairly reasonable compared to others in this thread. "Engaged" is semantics, too.

IMO, Zimmerman was acquitted because nobody could prove beyond a reasonable doubt what we're talking about. That's probably why Zimmerman's lawyers didn't even try a Stand Your Ground claim, to avoid a civil trial. Because they would have lost the SYG case for the same reason. (JoeR if you read this please feel free to correct me if you want.)

Zimmerman/Han Solo's presumed innocence re: the first punch/shot is solely a function of obstruction of justice (non-capitalized) because there's no credible witness around to dispute his contention. Greedo is dead, and cannot dispute any accounts of the events, because of the circumstances of the events.http://cdn3.sbnation.com/imported_assets/1427383/han_shot_first_medium.jpg

Zimmerman wanted to play out his fantasy and be a tough guy cop. He engaged Martin, then got his ass beat by a 17 year and shot him. The kid was doing nothing wrong. If Zimmerman saw him breaking into a house then fine, but that simply was not the case. He got away with murder. Plain and simple. The jury should be ashamed of themselves.

Oh...so you were there eh? You saw it happen exactly like this? Well, judging by much of the evidence (from prosecutors and defense) is that it was Martin who engaged Zimmerman physically.

It's not against the law to profile somebody. It's not against the law to follow somebody. It is against the law to punch somebody in the nose and slam their head against a concrete sidewalk.

Is Zimmerman a douche bag? Of course. Did Martin's assault deserve being shot with a gun? I'm in no place to say because I simply wasn't there or in that situation. Maybe that place should put up some cameras around the neighborhood if they are having issues with break-ins.

Well they win, because no verdict could bring Trayvonn back. Hahahah Home Owners Association getting soaked because of a self appointed Neighborhood watchman. I bet they cuss his name every time they get the bill. Not like they live in a well to do area.

I imagine they have insurance for this sort of thing. Also, why didn't they just install cameras around the neighborhood if the area needed a "night watchman"?

I imagine they have insurance for this sort of thing. Also, why didn't they just install cameras around the neighborhood if the area needed a "night watchman"?

They probably couldn't afford it. Besides, that's not as romantic as strapping up and regulating the punks who always seem to get away. Maybe they always got away because they were figments? Who knows?

Question time.

Let's say for the sake of argument that the bulk of GZ's story is true:

- he followed him because he thought he was suspicious for whatever reason
- he lost track of him visually so he got out of the car to confirm the address
- TM did somehow circle back and confront him
- a physical altercation ensued (let's ignore who specifically initiated the physical aspect for a moment)
- TM was kicking his ass

So the question is, given all of these speculative "facts", how does this change or not change anyone's opinion?

Question time.

Let's say for the sake of argument that the bulk of GZ's story is true:

- he followed him because he thought he was suspicious for whatever reason
- he lost track of him visually so he got out of the car to confirm the address
- TM did somehow circle back and confront him
- a physical altercation ensued (let's ignore who specifically initiated the physical aspect for a moment)
- TM was kicking his ass

So the question is, given all of these speculative "facts", how does this change or not change anyone's opinion?Well, knowing that GZ's story is valid would give his account of the events a credibility he would have not otherwise earned.

Ultimately though, it doesn't really change the case at all. GZ's story could be 100% accurate, and the self defense case is still incredibly weak. Even given the above, he's not in life threatening danger. He is the victim of battery.

I don't know if Zimmerman shot Martin with the intent to kill, but if that was his way of protecting himself, it's the equivalent of detonating a nuclear missile to protect oneself from a gunman. Effective, but with serious consequences. Until acquittal.

The evidence is what it is, including gaps, and including just enough to know that Zimmerman *might* have feared for his life. How the fight started, how it ended, both are important in a self-defence case.

C'mon, you've been fairly reasonable compared to others in this thread. "Engaged" is semantics, too.

IMO, Zimmerman was acquitted because nobody could prove beyond a reasonable doubt what we're talking about. That's probably why Zimmerman's lawyers didn't even try a Stand Your Ground claim, to avoid a civil trial. Because they would have lost the SYG case for the same reason. (JoeR if you read this please feel free to correct me if you want.)I'm trying to call attention to the impact of the court ruling, without actually criticizing the ruling based on the cases made in court. It's a fine line to walk and I realize that I might appear both reasonable and unreasonable at different points in a post based on what you believe. I'm not trying to be anything other than truthful.

I am not doubting that Zimmerman might have legitimately feared for his life at some point during the altercation (though that can be questioned by a skeptic), but:

1) the ability to construct a situation in ones mind where they overstate the immediate threat is not to be confused with self-defense, a situation that necessarily requires a credible threat.

2) the mental construct for Zimmerman of immediate danger would have to be linked more tightly to "black thug guy" than "unarmed teenager" in order to justify lethal force. The problem is that the former construct is based heavily on either a poor understanding of race relations at best, or blatant racism at worst. When we deal with facts, we know that Martin was both unarmed, and a teenager, and to go beyond that in terms of character requires a breach of respect for mankind I am not willing to make.

George Zimmerman is likely not an expert on anything. He's probably a racist. He probably didn't intend to kill someone, but he WAS willing to shoot someone who he saw as different/less than human. He made a mistake. I don't think he was defending himself from immediate danger, and I don't think the evidence suggests that was in very much danger.

I do think it's very questionable reasoning to so much as suggest that Zimmerman acted lawfully. Obviously, a criminal trial is not trying to argue that he acted lawfully, but rather, that he did not act unlawfully beyond reasonable doubt. Also: he shot and killed someone. The state of Florida is likely going to want to be very careful about how they apply the law in similar cases, after ruling that someone can shoot and kill, without acting unlawfully (beyond a reasonable doubt).

Well, knowing that GZ's story is valid would give his account of the events a credibility he would have not otherwise earned.

Ultimately though, it doesn't really change the case at all. GZ's story could be 100% accurate, and the self defense case is still incredibly weak. Even given the above, he's not in life threatening danger. He is the victim of battery.

I don't know if Zimmerman shot Martin with the intent to kill, but if that was his way of protecting himself, it's the equivalent of detonating a nuclear missile to protect oneself from a gunman. Effective, but with serious consequences. Until acquittal.

The flaw in your argument is that is ASSUMES a great deal. I think there is a valid question to be asked regarding GZ's state of mind as he was engaged in the fight. Absolutely one of the most key questions. The only problem is that no one can ever know what his state of mind was. Even TM didn't know. In fact in every self-defense claim no one can know so it has to be up to the prosecution to show via evidence and common-sense that the threat didn't reach the level necessary to fire a gun in self-defense. What evidence did the prosecution provide? Not much in my opinion.