Trayvon Martin Case

[saden1]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

Saden1 uses 'common sense'!

Bwahahahahaha!

Put your money where your mouth is, bitch.

[HailGreen28]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

This is anything but traditional because the actual aggressor and provoker here is the one claiming self defense.

No, if the defendant was the actual aggressor and provoker, it would be a traditional FAILED claim of self defense. I'm saying this is not the new "stand your ground" case where the burden of proof is on the defense, it's the traditional "self defence" where once the possibility of actual self defence is established, the burden is on the prosecution.

Which again raises the point, how do you know in this case which was the actual attacker and aggressor? Those in the court case would like to know what you do, because neither side had evidence to "know" that. (other than what Zimmerman said, but he's the one on trial.)

Originally Posted by Chico23231

Also strange is the fact the one claiming self defense was the ONLY one armed. The actually person provoked never had a weapon of any kind...nothing...bat, gun, knife, etc....just skittles.

So if someone is armed, they can't use the weapon to defend themselves? Muggers attacking anyone weaker than they are, will be overjoyed by this news.

And again someone lists the skittles in their argument. I'm sure numerous criminals and victims have had M&Ms, Tootsie Rolls, and Pepsi on them when a crime has occurred. What is this fetish people have about skittles?

Originally Posted by Chico23231

Also non traditional is the fact the one claiming self defense is a larger and older adult against a smaller, kid.

Define "larger". Martin was taller and probably in much better shape. Unless Martin was obese.

And "kid" again? Does this look like a "kid"? Martin was 17. If he was arrested the day of the incident, for assault or whatever just saying, he would have been charged as an adult.


(teen in the middle)

Teen, yes. Young man, yes. "Kid"? No. Just to put this in perspective, do you think "kids" killed Sean Taylor? Should they not be tried as adults?

Originally Posted by Chico23231

Rarely you see an older, larger, armed person running up on a smaller, unarmed, child claiming self defense after he has shot and killed the teenager.

I'm willing to bet lots of older people have filed self defence claims against younger people even though only the older person was armed, seeing how it's teen males that commit a plurality of violent crimes. Again you're calling the shorter, more out of shape guy the "larger" guy.

And how do you know Zimmerman actually "ran up" to Martin? Please tell CNN, because the prosecution and defense both missed what you found out.

"CHILD"? Did I post pictures of a "child" up there? Again, to keep perspective in this case, did "children" kill Sean Taylor?

[skinsfaninok]

There is some heat in this thread! Lol

[HailGreen28]

Originally Posted by saden1

Zimmerman's story is incredible! I literally have to suspend my common sense to believe anything Zimmerman said. Even more incredible is the incompetence and depraved malice displayed by members of the warpath.

Like not understanding reasonable doubt, and being so certain that someone should be convicted because of a lack of evidence? Yes, your depravity amazes me. Your incompetence, well not surprised there since our debates on soda bans and other stuff.

edit: Not to mention the depravity on goading betting in a murder trial. Kind of macabre if you ask me.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by saden1

Zimmerman's story is incredible! I literally have to suspend my common sense to believe anything Zimmerman said. Even more incredible is the incompetence and depraved malice displayed by members of the warpath.

To any objective individual, my alternate explanation of what might have occurred that evening is no more incredible than yours where you assume malice by GZ at every instance.

The only incompetence is yours in your idiotic attempt to manipulate the law contrary to the written jury instructions so that it fits your version of events. As for depraved malice, your twisted, prejudiced mind will clearly find malice in any one who fails to accept the world according to saden1.

[HailGreen28]

Really interested in how many "kids" and how many "teens" people see in the last pic I posted. I would actually call them all "kids" as a group, but would call the two older boys in the foreground "teens" rather than "kids" by themselves. Bet it would break down by sides taken in this case.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by saden1

Put your money where your mouth is, bitch.

Stay classy, saden1.

[saden1]

8 hour of deliberating...not a good sign for the defense.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by saden1

8 hour of deliberating...not a good sign for the defense.

lol ... for you, nothing is a good sign for the defense.

The prosecutor could have walked up at closing, taken a dump and you would still be extolling his
brilliance.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by HailGreen28

Really interested in how many "kids" and how many "teens" people see in the last pic I posted. I would actually call them all "kids" as a group, but would call the two older boys in the foreground "teens" rather than "kids" by themselves. Bet it would break down by sides taken in this case.

From a legal stance he is not an adult. Whether u like it or not its matters. Your wasting time from legal sense tray is not an adult

[CRedskinsRule]

outside the courthouse

Chico, I disagree about the adult/child designation. At 17, if the role was reversed, he would have been charged as an adult. From 16-21 our country is awash in mixed signals about minor vs adult, but when someone uses the term "child" for a 17 yo teen male, it's a tad misleading. This coming from the father of a 16 yo teen "boy".

[JoeRedskin]

For this case, the only question is whether or not TM was physically capable of putting a beat down on GZ - regardless of whether you call him a "kid" "child" "teen" "young man" or "banana".

[skinsfaninok]

When u are 17 you are a young man, not a child.

[JoeRedskin]

It would appear murder 2 is off the table. Jury is asking for a clarification on the instructions for manslaughter.

I bet it has something to do with the intent needed. General intent to cause harm or specific intent to harm a particular person. Pure speculation on my part.

[skinsfaninok]

I think he gets manslaughter and is out of prison in 5 yrs