The Murder of Trayvon Martin

[AGDLynn]

Fascinated about the post-court interview with the prosecutors. Amused how cheerful and polite the lead prosecutor was...reminds me of a Southern party where the hostess wants everyone to have a good time...

[TonyB06]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Any backlash should be against the NRA.

Yes. I heard Florida's chief NRA lobbyist in Florida is jokingly referred to around Tallahassee as "the Governor."

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by AGDLynn

Fascinated about the post-court interview with the prosecutors. Amused how cheerful and polite the lead prosecutor was...reminds me of a Southern party where the hostess wants everyone to have a good time...

Politicians being politicians.

She was in the courtroom everyday (almost everyday?) and many people had no idea who she was and that she was even in the courtroom. In other words, commentators believe her cheerful demeanor at this post-verdict interview is indicative of her perspective on this case. She considered herself to be playing both sides with the hope of remaining neutral enough to not ruin her political career. She made the trial happen--which is what she promised Trayvon Martin's family--but she, herself, perhaps did not go above and beyond the call of duty. She did just enough with perhaps the understanding that the prosecution would not have enough to convict. Therefore, her constituency would not be pissed at her (many, if not most, of whom believed Zimmerman is not at fault) and her political life is safe. As for the supporters of the Martin family who are pissed about the verdict, most of them do not know who in the hell this Lead Prosecutor is.

I agree with *winter* but am not shocked by the verdict. I hope there will be a civil suit which does not have the same burden of proof as the criminal suit. That is how things happened with O.J. Simpson. I am happy there has not been violent protest, with exception for a few idiots in Oakland who broke some windows and tried to start some street fires but even they were calmed by police.

[DrPhil]

This isn't the first time the NRA can kiss my ass but they can definitely kiss my ass now. *insert my words that MysticCat quoted*

And this gym can deeeeeeeply, romannnnntically, and intennnnnnnnsely kiss my ass:

So...uhhh...you testify in a court of law that George Zimmerman was an out of shape wimp who couldn't fight despite your attempts to train him. Then...uhhh...you market yourself as George Zimmerman's gym. Uh...but...I thought you can't make nonfighters into fighters and you can't stop people from sucking at defending themselves. Uhhh...I smell shit...undoubtedly from this gym kissing my ass.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3579830.html



***
ETA: http://www.forwardprogressives.com/t...rayvon-martin/

I agree with the gist of this article

[ASUADPi]

disclaimer: I can absolutely guarantee that someone isn't going to like what I have to say. The least you can be is RESPECTFUL. I haven't quoted anyone. I haven't called anyone out on their opinion, all I've done is stated mine.

Let's not turn this thread into a train-wreck that has to be closed because we can't respect others opinions.

I am probably one of the few people on this thread that thinks that the prosecution didn't have enough evidence to take to trial, let alone convict. The prosecution was forced, due to media and society pressure, to take it to trial (the same can be said about Casey Anthony). When you are taking someone to trial with not enough hard evidence to make your case, chances are that it leaves room for reasonable doubt. What I know about the case, I wouldn't have been able to convict.

But my friend on facebook made a wonderful point, that people are just plain forgetting.....

"Anyone know why Treyvon had the right to defend himself against George in the alley for following him but George was not supposed to have the right to defend himself against Treyvon for attacking him?"

You can't have it both ways. You can't say that Treyvon was allowed defend himself when George was following him, but that George wasn't allowed to defend himself when Treyvon was attacking him.

Just like George should have listened to the 9-1-1 operator and not have engaged Treyvon. Treyvon should have gotten off the phone with the girl and called 9-1-1, not attack George.

Everyone is really good about blaming George, because he's alive. God forbid we put any blame on Treyvon because he's dead. They both made choices that weren't correct.

[ASTalumna06]

Originally Posted by ASUADPi

disclaimer: I can absolutely guarantee that someone isn't going to like what I have to say. The least you can be is RESPECTFUL. I haven't quoted anyone. I haven't called anyone out on their opinion, all I've done is stated mine.

Let's not turn this thread into a train-wreck that has to be closed because we can't respect others opinions.

I am probably one of the few people on this thread that thinks that the prosecution didn't have enough evidence to take to trial, let alone convict. The prosecution was forced, due to media and society pressure, to take it to trial (the same can be said about Casey Anthony). When you are taking someone to trial with not enough hard evidence to make your case, chances are that it leaves room for reasonable doubt. What I know about the case, I wouldn't have been able to convict.

But my friend on facebook made a wonderful point, that people are just plain forgetting.....

"Anyone know why Treyvon had the right to defend himself against George in the alley for following him but George was not supposed to have the right to defend himself against Treyvon for attacking him?"

You can't have it both ways. You can't say that Treyvon was allowed defend himself when George was following him, but that George wasn't allowed to defend himself when Treyvon was attacking him.

Just like George should have listened to the 9-1-1 operator and not have engaged Treyvon. Treyvon should have gotten off the phone with the girl and called 9-1-1, not attack George.

Everyone is really good about blaming George, because he's alive. God forbid we put any blame on Treyvon because he's dead. They both made choices that weren't correct.

I agree with this completely.

The general public wanted this to be an open and shut case, and based on the media attention and the way that the situation was presented, it looked as though it should be.

However, this is how our judicial system works - innocent until PROVEN guilty. The prosecution simply couldn't prove that this was cold-blooded murder. As with most of these high-profile cases, we'll most likely never know all the facts.

And so it goes...

[amIblue?]

Originally Posted by ASUADPi

disclaimer: I can absolutely guarantee that someone isn't going to like what I have to say. The least you can be is RESPECTFUL. I haven't quoted anyone. I haven't called anyone out on their opinion, all I've done is stated mine.

Let's not turn this thread into a train-wreck that has to be closed because we can't respect others opinions.

I am probably one of the few people on this thread that thinks that the prosecution didn't have enough evidence to take to trial, let alone convict. The prosecution was forced, due to media and society pressure, to take it to trial (the same can be said about Casey Anthony). When you are taking someone to trial with not enough hard evidence to make your case, chances are that it leaves room for reasonable doubt. What I know about the case, I wouldn't have been able to convict.

But my friend on facebook made a wonderful point, that people are just plain forgetting.....

"Anyone know why Treyvon had the right to defend himself against George in the alley for following him but George was not supposed to have the right to defend himself against Treyvon for attacking him?"

You can't have it both ways. You can't say that Treyvon was allowed defend himself when George was following him, but that George wasn't allowed to defend himself when Treyvon was attacking him.

Just like George should have listened to the 9-1-1 operator and not have engaged Treyvon. Treyvon should have gotten off the phone with the girl and called 9-1-1, not attack George.

Everyone is really good about blaming George, because he's alive. God forbid we put any blame on Treyvon because he's dead. They both made choices that weren't correct.

With all due respect, I think all kinds of blame has been put on Trayvon through the course of the investigation and coverage of the trial. Much has been made of his FB postings (some photos purported to be him that have gone around the internet aren't even of him) and troubles in school. From what I can tell, his crimes that night were walking to the convenience store and being black. (The horrors!)

To your point about GZ's right to defend himself, from my understanding (which is not exhaustive by any nature of the case) we only have Zimmerman's testimony that Trayvon started the physical contact. You know, because Trayvon is dead. From my understanding, there were witnesses once the fight was on, but not for who threw the first punch. Please feel free to send me verifiable sources showing otherwise.

I do think that the prosecution handled this case poorly. I don't believe that they had enough evidence for 2nd degree murder as I understand the law. I suppose they sought the higher charge due to political pressures.

There are no winners, and my heart breaks for Trayvon's parents and family. I honestly could give two *&^s about Zimmerman because he brought this whole thing on himself.

[ASTalumna06]

Originally Posted by amIblue?

From what I can tell, his crimes that night were walking to the convenience store and being black. (The horrors!)

Why does this always have to be about race?

To your point about GZ's right to defend himself, from my understanding (which is not exhaustive by any nature of the case) we only have Zimmerman's testimony that Trayvon started the physical contact. You know, because Trayvon is dead. From my understanding, there were witnesses once the fight was on, but not for who threw the first punch.

This is the point. There wasn't enough to convict, because the details aren't clear. Therefore, he was found not guilty.

[amIblue?]

Originally Posted by ASTalumna06

Why does this always have to be about race?

Do you honestly believe that it isn't? I am asking with respect and sincerity. I do know that my black friends were subjected to different levels of scrutiny when we were out and about growing up. I have seen with my own eyes the double standard that exists in our society. If you haven't witnessed it, then count yourself blessed, but just because you haven't witnessed it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by ASTalumna06

Why does this always have to be about race?

GZ made it about race. From the way I understand the event, GZ essentially profiled Trayvon because he was a young Black male out at night walking in a hoodie.

I seriously doubt GZ would have done what he did had Trayvon been White or Hispanic.

This is the point. There wasn't enough to convict, because the details aren't clear. Therefore, he was found not guilty.

No, there was not enough to convict. I think what is making people upset about the outcome was that GZ did not have to approach Trayvon, and thus kill him.

GZ took the law into his own hands when it really was not necessary.

[LaneSig]

Originally Posted by ASUADPi

disclaimer: I can absolutely guarantee that someone isn't going to like what I have to say. The least you can be is RESPECTFUL. I haven't quoted anyone. I haven't called anyone out on their opinion, all I've done is stated mine.

Let's not turn this thread into a train-wreck that has to be closed because we can't respect others opinions.

I am probably one of the few people on this thread that thinks that the prosecution didn't have enough evidence to take to trial, let alone convict. The prosecution was forced, due to media and society pressure, to take it to trial (the same can be said about Casey Anthony). When you are taking someone to trial with not enough hard evidence to make your case, chances are that it leaves room for reasonable doubt. What I know about the case, I wouldn't have been able to convict.

But my friend on facebook made a wonderful point, that people are just plain forgetting.....

"Anyone know why Treyvon had the right to defend himself against George in the alley for following him but George was not supposed to have the right to defend himself against Treyvon for attacking him?"

You can't have it both ways. You can't say that Treyvon was allowed defend himself when George was following him, but that George wasn't allowed to defend himself when Treyvon was attacking him.

Just like George should have listened to the 9-1-1 operator and not have engaged Treyvon. Treyvon should have gotten off the phone with the girl and called 9-1-1, not attack George.

Everyone is really good about blaming George, because he's alive. God forbid we put any blame on Treyvon because he's dead. They both made choices that weren't correct.

Yes, George Zimmerman had the right to defend himself when Trayvon attacked him. Too bad that Trayvon couldn't be at the trial to tell his side of the story.

No one knows who threw the first punch. Oh, wait, two people know. But, one couldn't be at the trial.

And, with all due respect, your last line looks like you are blaming Trayvon (and please, check the spelling of his name) for his own death. What did Trayvon do? He made a decision to walk to a store and buy some goodies. He made the decision to walk home with his hoodie up while talking on his cell phone.

George Zimmerman made a decision that a teenager (and I will take race out of it for this argument - but, please know that not for one minute do I believe that race didn't play a huge role in this) walking down a street, wearing a hooded sweatshirt, talking on his phone, was up to no good and suspicious. All of George Zimmerman's choices and decisions from that moment led to what happened.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by ASUADPi

disclaimer: I can absolutely guarantee that someone isn't going to like what I have to say. The least you can be is RESPECTFUL. I haven't quoted anyone. I haven't called anyone out on their opinion, all I've done is stated mine.

Let's not turn this thread into a train-wreck that has to be closed because we can't respect others opinions.

It is best to avoid these types of disclaimers. In addition to potentially insulting people's intelligence, you prepare people for an outlandish, groundbreaking, potentially offensive, or shocking statement. There was nothing outlandish, groundbreaking, potentially offensive or shocking about your post. I disagree with much of it but not because it is outlandish, groundbreaking, potentially offensive, or shocking.

Originally Posted by ASUADPi

I am probably one of the few people on this thread that thinks that the prosecution didn't have enough evidence to take to trial, let alone convict. The prosecution was forced, due to media and society pressure, to take it to trial (the same can be said about Casey Anthony). When you are taking someone to trial with not enough hard evidence to make your case, chances are that it leaves room for reasonable doubt. What I know about the case, I wouldn't have been able to convict.

But my friend on facebook made a wonderful point, that people are just plain forgetting.....

"Anyone know why Treyvon had the right to defend himself against George in the alley for following him but George was not supposed to have the right to defend himself against Treyvon for attacking him?"

You can't have it both ways. You can't say that Treyvon was allowed defend himself when George was following him, but that George wasn't allowed to defend himself when Treyvon was attacking him.

Just like George should have listened to the 9-1-1 operator and not have engaged Treyvon. Treyvon should have gotten off the phone with the girl and called 9-1-1, not attack George.

Everyone is really good about blaming George, because he's alive. God forbid we put any blame on Treyvon because he's dead. They both made choices that weren't correct.

Yeah, some of us agree the prosecution did not have enough evidence to meet their burden of proof. Some of us acknowledged that some of our thoughts on this case were not properly introduced by the prosecution or proven in a court of law. The defense went above and beyond but the onus was on the prosecution.

As for what Martin should have done, that is subjective as is what constitutes "stand your ground." That is one of the many criticisms of laws that take self-defense to the next level. I, as an individual, cannot tell everyone in the world when they should feel threatened nor can I tell everyone with 100% certainty what they should do 100% of the time. Should Trayvon Martin have gotten off the phone with his friend and called 911? In hindsight, MAYBE. We can all think of things that we do and in hindsight we are like "oh crap, that could have gone HORRIBLY wrong." When someone is walking to the car late at night and they get nervous and stay on the phone with a friend...should they call 911 instead? Hmmmm...the what ifs are endless in life. The only difference is that we know the outcome in the Martin-Zimmerman altercation. And he still could've been shot and killed if he called 911. People get shot and killed after calling 911 all the time. Hell...Zimmerman, himself, shot and killed someone after calling 911. Talk about 911 not saving the day....

Victim precipitation is victim precipitation. It is not victim blame. People precipitate their own victimization all of the time. Martin precipitated his own victimization. But, to blame Martin is to place the onus on the person who, although he may have been a good ass kicker, did not have a gun. I refuse to believe that it JUST SO HAPPENS that Zimmerman had a gun (the #1 facilitating factor for crime and violence) and ended up shooting and killing someone. The logic doesn't follow but the burden of proof requires evidence beyond what I consider to be logical.

On that note, I would like for people to think about what they would do if they were minding their own business and someone seemed to be following them. Then that person sits in the car and watches you OR comes up to you and asks you where you're going. Yeah...I'm a smartass already and I can tell you that if I felt I couldn't get away, even if I called 911, I may find a way to cuss the person out and may feel as though I was about to fight for my life. Again, even if Martin punched Zimmerman first, I believe Martin could have felt that he was defending his life. I refuse to believe that Zimmerman was innocently surveying the area and JUST SO HAPPENED to have a gun.

Martin: *turns around and walks up to Zimmerman* Why are you following me?
Zimmerman: Uh...I'm neighborhood watch...where are you walking to?
Martin: Kick rocks, dude, why are you following me?
Zimmerman: Uh...I mean you no harm...blessings to you....
Martin: *punch*
Zimmerman: *getting his head banged on the street...somehow they end up in the grass (hmmmm....)* Oh shit, I FORGOT I HAD THIS GUN!!!!! I can't fight...so...BANG BANG BITCH!

Yeah...the prosecutors sucked (as do many attorneys hired by the state--money and politics, etc.) but I just don't believe the above scenario is how it really happened.

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

On that note, I would like for people to think about what they would if they were minding their own business and someone seemed to be following them. Then that person sits in the car and watches you OR comes up to you and asks you where you're going. Yeah...I'm a smartass already and I can tell you that if I felt I couldn't get away, even if I called 911, I may find a way to cuss the person out and may feel as though I was about to fight for my life. Again, even if Martin punched Zimmerman first, I believe Martin could have felt that he was defending his life. I refuse to believe that Zimmerman was innocently surveying the area and JUST SO HAPPENED to have a gun.

Martin: *turns around and walks up to Zimmerman* Why are you following me?
Zimmerman: Uh...I'm neighborhood watch...where are you walking to?
Martin: Kick rocks, dude, why are you following me?
Zimmerman: Uh...I mean you no harm...blessings to you....
Martin: *punch*
Zimmerman: *getting his head banged on the street...somehow they end up in the grass (hmmmm....)* Oh shit, I FORGOT I HAD THIS GUN!!!!! I can't fight...so...BANG BANG BITCH!

Yeah...the prosecutors sucked (as do many attorneys hired by the state) but I just don't believe that is how it happened.

+1

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by ASTalumna06

However, this is how our judicial system works - innocent until PROVEN guilty.

Of course. Then again, where was Trayvon Martin's trial? Zimmerman made himself the police, attorney, judge, and jury for Trayvon Martin.

I know the above can be said for all alleged self-defense (and the awful Stand Your Ground laws) situations. We are talking about Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman in this thread.

It isn't just the general public who has issues with the outcome. There are attorneys and legal experts, some of whom sat in the courtroom everyday, who have issues with the outcome.

Originally Posted by ASTalumna06

Why does this always have to be about race?

Martin seemed to fit the profile of the alleged burglars in the neighborhood. That was a race, gender, and age profile.

People confuse the existence of a profile with permission to racially profile. I know the profile for all types of crimes, white men of certain ages fit quite a few of these profiles. I do not racially profile white men in the offchance they are about to commit one of these offenses.

[33girl]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

People confuse the existence of a profile with permission to racially profile. I know the profile for all types of crimes, white men of certain ages fit quite a few of these profiles. I do not racially profile white men in the offchance they are about to commit one of these offenses.

Cough cough serial killers cough cough. This is why the Aileen Wuornos case took so long to solve. She didn't fit the profile. If people would have thought outside the box her crimes might have been fewer.