Trayvon Martin Case

Motive and action are pretty clear cut. A wannabe cop follows a kid of particular skin-tone around, violates all sorts of protocols and ends up shooting a kid. Circumstantial evidence is admissible in court and it boggles the mind to thing that a neighborhood watchman can get out of his car to look at street signs in a neighborhood with 3 street signs, make inconsistent claims how where he was jumped from, shoot and kill the kid he is stalking and claim self-defense.

We simply can't afford to set a precedence where we allow people to do what Zimmerman did and claim self-defense. I believe the prosecutor has laid out the case and I believe justice will be done and you will end up paying me.

... and I don't think we should set the precedent for convicting people of crimes w/out requiring the State to prove all the lawful requirements of their case beyond a reasonable doubt. It's just not as simple and neat as you and Chico would like to make it.

Why do we think Trayvon got into a physical altercation with Zim?

I guess that would be the State's case to prove - BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT - if they want to send Zimmerman to jail.

Ignoring for the moment your generic and consistent assumptons and mischaracterizations of the facts and evidence ... You honestly believe a "not guilty" verdict means the law "side[d] with Zimm"? Would mean Zimm's actions were "justified"? Where do you get that sh**? A not guilty finding says neither and you should damn well get that straight.All a not guilty finding says is - "The State can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt Zimm is guilty of the crime that the State has alleged he committed." Nothing, absolutely nothing, more than that. The same standard would apply to Martin if the roles were reversed. I hope to God it will always be applicable to those accused of crimes.

A finding that the facts don't meet lawfully required burden of proof is a damn far sight removed from an affirmatively "siding" with Zimm or affirmatively saying he was "justified".

Is that really so hard a concept to grasp?

I weep for the rule of law. Pitchforks and torches all around.

I weep for the rule of law and history of injustice throughout this country as well.

Why do we think Trayvon got into a physical altercation with Zim?

Because all of the evidence so far shows that Martin challenged Zimmerman's supposed harassment or pursuit by popping up on him.

Zimmerman says he lost sight of Martin and was then 'ambushed', which I think is a misuse of the word. Zimmerman was more likely surprised by Martin who decided to front up the 'creepy-assed cracker'.

I weep for the rule of law and history of injustice throughout this country as well.

So, to remedy the past injustices resulting from people ignoring the rule of law, we should ignore it in this case as well?

So, to remedy the past injustices resulting from people ignoring the rule of law, we should ignore it in this case as well?

No, lets start by getting this one right. Zimmerman Guilty

Ignoring <SNIP>

Well stated, JR.

I hope that some people on this site never get to sit on a jury.

No, lets start by getting this one right. Zimmerman Guilty

<point_laugh>

http://www.zgeek.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/monty_python_angry_mob.jpg

"these assholes, they always get away"

-Zim

Not this time buddy, you got'tem.

No, lets start by getting this one right. Zimmerman Guilty

A verdict you decided on long before the trial started. You're mind has been closed to any alternative since the first report that "gun-toting white guy shoots little black kid in hoodie while he was eating skittles".