Murder or Travyon Martin

From the facts that we know, should George Zimmerman be charged with murder?

  • Yes

    Votes: 23 46.0%
  • No

    Votes: 27 54.0%

  • Total voters
    50
Status
Not open for further replies.
What other side of the story could there be? Unarmed kid packing a king size bag of skittles gets chased ,confronted,beat up,shot and killed ...all the while his attacker is muttering racial slurs while on the phone with officials who are telling him not to pursue and the police will handle it. Look at the photos of these two do you think that 28 year old armed man was afraid of this 17 year old kid ? He didn't sound fearful in the phone conversations, he didn't flee,seek cover,help or any sort of assistance other then simply notifying police of his plans.

This guy saw too many YouTube vids of gas station attendants taking out robbers and thought he could do this as well. What he doesn't understand is these people on YouTube were unsuspecting and confronted with conflict unaware, big difference then guessing someone might be a robber following them around for a bit , come up with a plan , confront the suspected robber, beat him up and shoot him ........its a fubar situation, and regardless of what he says muttering racial slurs to an official during all of this makes you a total bigot no way round that , you think that alone would cause the da to scrutinize the case a bit more closely and if i was a cop i would lock him up for the 48,72 or how ever long you can without charging him just to teach him a lesson for being an bigot.


Either way the way i read that law it said nothing about pursuing said threat for a number of minutes and then confronting said threat was ok.

You can't deny the man his opportunity to defend himself, especially without giving him the luxury of voicing his side of the story. All facts and discussion suggests he's guilty. He most likely is, but let's give him his right to defend himself in court before we lynch him and send him to prison, allowing his a55to be creamed by "bubba."
 
We are stating our opinions. We are NOT denying him his right to defend himself. Right now he doesn't have anything to defend himself from. None of us are on his jury. None of us are the DA.

The only person that is defenseless at this point in time is Travyon.
 
I think you just want to argue about everything. I don't.

We are on the same side, I for one prefer to allow the man his right for defense, or to at least tell his side of the events before we send him to the Pen. You know, that whole due process theory introduced by the Magna Carta and subsequently used in constitutions and legislation of many countries since its introduction?

And I think you missed this part. No need to argue at all, nor was that my intent when voicing my opinion. You did ask for that in your posts, yes?

I don't think we disagree...
 
Last edited:
I am curious to know who voted No in the poll however. tbst, can you see who voted how since you authored the thread? Not sure it is appropriate to call them out without permission though. Part of me wonders if it wasn't someone trolling.
 
We are on the same side, I for one prefer to allow the man his right for defense, or to at least tell his side of the events before we send him to the Pen. You know, that whole due process theory introduced by the Magna Carta and subsequently used in constitutions and legislation of many countries since its introduction?

And I think you missed this part. No need to argue at all, nor was that my intent when voicing my opinion. You did ask for that in your posts, yes?

You rage so much, but you proposed taking away people on welfares right to vote. Don't get it.
 
You rage so much, but you proposed taking away people on welfares right to vote. Don't get it.

Who's raging? You may be reading in a rage, but I assure you I'm calm as a cucumber and high as a giraffes a55. The Internet is 2D, you can't see emotion unfortunately.
 
I can see your hypocrisy though.

Against DUI checkpoints. For people on welfare NOT having the right to vote.
 
I am curious to know who voted No in the poll however. tbst, can you see who voted how since you authored the thread? Not sure it is appropriate to call them out without permission though. Part of me wonders if it wasn't someone trolling.

I though it was you to be honest.

But unfortunately, no I can't see. I sure as hell hope there is more to this story, if not and what is out is what happened, he should be charged with murder.

So it had to be someone trolling...
 
I though it was you to be honest.

But unfortunately, no I can't see. I sure as hell hope there is more to this story, if not and what is out is what happened, he should be charged with murder.

So it had to be someone trolling...

Nope, wasn't me. Thought you could also see in my posts where I'm stating that I agree with you. Have a good night tbst. Never intended to work you up.
 
I don't know if this was mentioned already but it has since come out that the 28 yr old killer was not actually a neighborhood watch member, he was a self-appointed neighborhood watch commander, not part of an actual watch.

I am totally against the stand your ground concept. While I believe it should apply to law enforcement and possibly those on their own property, it definitely should not apply outside of that as was the case in this tragedy.

When I was in the Navy I stood many pier gun watches. I had a 9mm and a shotgun, sometimes just a 9mm. We were authorized lethal force under a strict set of rules and ceding territory to the enemy would have qualified for lethal force. The idea that a civilian, not on his own property could use lethal force to stand his ground is crazy to me.

FL is a pretty F'd up state when it comes to laws and the legal system. In FL there are several people serving life in prison for murder because they were accomplices. In one such story, a young man (~20) gave his friend the keys to his car at a party. The guy stayed at the party and never left. The friend took the car and committed a robbery where someone died. The kid was convicted of "murder in the 1st degree" not manslaughter or accomplice to a homicide. FL is one of the only states in the nation that allows this. The prosecutor said FL law allows him to use the logic "no keys, no murder" => the defendant committed murder. :redbrick:
 
This is interesting. From the author of FLs castle law. According to him, the stand your ground defense became nonplussed when Z pursued the victim.


Trayvon Martin's Alleged Attacker Not Covered Under Law I Wrote | Fox News

The tragic story of Trayvon Martin's death in Sanford, Florida has ignited a great deal of passion and concern regarding the circumstances of his death and the defense applied by the attacker, George Zimmerman. The fact that Trayvon Martin unnecessarily lost his life is troubling and an investigation into the surrounding circumstances is certainly warranted.

First of all I'd like to extend my condolences to the Martin family.

I have been in the funeral services profession for over 40 years; I've walked with families through many tragic circumstances and I know how difficult it is.

I would like to emphasize that the approach that is currently developing in this situation, to convene a grand jury, is the proper one in which to discern the facts of this case. I certainly agree with everyone that justice must be served.

During the debate concerning this incident, some have brought into question the "Stand Your Ground" law, more commonly referred to as the "castle doctrine," which has been used by the attacker to pardon his actions.

As the prime sponsor of this legislation in the Florida House, I'd like to clarify that this law does not seem to be applicable to the tragedy that happened in Sanford. There is nothing in the castle doctrine as found in Florida statutes that authenticates or provides for the opportunity to pursue and confront individuals, it simply protects those who would be potential victims by allowing for force to be used in self-defense.

When the "stand your ground" or "castle doctrine" legislation passed in 2005, the catalytic event that brought the issue to the attention of the Florida Legislature was the looting of property in the aftermath of hurricanes.

Specifically, there was a situation in the panhandle of Florida where a citizen moved an RV onto his property, to protect the remains of his home from being looted. One evening, a perpetrator broke into the RV and attacked the property owner. The property owner, acting in self-defense in his home, shot and killed the perpetrator.

It was months before the property owner knew if he would be charged with a crime because of the lack of concrete definition in the statutes regarding self-defense and a perceived duty to retreat by the potential victim.

Until 2005, the castle doctrine had never been canonized into Florida law, but had been used with differing definition and application to the concept of self-defense. The focus of the law was to provide clear definition to acts of self-defense.

The facets of the castle doctrine deal with using force to meet force as an act of self-defense when in your home, in your car, on your property, or anywhere you are legally able to be. The law also protects property owners and their homeowner's insurance from being wrongfully sued by perpetrators who claim to be harmed while committing a crime.

The castle doctrine as passed, clarified that individuals are lawfully able to defend themselves when attacked and there is no duty to retreat when an individual is attacked on their property. Since the passage of this law in Florida, 26 other states have implemented similar statues.

Additionally, the American Legislative Exchange Council used the Florida version of the castle doctrine as model legislation for other states.

Quite simply the castle doctrine is a good law which now protects individuals in a majority of states. However, the castle doctrine does not provide protection to individuals who seek to pursue and confront others, as is allegedly the case in the Trayvon Martin tragedy in Sanford.

The information that has been publicly reported concerning Trayvon Martin's death indicates that the castle doctrine may not be applicable to justify the actions of the attacker, Mr. Zimmerman.

Media stories sharing the transcripts of the 911 tapes from the evening of the incident clearly show that Mr. Zimmerman was instructed by authorities to remain in his vehicle and to cease pursuit of Mr. Martin. George Zimmerman seems to have ignored the direction of the authorities and continued his pursuit of Mr. Martin.

Mr. Zimmerman's unnecessary pursuit and confrontation of Trayvon Martin elevated the prospect of a violent episode and does not seem to be an act of self-defense as defined by the castle doctrine. There is no protection in the "Stand Your Ground" law for anyone who pursues and confronts people.

I have great sympathy for the family of Trayvon Martin and am grateful that things are finally moving in the right direction to further explore what actually happened on that night in Sanford, Florida. Awaiting the convening of the grand jury, I trust that justice will be served and healing will begin for all of those affected.

Republican Dennis Baxley represents the 24th district in Florida's House of Representatives. He was the prime sponsor of the "Stand Your Ground" law in 2005. He is the principal owner and vice president of Hiers-Baxley Funeral Services.

Read more: Trayvon Martin's Alleged Attacker Not Covered Under Law I Wrote | Fox News

-------------
 
You can't deny the man his opportunity to defend himself, especially without giving him the luxury of voicing his side of the story. All facts and discussion suggests he's guilty. He most likely is, but let's give him his right to defend himself in court before we lynch him and send him to prison, allowing his a55to be creamed by "bubba."

yeah, i completely agree with that, throw him in front of the court, he has nothing to hide behind anyways, and like i have said in previous posts you can't claim to be an american unless your willing to give even the most vile of our society a fair trail and/or voice, doesn't mean i have to like the guy or think what he did was justified.

and really, like i said it was black and white, we have the audio tape of him in pursuit even after being advised by an official to cease pursuit and await a police officer, then confronting the victim and ultimately killing him.

the law is open to interpretation, If the DA wanted to he could have locked this guy up right away based on the audio evidence alone and then let the guy prove himself innocent like everybody else, And honestly i do kind of think that if this hadn't gotten much of an outcry against it this guy would never have come to justice.



This is interesting. From the author of FLs castle law. According to him, the stand your ground defense became nonplussed when Z pursued the victim.

right! that's the way i read it, and didn't understand why this guy wasn't charged after he pursued the kid, and based on that whatever "Z's" defense maybe it is basically invalid along those lines of reasoning.


logic when overused ceases to be logically thought out and becomes an absurd thought instead. such as what is going on here in z's defense.
trying to use logic to prove an illogical action. such as i feel threatened, i will follow and confront my threat. that is illogical by the very nature of fear.

i really do feel like the DA just saw another black kid, a guy who claimed to be neighborhood watch and chucked it on the pile with all of the the other failed crimes that happened that day.
Either way without some sort of detention while they figured out what exactly happened there is a misstep and lack of judgment to say the least, you killed another human being and took a life of a fellow citizen, this is serious biddness, and should be looked into as such, that guy sitting on his couch watching monday night football 6 hours later just isn't right.

i thought the cops could arrest you and keep you locked up for x amount of hours why they pulled evidence together and figured out what happened and after that they had to let you go or charge you? why was this not used?
 
Pretty sure it is a 72 hour hold. Te article about the stand your ground law was interesting. I wish it had some actual quotes from the legislature. However, what he did obviously doesn't fall into the law from a defense point of view. If this was precedent, there would be 10000 deaths a day.
 
Pretty sure it is a 72 hour hold. Te article about the stand your ground law was interesting. I wish it had some actual quotes from the legislature. However, what he did obviously doesn't fall into the law from a defense point of view. If this was precedent, there would be 10000 deaths a day.

haha, right it would be like the wild west for sure....i don't like that guy, i'm going to follow him until he does something about it, then shoot him dead.

i wonder if this defense would work on politicians? i feel threatened by them everyday......
 
i thought the cops could arrest you and keep you locked up for x amount of hours why they pulled evidence together and figured out what happened and after that they had to let you go or charge you? why was this not used?

just so it's clear, I think Z is guilty of murder based on what we know at this time, but remember, you're supposed to be innocent until proven guilty by a court of law in this country. Proving his innocence is not how it goes. It is the states burdeon to prove his guilt. all we've heard is the victims side of the story and some 911 tapes. Z had a questionable history, but you can't necessarily condemn him based on that just yet. I'd really like to hear his story sooner rather than later. That said, nobody owes us this information and it is not within our rights as citizens to have it yet.

As far as what you wrote above, it may be a timing thing. Not statute of limitations timing, but arrest, presentation of evidence, pending charges, etc. I'm no lawyer and I'm willing to bet nobody else posting in this thread is either, so none of us can be certified as experts on the matter unfortunately.
 
I agree he deserves a trial. Luckily, like I said we aren't on his jury or he'd be ****ed.

Seems like a MONTH should be long enough for any competent person to figure out what happened. If Zimmerman can't tell what happened in one MONTH then he undoubtedly has no case for defense other than being a toolbag. Then again, not many competent people out there.

But my point is that if there are more facts they should come out in less than a month!
 
At least Geraldo isn't as bad as Glenn Beck and his cronies...
UPDATE 15, 3:30 p.m. EDT, Wednesday, March 21: Glenn Beck website calls Trayvon Martin "aggressor," implies he's a criminal

In a separate post here at Mother Jones, my colleague Adam Serwer has flagged two articles from the Blaze, Glenn Beck's news site, that 1) call Trayvon Martin the "aggressor," 2) intimate the furor over Martin's death is cooked up by minority racial activists, and 3) speculate that Martin was suspended from school for, possibly, maybe, "'armed robbery,' 'arson,' 'kidnapping' or 'sexual battery.'" Adam's piece is a must-read.

The Blaze pieces are written not by a random anonymous commenter but by Mytheos Holt, a Wesleyan graduate and former speechwriter for Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.). Holt claims to hail from the mean streets of Big Sur, California, where 0.3 percent of the population is African-American.

Personal note: I am a product of several mostly-black public schools in Broward County, the large district adjacent to Miami-Dade. Most of my friends were products of one of these public school districts. I served my share of detentions and suspensions. So did my friends—white, black, Latino, Indian, and "other". I wonder if Holt would assume my friends and I are armed robbers.

Instead of conjecturing, he could have found the Department of Education report earlier this month that confirms how black students are punished out of all proportion to their numbers. He also could have checked state and county records in Florida for any complaints against Trayvon Martin, as I've done. Major felonies of the sort Holt alleges would typically be public records here, even for juvenile offenders. There are no such records for Martin. You can check for yourself.

Also, it's worth noting that the superintendent of Miami-Dade schools has no problem with Trayvon Martin's student record...only with "the senseless and untimely death of one of my students, one of my children, Trayvon Martin."

Not that this matters: As Adam points out, even if Martin was a criminal felon—which he apparently wasn't—and even if George Zimmerman, the shooter, knew his victim's record—which he obviously didn't—even alleged criminals would have the right not to be gunned down without cause. For Holt to fantasize otherwise isn't criminal. But it also isn't reporting, and it's perilously close to racebaiting.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
278,310
Messages
3,554,080
Members
248,016
Latest member
Advally Service

Trending content

Back
Top