Trayvon Martin

[greg775]

Based on the evidence available, the laws in Florida basically say its legal. It's obviously more complicated, but that's the gist of it.

 

Interesting.

You think this guy Zimmerman will have to go into exile like Casey Anthony? I mean a kook might try to kill him, but still MURDER IS ILLEGAL. Whomever kills him will serve life in jail or get the death penalty. A good friend of mine was murdered years ago. The guy is in jail for life, but has gotten into a lot of trouble in jail and is still trying to escape from time to time. He's a bad motherf***er. But would I kill him if I had the chance? Hell no. I don't want to serve life in jail or get fried.

Edited July 15, 2013 by greg775

[IlliniKrush]

http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1rlc0bv

 

Jason Alexander on why it just shouldn't have happened to begin with.

Edited July 15, 2013 by IlliniKrush

[StrangeSox]

Seeing as this was a legal case, I would call that relevant.

Zimmerman wasn't charged with stalking, though

[StrangeSox]

Trayvon Martin And The Irony Of American Justice

more from ta-nehisi coates

 

In trying to assess the the killing of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman, two seemingly conflicted truths emerge for me. The first is that is that based on the case presented by the state, and based on Florida law, George Zimmerman should not have been convicted of second degree murder or manslaughter. The second is that the killing of Trayvon Martin is a profound injustice.

 

The injustice inherent in the killing of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman was not authored by jury given a weak case. The jury's performance may be the least disturbing aspect of this entire affair. The injustice was authored by a country which has taken as its policy, for lionshare of its history, to erect a pariah class. The killing of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman is not an error in programming. It is the correct result of forces we set in motion years ago and have done very little to arrest.

Edited July 15, 2013 by StrangeSox

[cabiness42]

I agree 100% with that quote above. I don't see any way that there was enough evidence to warrant a murder conviction, and probably not enough evidence to bring murder charges in the first place.

 

I also fully believe that Zimmerman made some very poor decisions and those poor decisions lead to Martin's death. I'm not enough of a Florida legal expert to determine which is the case, but either (a) the state screwed up in not pursuing the appropriate charges for this case or (b) Florida law is so poor that Zimmerman couldn't be legally held accountable.

[Y2HH]

I agree 100% with that quote above. I don't see any way that there was enough evidence to warrant a murder conviction, and probably not enough evidence to bring murder charges in the first place.

 

I also fully believe that Zimmerman made some very poor decisions and those poor decisions lead to Martin's death. I'm not enough of a Florida legal expert to determine which is the case, but either (a) the state screwed up in not pursuing the appropriate charges for this case or (b) Florida law is so poor that Zimmerman couldn't be legally held accountable.

 

Agreed.

 

In the end, there wasn't enough evidence to find Zimmerman guilty of the charges brought against him based on the laws as they exist in Florida. However, there also isn't enough evidence to find Zimmerman completely innocent, either.

 

This sad series of events has ruined countless lives, and has further damaged already poor race relations in this country. I honestly wish people would get over the color of their f***ing skin already.

[Jenksismyhero]

There was no strategy here. According to FL basic criminal law, there was never a case. The lack of a conviction isn't the problem. It is the law.

 

Fixed. Not sure why people keep making this about Florida. The same law applies just about everywhere.

[Balta1701]

Fixed. Not sure why people keep making this about Florida. The same law applies just about everywhere.

Which means that the laws everywhere are f***ed up and this kind of event isn't just a unique accident of one state.

[Y2HH]

Which means that the laws everywhere are f***ed up and this kind of event isn't just a unique accident of one state.

 

Well, they pretty much are.

 

When you have a government that writes laws specifically designed to "raise revenue", which translates to "taking additional money from citizens that probably can't afford it", does it really surprise you that they'd write vague laws like this which allow something like this to happen in the first place? After they nearly collapsed the world economy and not a single person (that I know of) went to jail for it...not much surprises me about our system of laws and loopholes anymore.

[Balta1701]

Well, they pretty much are.

 

When you have a government that writes laws specifically designed to "raise revenue", which translates to "taking additional money from citizens that probably can't afford it", does it really surprise you that they'd write vague laws like this which allow something like this to happen in the first place? After they nearly collapsed the world economy and not a single person (that I know of) went to jail for it...not much surprises me about our system of laws and loopholes anymore.

What in the world kind of comparison is that? "A government writes laws that increase money going into the government to pay for various things done by government. Therefore, the government should also write laws allowing random wannabe vigilantes to gun down people on the streets with impunity".

[Jenksismyhero]

I don't think the answer here is more statutory law. We have enough words written on paper to address the situation adequately. What we didn't have here was evidence sufficient to support a murder charge.

[Balta1701]

The shows the government that you speak of isn't above writing laws that will harm a person, financially...OR physically.

 

Sorry I had to connect the dots for you. Perhaps it's high time you start thinking for yourself now.

Thanks for the cheap shot. Really classy.

[Balta1701]

I don't think the answer here is more statutory law. We have enough words written on paper to address the situation adequately. What we didn't have here was evidence sufficient to support a murder charge.

Clearly we did not have the laws on paper to make this act illegal.

[Y2HH]

Clearly we did not have the laws on paper to make this act illegal.

 

That's the point I just made. No, quite the opposite. There are laws on paper that made this LEGAL.

[Jenksismyhero]

Clearly we did not have the laws on paper to make this act illegal.

 

What would the law say? Instigating fights negates self-defense, that's already law. I know in your dream world concealed carry wouldn't be legal, but that's not happening so there's no change there. So what, if you disobey 911 operators you lose your self-defense rights? Really? Is that where we want to go?

 

 

[lostfan]

Guys let's stop with the personal invective, and if you see a s*** post you don't like that's not addressed to you, just ignore it.

[Y2HH]

Guys let's stop with the personal invective, and if you see a s*** post you don't like that's not addressed to you, just ignore it.

 

You're right...agreed and removed.

 

As I said coming into this thread yesterday, I knew I should have just avoided it...emotions are just wayyyy to high to have a real conversation about this at this point.

[MexSoxFan#1]

It shows the government that you speak of isn't above writing laws that will harm a person, financially...OR physically. It baffles me how you'd think they'd be ok writing laws that allow them to steal in the financial markets, but they'd stop short of writing laws that you're speaking of now.

 

Sorry I had to connect the dots for you. Perhaps it's high time you start thinking for yourself now.

I love how Y2HH was pontificating about avoiding this thread because of the insults being hurled by both sides and then without provocation, throws an insult at another poster...hooray for consistency

[Balta1701]

What would the law say? Instigating fights negates self-defense, that's already law. I know in your dream world concealed carry wouldn't be legal, but that's not happening so there's no change there. So what, if you disobey 911 operators you lose your self-defense rights? Really? Is that where we want to go?

No, 911 operators shouldn't get that kind of responsibility. They're people to, a 911 operator shouldn't be in a position of having to give legal advice where if something is heard improperly they could face legal liability.

 

You'd pretty rapidly shut down 911 services if the operators had to go through legal training and faced legal repercussions for their statements.

 

Like I said, you've hit the nail on the head. This is a case of a wannabe vigilante with a gun. People are allowed to imagine themselves being batman. People are allowed to do stupid, aggressive things, like chasing after people unwisely. That might border on illegal but it's hard to see how following a person should be illegal.

 

The only thing that makes this case a tragedy is the presence of a gun. You can't legislate away a person fantasizing about being a hero. You can't legislate a guy's right to walk down the street, you can't legislate away the kid's right to defend himself if a guy is actually following him.

 

This kid is collateral damage from our gun culture, just like the hundreds of other kids accidentally killed by guns every year in this country.

[witesoxfan]

Seems to me this case is going to be one of the times we are thankful this country has two systems in which they can prosecute another. There was not enough evidence to state that Zimmerman killed Martin in cold blood, and frankly, he was doing what he needed to ensure he was not killed, thus, they could not convict him criminally of this crime. But, had Zimmerman not gotten involved, Martin would still be alive, so there is absolutely a wrongful death involved here.

 

I'm guessing the civil suit is going to be much stronger and much more likely to lead to a conviction. As has been mentioned, Zimmerman was found not guilty, which is not the same as innocent. We know he shot and killed Martin. Due to the level of guilt, if tried in a civil court, he very well could/should be found guilty and the Zimmerman family will owe a great deal of money to the Martin family.

 

I don't feel that letting Zimmerman out would be the same as letting Jason Holmes out. This isn't a psychotic lunatic who is bound to kill again. I believe he was a vigilante who got in over his head and made a snap decision that cost another human being their life, and that is incredibly unfortuante. He should still be tried civilly, because there is absolutely some level of guilt here that should be dealt with.

[lostfan]

What would the law say? Instigating fights negates self-defense, that's already law. I know in your dream world concealed carry wouldn't be legal, but that's not happening so there's no change there. So what, if you disobey 911 operators you lose your self-defense rights? Really? Is that where we want to go?

So now let's say that Trayvon was 18 not 17, and he was carrying an actual gun and not just pictures of ones in his phone (it's funny to me that the pro-Zimmerman crowd had a problem with THAT, it's ok for some people to have guns and not others, kinda says it all but anyway). Then let's say he was being followed and then confronted (which he feels is threatening), so at what point does he get to claim he was acting in his own defense? Leaving aside exactly what happened because we don't know and and whether he was right or wrong to escalate because it's irrelevant, if he kills Zimmerman and goes to trial - definitely would happen despite the alternate reality Zimmerman's lawyer seems to live in where Zimmerman wouldn't even be arrested if he was black - is a jury going to come to the same conclusion and find him not guilty because the state couldn't prove its case completely? I have very little confidence in that kind of outcome. Black men get put on death row on less.

[lostfan]

I love how Y2HH was pontificating about avoiding this thread because of the insults being hurled by both sides and then without provocation, throws an insult at another poster...hooray for consistency

This is what I mean - come on just let it go. We'll let your "f*** you" a couple pages ago slide too.

[Balta1701]

What would the law say? Instigating fights negates self-defense, that's already law. I know in your dream world concealed carry wouldn't be legal, but that's not happening so there's no change there. So what, if you disobey 911 operators you lose your self-defense rights? Really? Is that where we want to go?

Would it be possible to legislate additional responsibility upon people who do choose to carry a concealed weapon? Basically, in the case of an armed person, raise the standard for what is a "Self defense shooting" significantly? Make this type of person actually have legal consequences if they don't stop and size up the situation before taking the shot.

 

I really have no idea how this could work, but if you won't give me "Get the gun out of his hands in the first place" as an option, then weakening his authority to shoot (the opposite of what SYG laws are doing) is about all I have left.

[Y2HH]

I love how Y2HH was pontificating about avoiding this thread because of the insults being hurled by both sides and then without provocation, throws an insult at another poster...hooray for consistency

 

I also agreed with Lostfan and deleted the posts. It was wrong of me.

 

Furthermore, I'd like to apologize to Balta for the cheap shot, he's right, it was a classless act.

Edited July 15, 2013 by Y2HH

[Jenksismyhero]

No, 911 operators shouldn't get that kind of responsibility. They're people to, a 911 operator shouldn't be in a position of having to give legal advice where if something is heard improperly they could face legal liability.

 

You'd pretty rapidly shut down 911 services if the operators had to go through legal training and faced legal repercussions for their statements.

 

Like I said, you've hit the nail on the head. This is a case of a wannabe vigilante with a gun. People are allowed to imagine themselves being batman. People are allowed to do stupid, aggressive things, like chasing after people unwisely. That might border on illegal but it's hard to see how following a person should be illegal.

 

The only thing that makes this case a tragedy is the presence of a gun. You can't legislate away a person fantasizing about being a hero. You can't legislate a guy's right to walk down the street, you can't legislate away the kid's right to defend himself if a guy is actually following him.

 

This kid is collateral damage from our gun culture, just like the hundreds of other kids accidentally killed by guns every year in this country.

 

So, again, the murder and self defense laws are just fine, you just don't like people having guns. This, despite the fact that every state has concealed carry laws now, there are hundreds of thousands of people walking around with a gun right now, and practically none of them are vigilante wannabes that shoot people.