Thread: Trayvon Martin (pardon me if this subject is verboten.)

Originally Posted by Crotalus

Wisdom from the State of Florida. Hmmm, wisdom from the Hanging Chad state?

What I am interested in the most is what kind of wounds, if any, were on Zimmerman's head. If this kid was banging his head on the concrete as Zimmerman claims, that is justification to shoot. I've heard there there is an eye witness that backs Zimmerman's story. If so, it could put the whole thing to bed.

Not quite. At that point, Trayvon could be entirely justified in starting the fight, especially if zimmerman had shown his weapon and trayvon felt threatened (which is a real option). I think that if you do no wrong and someone hassles you, follows you, and threatens you with a gun, you'd be justified in using force. Whether zimmerman has wounds because of that really does not have any bearing on whether trayvon was justified in starting the fight.

Common sense would dictate this to be the case, and the syg law does so explicitly.

Picture the opposite: I threaten you with a gun. You jump me and beat me in the head. I shoot you. Can I claim self defense?

Just wanted to say to all you fine gentlemen out there that it is refreshing to see so many different opinions expressed and that everyone here is willing to hear these opinions, and whether they agree or not, to show some civility and restraint. That is part of what makes this such a great group. Thank you for your considered opinions and kudos to you all.

Interesting. I've never considered the stand your ground law as justifying the Treyvon's beat down on Zimmerman. However, if Zimmerman had shown his gun to Treyvon, I highly doubt that Treyvon would have countered the threat with fists. I know for darn sure that I wouldn't. You don't bring fists to a gun fight.

What is interesting here is that, from what I can tell, Zimmerman was doing nothing illegal. Stupid maybe, but not illegal. I can follow anyone I want for as long as I want. If I couldn't, then private investigators would be out of business. The first "illegal" action that I can see is the assault and battery initiated by Treyvon. However I will wait and see what the evidence shows.

Also, if the races (if you will because Zimmerman is Hispanic, but everyone calls him white) were reversed, and a black man shot a white man, and the media covered it as they have in this case, it would be called a lynching party. If the "New White Panthers" had put out a bounty on the black man's head, and said "wanted, dead or alive" it would be a lynching party. (CITE) Why is no one calling his media coverage and public demonstrations what they are? A lynching party. They need to let the legal system work, and stop trying to lynch Zimmerman.

Originally Posted by mhailey

Interesting. I've never considered the stand your ground law as justifying the Treyvon's beat down on Zimmerman. However, if Zimmerman had shown his gun to Treyvon, I highly doubt that Treyvon would have countered the threat with fists. I know for darn sure that I wouldn't. You don't bring fists to a gun fight.

Not if you think it is avoidable.
But if you feel that an assault will happen (with or without a gun) you might take your chance.
What Zimmerman did was stupid and not illegal (probably, based on the current picutre).
And if Trayvon felt threatened then under SYG what he did was probably stupid, and not illegal either.
Even if he didn't see the gun, if he had reason to feel threatened, he was perfectly justified in attacking Zimmerman in what would otherwise be called assault.

That is the travesty of the SYG law.
2 people meet, one of them dies, noone did anything illegal under the current laws.

Originally Posted by Bruno

Not if you think it is avoidable.
But if you feel that an assault will happen (with or without a gun) you might take your chance.
What Zimmerman did was stupid and not illegal (probably, based on the current picutre).
And if Trayvon felt threatened then under SYG what he did was probably stupid, and not illegal either.
Even if he didn't see the gun, if he had reason to feel threatened, he was perfectly justified in attacking Zimmerman in what would otherwise be called assault.

That is the travesty of the SYG law.
2 people meet, one of them dies, noone did anything illegal under the current laws.

You make excellent point though your speculation on the facts.

However that is all anyone can do, speculate.

We need to let the legal system work. I say legal system, and not justice system, because we don't have a justice system. We have a legal system and hope that through the legal system justice is obtained.

Originally Posted by mhailey

You make excellent point though your speculation on the facts.

However that is all anyone can do, speculate.

We need to let the legal system work. I say legal system, and not justice system, because we don't have a justice system. We have a legal system and hope that through the legal system justice is obtained.

I agree with you 100%.

I am definitely not arguing that one party is or is not guilty. We have very little accurate information to go by.
But he should have been brought before a grand jury because we can see that there is enough confusion and uncertainty as to what happened, that just sending him home with a 'no harm no foul' doesn't cut it.

And unfortunately, I think that one of the conclusions in this case is that the SYG law is a piece of crap.

Originally Posted by Bruno

And unfortunately, I think that one of the conclusions in this case is that the SYG law is a piece of crap.

It's called the Castle Law in Texas and I for one am glad it's here. There have been no problems with it since it was enacted and extends your home protection from prosecution to your car. You shouldn't be arrested for shooting a car jacker.

I don't know if this is included in the Florida law, but if you provoke or threaten the person before you shoot them the protection goes away.

It is interesting. As a society we seem to be o.k. with predetermining guilt in certain cases(Casey Anthony comes to mind as its recent), but in cases like this it is a travesty.

Originally Posted by mhailey

Why is no one calling his media coverage and public demonstrations what they are? A lynching party. They need to let the legal system work, and stop trying to lynch Zimmerman.

The main problem I have with this case is that I can't yet tell which side to rant from.

I will let you know.

Originally Posted by northpaw

The main problem I have with this case is that I can't yet tell which side to rant from.