Trayvon Martin Case

i bought it when i bought the book, it was $6. cheaper than the book. it will let you down, but it's still the outsiders


Thank God i dont read!

the law is always right??? History says no. facts are facts i agree, a man with a gun roaming a neighborhood (to protect everyone right?) harrassing children subjectively to what fit his discription of the common criminal (black in hoodie). He finds his discription, his direct harrassment leads to a physical altercation that leads to the death of a child with tea and skittles. Justice served right? i find it strange he has the right under law to shoot children.

Let me go home and grab my handgun and roam peoples neighborhood randomly and question children. if i dont get the answer i like and a child starts actingly like a child, then damn it i have the right to pull out my gun and shoot them. this country is great.

Introducing Chico2321 - the new and improved rant.

The law is neither right nor wrong. It's application sometimes leads to unfair or unsatisfactory results. When the application of a law results in unfair or unsatisfactory results often enough - it gets changed by the society subject to it. Until it is changed, however, the law is the guideline we are bound to follow b/c it's what, we as a society, originally agreed to follow.

As to you emotionally based, factually debatable rant - - If the child attacks you, breaks your nose, starts bashing your head into a sidewalk causing you legitimate fear for your life b/c you said something that offended him and you have a legally authorized deadly weapon, guess what - you have every right to use it. That ain't anything new.

At the same time, under those facts and in Maryland, you would likely be arrested. In Florida, however, as long as no evidence contradicts your claim of self-defense, guess what? You are legally arrest proof. Do I think that's a bad law? I think it's overbroad and creates this type of situation where what was once a defense to be proved is now a presumptive defense. I think that part of the law should be modified but it ain't up to me (or you) - it's up to the good people of Florida. Don't like the law? Don't live in Florida.

You make lots of assumptions both about Zimmerman, about Martin and about what happened. If that is all it takes to convict someone of murder, well, I got the rope if you got the tree.

the law is always right??? History says no. facts are facts i agree, a man with a gun roaming a neighborhood (to protect everyone right?) harrassing children subjectively to what fit his discription of the common criminal (black in hoodie). He finds his discription, his direct harrassment leads to a physical altercation that leads to the death of a child with tea and skittles. Justice served right? i find it strange he has the right under law to shoot children.

Let me go home and grab my handgun and roam peoples neighborhood randomly and question children. if i dont get the answer i like and a child starts actingly like a child, then damn it i have the right to pull out my gun and shoot them. this country is great.

I feel like you should make a distinction between children and Trayvon. I seperate the two terms 'children' and 'teenagers', the latter of which is Trayvon. It wasn't like he shot an 8 year old playing on a playground.

Great post, JoeRedskin.

The only issue I have is the assertion that both had a legal reason to be where they were. I still don't understand why Martin was in a gated community that he didn't live in with his drink and snack he would have purchased elsewhere.

I read the community was where his father's friend lived. They were visiting that friend when he went to get the snack.

I read the community was where his father's friend lived. They were visiting that friend when he went to get the snack.

If evidence of Trayvon’s 911 call really does exist, it would blow apart Zimmerman’s claims that he acted in self defense when he shot and killed the Miami Gardens teenager who was trying to make it back home, with a bag of candy and a drink, in time to watch the 2nd half of the NBA All Star game.

I'm hearing all kinds of differing opinions on where Martin was heading and why.

It seems odd that if you're visiting a friend (or a friend of someone else) you'd go looking for snacks. At some point it will be apparent where he was walking to/from and all will be clearer, hopefully.

I feel like you should make a distinction between children and Trayvon. I seperate the two terms 'children' and 'teenagers', the latter of which is Trayvon. It wasn't like he shot an 8 year old playing on a playground.


Doesn't fit the narrative of racial hostility.

I feel like you should make a distinction between children and Trayvon. I seperate the two terms 'children' and 'teenagers', the latter of which is Trayvon. It wasn't like he shot an 8 year old playing on a playground.

It really doesn't matter if it's a child, teenager or senile 80 year old - use whatever emotionally charged adjective you wish. Ultimately, for deadly force to be allowed, you have to be in reasonable fear of your life. I agree that it would take a lot of extrinsic evidence to show that an 8 year old attacked you and put you in reasonable fear of your life - that would be a hard sell under the best of circumstance. Regardless, if he/she did, then you (in Florida and I would assume elsewhere) can use deadly force.

As witnessed by the neighbor, Martin had Zimmerman on his back and was beating him and attempting to create serious head trauma. Zimmerman had injuries consistent with such a beating. If Zimmerman did something first that left Trayvon no choice but to resort to physical violence (pull the gun out, maybe even flash it and say "I can't wait for you to turn around"), then Martin is the wronged party and murder is the appropriate charge. That may well have been what happened BUT - and I'll say this yet again - THERE IS NO PROOF THAT THIS HAPPENED.

Otherwise, you don't like me "harrassing" you, you don't like me following you on a public street? Tough shit. If we are in public, and I don't touch or threaten you with imminent physical harm, you aren't allowed to use violence first. This is what Zimmerman alleged happened and - here it is again - THERE IS NO PROOF TO CONTRADICT HIS ALLEGATION.

There is no proof one way or the other of the ultimate determinative fact. It is simply conjecture based on your perceptions of the two parties (Kid, thug, vigilante, family man), the known facts and the disputed facts.

but whatever ... popular opinion and lynchmobs can never be wrong.

It really doesn't matter if it's a child, teenager or senile 80 year old - use whatever emotionally charged adjective you wish. Ultimately, for deadly force to be allowed, you have to be in reasonable fear of your life. I agree that it would take a lot of extrinsic evidence to show that an 8 year old attacked you and put you in reasonable fear of your life - that would be a hard sell under the best of circumstance. Regardless, if he/she did, then you (in Florida and I would assume elsewhere) can use deadly force.

As witnessed by the neighbor, Martin had Zimmerman on his back and was beating him and attempting to create serious head trauma. Zimmerman had injuries consistent with such a beating. If Zimmerman did something first that left Trayvon no choice but to resort to physical violence (pull the gun out, maybe even flash it and say "I can't wait for you to turn around"), then Martin is the wronged party and murder is the appropriate charge. That may well have been what happened BUT - and I'll say this yet again - THERE IS NO PROOF THAT THIS HAPPENED.

Otherwise, you don't like me "harrassing" you, you don't like me following you on a public street? Tough shit. If we are in public, and I don't touch or threaten you with imminent physical harm, you aren't allowed to use violence first. This is what Zimmerman alleged happened and - here it is again - THERE IS NO PROOF TO CONTRADICT HIS ALLEGATION.

There is no proof one way or the other of the ultimate determinative fact. It is simply conjecture based on your perceptions of the two parties (Kid, thug, vigilante, family man), the known facts and the disputed facts.

but whatever ... popular opinion and lynchmobs can never be wrong.

I'm not saying it makes a difference in the case, it just makes it sound like he's trying to garner sympathy for the teenager. And if that's his MO, then w/e.

But I do agree with you when you look at it from the standpoint you laid out above, it's hard to throw charges at Zimmerman from the facts at hand. It's like you said though, facts shouldn't get in the way of emotion. :)

Introducing Chico2321 - the new and improved rant.

The law is neither right nor wrong. It's application sometimes leads to unfair or unsatisfactory results. When the application of a law results in unfair or unsatisfactory results often enough - it gets changed by the society subject to it. Until it is changed, however, the law is the guideline we are bound to follow b/c it's what, we as a society, originally agreed to follow.

As to you emotionally based, factually debatable rant - - If the child attacks you, breaks your nose, starts bashing your head into a sidewalk causing you legitimate fear for your life b/c you said something that offended him and you have a legally authorized deadly weapon, guess what - you have every right to use it. That ain't anything new.

At the same time, under those facts and in Maryland, you would likely be arrested. In Florida, however, as long as no evidence contradicts your claim of self-defense, guess what? You are legally arrest proof. Do I think that's a bad law? I think it's overbroad and creates this type of situation where what was once a defense to be proved is now a presumptive defense. I think that part of the law should be modified but it ain't up to me (or you) - it's up to the good people of Florida. Don't like the law? Don't live in Florida.

You make lots of assumptions both about Zimmerman, about Martin and about what happened. If that is all it takes to convict someone of murder, well, I got the rope if you got the tree.

its not emotional but certainly disagrees with interpretation of law. But by your assessment you support law that say you can kill a child if you fear for his your life after chasing down, after harrassing him. Which is fine. Wasnt Zimmerman told by someone not to go after him...blotchy on that. And i guess people who disagree with that interpretation are a lynch mob, which is common but expected.

Zimmerman is responsible for the child's death. And Martin was harrassed by an unknown person to him not of any authority but some joe on the street. Who knows what Zim said to him, but i guess he can say anything he wants to him considering he's packing a gun like a damn coward.

Zimmerman was clearly in the wrong and Martin did not deserved to be killed. Gotta be a law that was broken somewhere.

It really doesn't matter if it's a child, teenager or senile 80 year old - use whatever emotionally charged adjective you wish. Ultimately, for deadly force to be allowed, you have to be in reasonable fear of your life. I agree that it would take a lot of extrinsic evidence to show that an 8 year old attacked you and put you in reasonable fear of your life - that would be a hard sell under the best of circumstance. Regardless, if he/she did, then you (in Florida and I would assume elsewhere) can use deadly force.

As witnessed by the neighbor, Martin had Zimmerman on his back and was beating him and attempting to create serious head trauma. Zimmerman had injuries consistent with such a beating. If Zimmerman did something first that left Trayvon no choice but to resort to physical violence (pull the gun out, maybe even flash it and say "I can't wait for you to turn around"), then Martin is the wronged party and murder is the appropriate charge. That may well have been what happened BUT - and I'll say this yet again - THERE IS NO PROOF THAT THIS HAPPENED.

Otherwise, you don't like me "harrassing" you, you don't like me following you on a public street? Tough shit. If we are in public, and I don't touch or threaten you with imminent physical harm, you aren't allowed to use violence first. This is what Zimmerman alleged happened and - here it is again - THERE IS NO PROOF TO CONTRADICT HIS ALLEGATION.

There is no proof one way or the other of the ultimate determinative fact. It is simply conjecture based on your perceptions of the two parties (Kid, thug, vigilante, family man), the known facts and the disputed facts.

but whatever ... popular opinion and lynchmobs can never be wrong.

I can walk the street with a gun harrassing people? Ummm no