The Murder of Trayvon Martin

[MaryPoppins]

When I said a wrongful death earlier, I was not taking "criminal" murder, but moral and ethical. While I wish he could be held culpable for murder, I am not surprised at this outcome. The burden of proof is high, as it should be.

[*winter*]

This is horrible and if it indicates the direction our country is moving in, I'm genuinely afraid for all of our children...

From someone with a military/civil disobedience background... Let's say that GZ really was fearful for his life. There isn't just "walk away" and "shoot to kill." Oh can shoot the person in the leg, so that they cannot pursue you, but you aren't killing them. This would have been a viable option- it's what we were always taught (stateside). It is not necessary to kill the person to ensure your own safety.

I honestly believe GZ will eventually kill someone else. There is something psychologically wrong with that man...

[Sen's Revenge]

Originally Posted by *winter*

This is horrible and if it indicates the direction our country is moving in, I'm genuinely afraid for all of our children...

From someone with a military/civil disobedience background... Let's say that GZ really was fearful for his life. There isn't just "walk away" and "shoot to kill." Oh can shoot the person in the leg, so that they cannot pursue you, but you aren't killing them. This would have been a viable option- it's what we were always taught (stateside). It is not necessary to kill the person to ensure your own safety.

I honestly believe GZ will eventually kill someone else. There is something psychologically wrong with that man...

I agree with all of this.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by MaryPoppins

When I said a wrongful death earlier, I was not taking "criminal" murder, but moral and ethical. While I wish he could be held culpable for murder, I am not surprised at this outcome. The burden of proof is high, as it should be.

The burden of proof is even higher when you have a ridiculous law like "stand your ground" on the books.

[MaryPoppins]

^^^^ I agree *winter*. And I believe this will also cause a rash of similar deaths. IMHO,

[Kevin]

Any backlash should be against the NRA.

[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...

[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

[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."

[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.