Trayvon Martin Case

[Chico23231]

My points are clear and consistent. In hindsight, Trayvon should have never physically gotten involved with Zim. Like I said before, being followed, harrassed, by an armed creepy dude...Trayvon made a quick decision...he didnt know if he was being robbed, abducted, etc. Trayvon is not an adult and he made a decision that cost him his life...true. Death should be norm for his actions? No. And for the law to side with Zim and say this is justified with no penalty. Well we need to rethink alot of things and there should be protests.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

As I understand it, the lesser, incorporated, offense is always in play. Thus, manslaughter is in play.

Saden1 - what's your bet? As I said, my confidence level is low but once the pot use gets admitted, its increasing. Do you honestly think murder2 is in play at this point?

I will bet $200, cash money, that he is found innocent of murder 2.

As to manslaughter, $25. I think that accurately reflects my confidence level of each.

As an aside ... my first defense WTF moment since the knock knock joke - why call Tracy Martin ... all you do is give him a chance to explain away his denial about recognizing Trayvon's voice, which he did. Had they not called him and simply left him as a rebuttal witness, you get to discredit his "Serino got it wrong". As it is, rather than a blot on the prosecutor's case, he becomes a non-factor.

I am saying noway he walks, either it's a mistrial or guilty. I'll take that $25 dollar bet...if he walks you win, he is convicted of manslaughter or above I win, if it's a mistrial it's a wash.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

Which you've shown in abundance.



Zimmerman is up for 2nd degree murder. I will bet you $1,000 (to be paid to my charity of choice, when I win) that he doesn't get convicted of 2nd degree murder.

I will also add the rider that the loser (You, saden1) has to use the following in their sig:

Hysterical bed wetter

You can pick a sig for me in the unlikely event that I lose.

This will remain in place for the entirety of this football season.

Zimmerman is up for 2nd degree murder and manslaughter. Putting 1K on 2nd degree is just silly. Since you seem confident he will walk I will take $100 on at least manslaughter though. If he walks you win, if he is convicted of manslaughter or above I win, if it's a mistrial it's a wash.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Really? Generalizations as proof of motive and actions? Can you use a few more emotionally charged words in your description while claiming "the heart doesn't come into play". Rather than actual analysis of specific facts, you're going to ignore the unhelpful and speculative facts brought out at trial and simply paint the picture of what happened that night with a broad brush?

I thought more highly of you.

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.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by saden1

Zimmerman is up for 2nd degree murder and manslaughter. Putting 1K on 2nd degree is just silly. Since you seem confident he will walk I will take $100 on at least manslaughter though. If he walks you win, if he is convicted of manslaughter or above I win, if it's a mistrial it's a wash.

Zimmerman is charged with 2nd degree murder.

My offer stands. If you're so confident of his guilt why are you calling 2nd degree charge 'silly'?

[saden1]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

Zimmerman is charged with 2nd degree murder.

My offer stands. If you're so confident of his guilt why are you calling 2nd degree charge 'silly'?

Weak....you really are a mental midget.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by saden1

Weak....you really are a mental midget.

And you come across as an hysterical bed wetter who is incapable of detaching your bias from the facts presented.

I think I liked it better when you were throwing around curse words like a jilted teenage girl when this thread first started.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

Hey fight or flight response to someone armed who coulda been trying to rob him(trayvon). Trayvon shouldnt have done it, it was quick response to an unnormal situation. Remember Trayvon is dead he didnt chance to collect the facts after the incident.

"Fight or flight". No. Flight. Period. "someone armed" - Did Martin think Zimm was armed? Any evidence of that? He mention that to his friend on the phone? (Hint: No). Is there evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that Martin was in imminent fear of physical assault before the fight ensued?

Trayvon is dead. If the reverse were true, and Martin claimed Zimm drew his gun, there was a tussle and Zimm ended up dead, guess what - Zimm isn't around to dispute it and Martin is free. Period.

I know its a novel concept to some, but black kids can be freaked out by old white guys following them. I guess the more accepted way of thinking is a young skittle toting child-thug Trayvon causing old white ladies to grip their purses a little tighter as he passes. Thats not the case here, and where the young thug totes skittles, the creepy coward Zim totes a pistol.

You completely lost me Chico. You keep playing the race card, making assumptions about motives and using emotionally charged language that borders on demagougery. If Martin was "freaked out by [an] old white guy following him", that's a big old tough sh** [By the way, how do they feel about "white hispanics"?]. Martin took matters into his own hands instead of calling the cops. In doing so, any chance at knowing what happened that night was ended. [BTW: If Zimm is such a f'ing "creepy coward" why not just pull the gun at the outset? Care to explain Zimm's thought pattern on that, 'cause it's clear you have a telepathic link to Zimm's thoughts to know them with such certainty].

You want to thug out. Fine. Guess what, when you walk through my neighborhood, this creepy white guy is going to be watching you b/c I have personally witnessed too many "thugged out" teens/young adults racing away from broken car windows, vandalism and outright assualt of my neighbors.

BTW - Did you read the testimony of Zimm's physical trainer - the guy call Zimm "soft" and physically inept and that was after a year of training. To me that creates some reasonable doubt that his self-defense claim is without merit.

Originally Posted by Chico23231

We good if the picture was vise versa? We good if thuged out, armed, Trayvon asking Zim what he up too and Zim has the skittles? Justice would be blind and impartial? Yeah, not in this country.

If "thugged out armed" Martin claims self-defense, can provide evidence that he was screaming for his life (or create, more accurately, cast reasonable doubt upon the prosecutor's claim it wasn't him screaming for his life), has an eyewitness who has him pinned on the ground by Zimm, can demonstrate injuries consistent with his description of how he was losing the fight, and consistently describes the fight to police and friends and the manner in which he was in fear of his life ...

Then yeah, Martin gets the same benefit of doubt that to which Zimm is entittled.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

My points are clear and consistent. In hindsight, Trayvon should have never physically gotten involved with Zim. Like I said before, being followed, harrassed, by an armed creepy dude...Trayvon made a quick decision...he didnt know if he was being robbed, abducted, etc. Trayvon is not an adult and he made a decision that cost him his life...true. Death should be norm for his actions? No. And for the law to side with Zim and say this is justified with no penalty. Well we need to rethink alot of things and there should be protests.

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.

[Chico23231]

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

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by saden1

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.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

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.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

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'.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

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?