Trayvon Martin Case

[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]

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.

[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?

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Ignoring <SNIP>

Well stated, JR.

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

[Chico23231]

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

[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.

[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'.

[Chico23231]

"these assholes, they always get away"

-Zim

Not this time buddy, you got'tem.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

"these assholes, they always get away"

-Zim

Not this time buddy, you got'tem.

He was talking about the people in the past that have broken into a house, car, etc... and I agree most of the time they do get away. Funy you seem to point that out but ignore the racial slur of Martin.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by firstdown

He was talking about the people in the past that have broken into a house, car, etc... and I agree most of the time they do get away. Funy you seem to point that out but ignore the racial slur of Martin.

FD, was Trayvon breaking into houses, cars, etc?

[Chico23231]

I like that quote above, because in Zimmerman's mind he's already convicted Trayvon.

And it was time to dish out the punishment.

That's justice for ya

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

I like that quote above, because in Zimmerman's mind he's already convicted Trayvon.

And it was time to dish out the punishment.

That's justice for ya

I shall defer to your incredible ability to read minds and acertain others' thoughts with incrediblle clarity and 100% certainty. It is a gift for I - even if I think what you say is more likely true than not - can only speculate as to what GZ was thinking and, thus, reasonably doubt the accuracy of my own conclusions.

Again, I recommend the Ox-Bow Incident.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

I shall defer to your incredible ability to read minds and acertain others' thoughts with incrediblle clarity and 100% certainty. It is a gift for I - even if I think what you say is more likely true than not - can only speculate as to what GZ was thinking and, thus, reasonably doubt the accuracy of my own conclusions.

Again, I recommend the Ox-Bow Incident.

Seriously Joe? So just disregard that statement? Give me a break. The trial suffers from lack of evidence to find out why and how, but this statement given clearly over the phone is an indication what Zim was thinking. He's convicting Trayvon in his mind and he's tired of people getting away with crime. Its intent. period

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

Seriously Joe? So just disregard that statement? Give me a break. The trial suffers from lack of evidence to find out why and how, but this statement given clearly over the phone is an indication what Zim was thinking. He's convicting Trayvon in his mind and he's tired of people getting away with crime. Its intent. period

"This statement ... is an indication of what Zim was thinking." Absolutely, I agree. The key being "an indication".

"He's convicting Travon in his mind and he's tired of people getting away with crime.": Convicting Trayvon? Maybe, maybe not. I agree, it is more likely than not that - at that moment - he is assuming Martin is another vandal/criminal in the neighborhood. Further, it is more likely than not that this was not just a momentary, passing belief as the night proceeded. BUT ... So what? Was this conclusion, in and of itself, illegal? Based on his past experiences and the fact that recent break-ins had been perpetrated by black youths, was it a perception with no basis? It may have been incorrect, but was it irrational?

At the same time, unlikely as it seems, we both may be completely wrong in the assumptions we are making ... it may be a simple statement of frustration of the crimes he has experienced in his neighborhood unrelated to Trayvon - He didn't, for example, say "This kid always gets away" or "This is the guy and he always gets away" or any of a number of other statements which would more clearly state what you assert.

"It's intent. Period." Really, of what? That he is going to stop Trayvon from getting away? That he has specifically angry at Trayvon as opposed to others "who got away"? That he is angry that others actually did get away? That he will use whatever force necessary to restrain Trayvon until the police get here? Even it is a statement evidencing one of these - or some other - intent, how long does he hold this specific intent identified after this brief statement? Ten seconds? A minute? All the way through the engagment? Is it possible the specific intent you think he felt morphed into a different less sinister intent prior to the engagement. Does your every momentary expression anger and/or frustration guide your thoughts for an entire evening. Have you ever said something in the heat of the moment then, five minutes later, realized you may have been wrong?

To me, extrapolating anything beyond GZ's immediate belief that Trayvon is likely one of the kids responsible for recent break-ins is a HUGE speculative leap from the (more likely than not) reasonable assumption of GZ's belief which you state. We don't know if, in the moments before confronting TM, he questioned that belief - you certainly think he did not. For you, the one brief statement of anger and frustration is enough to assume GZ carried it on throughout the engagment. This is where you rely on speculation as to GZ's state of mind to fill in gaps in the events.

Again, to me, that statement is indicative of, and only of, exactly what you initially assert, anger and frustration over recent burglaries and a belief that TM is likely one of those responsible. That, however, in and of itself, is not indicative of an intent to physically assault or confront Martin. It may be, it may also be indicative of an intent to simply make sure he never loses sight of Martin. Hell, it may even be indicative of a resignation that "they" are likely to get away again this time and he is powerless to prevent it.

You read what you want into it, you are entitled to do so. Just don't tell me that you conclusion is anything better than an educated guess based on your personal perceptions of the individuals involved. You perceive, and have always perceived, GZ a gun-toting coward and TM as an innocent skittles eating kid and any gap in the timeline or thought process is filed in based on that perspective. Certainly, that is what it has seemed to me.

You're angry that TM died and it appears the guy you think is ultimately responsible may get off with no jail time. Fine, that is an entirely understandable emotion.

To me, however, regardless of the ensuing frustration no one should go to jail based on another's educated guesses.