Murder or Travyon Martin

[RunninInGA]

That's true.

I just don't see how that witness changes the case at all. To me it supports Zimmerman being charged. He got himself into a situation as the first aggressor, starting getting his ass beat and then shot what we know as an innocent kid and killed him.

If you start a fight with someone and they start beating your ass, should you be allowed to use deadly force to win the fight which you started?

No, unless your own death becomes imminent (self preservation can be a m-fer). But I also wasn't there to witness the course of events that lead up to the altercation. You weren't either. Nor were members of the media or any of the 100 million Internet lawyers that are now experts on the case. There are 911 tapes describing SOME of the events, but not a full play by play unfortunately. We cant call a time out and review the tapes sadly. That's what makes this case not so black and white (pardon the racial references I'll be accused of making here). Z pursued T by his own admission, but we don't know how T ended up on top of and beating Z do we? We've all assumed, you included, the course of events entailed Z attacking T, T getting the upper hand, and Z shooting him but we have no proof that that's what actually happened. Could it be plausible that T attacked this old guy that's following him? Yes. Ts own father admitted it wasnt his son (meaning T) screaming for help in the background of those 911 tapes. The witness account above corroborated this.

Regardless, a murder took place that night. Whether it was a lawful or unlawful murder, we cannot tell based on the very few pieces of evidence that's been shared with us yet. Does it merit further investigation and possibly an actual court case? Most definitely if it can be reasonably proven Z acted unlawfully.

 

[BrianSD_42]

Everyone seems pretty reasonable to me. There is a lot we dont know. Much of this could have been avoided if they simply charged him. Police can charge him and then build a case.

 

[RunninInGA]

Everyone seems pretty reasonable to me. There is a lot we dont know. Much of this could have been avoided if they simply charged him. Police can charge him and then build a case.[/QUOTE]

We don't live in a police state though, but a (somewhat) free society with rights given to us by God. What would they charge him with? Who would cover the legal and holding costs while they hold him illegally? You guys seem to have a warped/vigilante sense of the justice system in this country.

Is this the kind of system you'd like to live under? Raise a kid under?

 

[BrianSD_42]

I believe they had enough evidence to charge him.

The rest is just rhetoric.

As I said before FL's stand your ground law does not apply here, even if the incompetent LEOs assumed it did. It stopped applying once he decided to hunt down the 17 yo kid in the dark despite LEOs dispatch telling him not to pursue.

When I say there is a lot we dont know, i mainly despise the media or joke of a media we currently have. The facts still support a murder charge.

 

[RunninInGA]

I dunno. I think you're right. But why didn't they? What's the reasoning behind the wait - to stir up the citizenry? To allow discussion on the castle law or gun rights in general? To show their incompetence?

Just isn't making sense.

 

[tbst]

Everyone seems pretty reasonable to me. There is a lot we dont know. Much of this could have been avoided if they simply charged him. Police can charge him and then build a case.[/QUOTE]

We don't live in a police state though, but a (somewhat) free society with rights given to us by God. What would they charge him with? Who would cover the legal and holding costs while they hold him illegally? You guys seem to have a warped/vigilante sense of the justice system in this country.

Is this the kind of system you'd like to live under? Raise a kid under?

If you charge him with murder, you wouldn't be holding him illegally. You can be charged with whatever crime with no evidence and you must defend yourself. Charges are dropped all the time after they are pressed. There is nothing illegal about it.

 

[RunninInGA]

If you charge him with murder, you wouldn't be holding him illegally. You can be charged with whatever crime with no evidence and you must defend yourself. Charges are dropped all the time after they are pressed. There is nothing illegal about it.

You're not describing a free state though. What you're describing is a police state. What if Z were to be found innocent - he'd have spent all the money he's ever made defending himself and would be financially ruined. Plus, his credibility and reputation is destroyed because you early prejudgers wouldn't believe the verdict anyway. Look at OJ. He was acquitted in the criminal case, but was ruined because of it - financially and emotionally.

This topic has been beat to death - both here, in the media, and in the coffee shops. To the point that the Black Panthers now want Z dead or alive (sans due process). Vigilante justice by one of the most militant racist groups allowed to exist. This post will be my last on the subject.

 

[shadow247]

I am really surprised he wasn't arrested at the scene. I thought it was normal procedure to arrest someone when they discharge a firearm in the city limits.

 

[BrianSD_42]

This topic has been beat to death - both here, in the media, and in the coffee shops.

Agreed.

 

[tbst]

You're not describing a free state though. What you're describing is a police state. What if Z were to be found innocent - he'd have spent all the money he's ever made defending himself and would be financially ruined. Plus, his credibility and reputation is destroyed because you early prejudgers wouldn't believe the verdict anyway. Look at OJ. He was acquitted in the criminal case, but was ruined because of it - financially and emotionally.

This topic has been beat to death - both here, in the media, and in the coffee shops. To the point that the Black Panthers now want Z dead or alive (sans due process). Vigilante justice by one of the most militant racist groups allowed to exist. This post will be my last on the subject.

Just because you dont agree with something doesn't automatically mean it is a policy of a police state. The process I describe has been done for hundreds of years. The process you describe of defending yourself and potentially having your reputation ruined or resurrected is part of the process, fortunately and unfortunately.

 

[theizzardking]

You're not describing a free state though. What you're describing is a police state. What if Z were to be found innocent - he'd have spent all the money he's ever made defending himself and would be financially ruined. Plus, his credibility and reputation is destroyed because you early prejudgers wouldn't believe the verdict anyway. Look at OJ. He was acquitted in the criminal case, but was ruined because of it - financially and emotionally.

the above can also apply to basically every false rape allegation ever made by a disgruntled ex girlfriend or lover, but even by your own admission here, you admit this be the way things are, buddy. i agree this isn't how things should be, but it's how they are, so like me and my DUI check points hang up, you learn to accept it,deal with it, and make your your way through the current system the best you can.

it just think it's funny that a suspected murderer gets a greater benefit of doubt then that of a everyday motorist or you and i, that's pretty messed up...

 

[theizzardking]

new info, possibly backing up z's claims, then again it's fox news, i can't tell when they are being legit or not anymore....so decide for yourself.

Trayvon Martin's Killer Claims Teen Punched Him, Slammed His Head Into Ground | Fox News

 

[BrianSD_42]

Look at OJ. He was acquitted in the criminal case, but was ruined because of it - financially and emotionally.

Dude, not a good idea to bring up OJ as an example. OJ was guilty and the only reason he went free was because 1) defense was FAR better than prosecution 2) incompitent police. The prosecution dropped the ball on multiple areas of the trial.

My senior year in at UCSC (2010) I took a class on probability theory, it was pretty much a nighmare class and remains one of the trickiest math class I took during my BS.

While researching the topic of conditional probability I came across this NYTimes opEd that spoke about the OJ case, written by a probability professor.


Chances Are - NYTimes.com

Although reformulating the data in terms of natural frequencies is a huge help, conditional probability problems can still be perplexing for other reasons. It’s easy to ask the wrong question, or to calculate a probability that’s correct but misleading.

Both the prosecution and the defense were guilty of this in the O.J. Simpson trial of 1994-95. Each of them asked the jury to consider the wrong conditional probability.

The prosecution spent the first days of the trial introducing evidence that O.J. had a history of violence toward his ex-wife Nicole. He had allegedly battered her, thrown her against walls and groped her in public, telling onlookers, “This belongs to me.”

But what did any of this have to do with a murder trial? The prosecution’s argument was that a pattern of spousal abuse reflected a motive to kill. As one of the prosecutors put it, “A slap is a prelude to homicide.”

Alan Dershowitz countered for the defense, arguing that even if the allegations of domestic violence were true, they were irrelevant and should therefore be inadmissible. He later wrote, “We knew we could prove, if we had to, that an infinitesimal percentage — certainly fewer than 1 of 2,500 — of men who slap or beat their domestic partners go on to murder them.”

In effect, both sides were asking the jury to consider the probability that a man murdered his ex-wife, given that he previously battered her. But as the statistician I. J. Good pointed out, that’s not the right number to look at.

The real question is: What’s the probability that a man murdered his ex-wife, given that he previously battered her and she was murdered by someone? That conditional probability turns out to be very far from 1 in 2,500.

To see why, imagine a sample of 100,000 battered women. Granting Dershowitz’s number of 1 in 2,500, we expect about 40 of these women to be murdered by their abusers in a given year (since 100,000 divided by 2,500 equals 40). We can estimate that an additional 5 of these battered women, on average, will be killed by someone else, because the murder rate for all women in the United States at the time of the trial was about 1 in 20,000 per year. So out of the 40 + 5 = 45 murder victims altogether, 40 of them were killed by their batterer. In other words, the batterer was the murderer about 90 percent of the time.

Don’t confuse this number with the probability that O.J. did it, that would require a much more complex calculation.

Why do I bring this up? Just thought I would share since OJ's innocence was mentioned above.

 

[Thai]

Why don't we wait for all the evidence before calling foul and protesting? What's the rush?! I am surprise Jesse Jackson have not poke his head! Big Al has tho.

 

[BrianSD_42]

"Why are there protests?"

Why don't we wait for all the evidence before calling foul and protesting? What's the rush?!

I think there is a bit of confusion here.

The victim's family began protesting and contacting the media several weeks ago; the movement has only grown since.

If the family had not protested then it might never have become a national issue. Remember that the local PD had already stopped investigating the killing, agreeing that it was self defense. Their incompetence contributed to where we are today.

Since it became a national issue, the FBI, US justice department and now the state prosecutor's office have opened criminal inquiries into the killing. As of now the local PD have completely turned the case over to the state police. The family's dedication made this possible.

Also everyone is protesting today at colleges because today is the 1 month anniversary of his tragic death.

 

[Thai]

Are you so sure that it is tragic in the sense that you are implying? Are you so sure to cast incompetence without hearing BOTH sides?

 

[theizzardking]

"Why are there protests?"




I think there is a bit of confusion here.

The victim's family began protesting and contacting the media several weeks ago; the movement has only grown since.

If the family had not protested then it might never have become a national issue. Remember that the local PD had already stopped investigating the killing, agreeing that it was self defense. Their incompetence contributed to where we are today.

Since it became a national issue, the FBI, US justice department and now the state prosecutor's office have opened criminal inquiries into the killing. As of now the local PD have completely turned the case over to the state police. The family's dedication made this possible.

Also everyone is protesting today at colleges because today is the 1 month anniversary of his tragic death.

also dont know if you guys knew, this girl is somewhat related to this in as such, she was the leader of the FL campus protest against the tyvon being killed, then later that day starts this ****.
Girl flips out at FAU - YouTube

 

[tbst]

Why don't we wait for all the evidence before calling foul and protesting? What's the rush?! I am surprise Jesse Jackson have not poke his head! Big Al has tho.

We did wait.

And nothing happened for a month, other than a kid being killed after walking to get some skittles. Why don't you read through and follow the timeline of events before you make a judgement about the people protesting? Had you done this, you would have quickly realized that the outcry, if anything, was late.

 

[tbst]

Are you so sure that it is tragic in the sense that you are implying? Are you so sure to cast incompetence without hearing BOTH sides?

Yes, a kid walking home from the corner store and being killed by a neighborhood vigilante is tragic. Maybe not tragic to you, but tragic to a lot of people, obviously, by the outcry.

Hard to hear Travyon's side. We have heard Zimmerman's side. It points to him being the primary aggressor. We listened to the 911 times (obviously you didn't) where he showed that he had a means of egress from the situation and instead chased down Travyon, in which case he ended up dead. Of course, now Zimmerman has come out with another story, which if you have a brain doesn't correspond to the 911 tape we heard while the incident was going down.

 

[BrianSD_42]

Are you so sure that it is tragic in the sense that you are implying? Are you so sure to cast incompetence without hearing BOTH sides?

You don't think it is tragic? Say what you are thinking, i have little patience for people who make statements like yours. I think that despite how the death occured it was a tragedy. If you disagree then say so.

:spider: