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

Sorry again if this subject is too inflammatory, but I am really blown away by the media's handling of this murder. As is usual, there are the gun grabbers out there who point to this as an illustration of "Stand your ground" laws, and there are the usual suspects trying to make this a black/white issue, but I certainly don't see it that way, and I'm wondering what others think?

My take on it:

From the "Stand your ground" perspective, I'd say that it is highly doubtful that Zimmerman would be able to rationally claim that defense. "Stand your ground" doesn't give you permission to initiate a confrontation while armed. It was certainly not the intent of the law (in any of it's forms) to legalize putting oneself into a situation that one had to shoot their way out of. From a "self defense" perspective, it was failure compounded upon failure on Zimmerman's part that allowed the encounter to devolve into the physical contest which he felt required deadly force to resolve. I'm sorry, but the neighborhood watch is supposed to watch, not confront and then escalate.

From the "Race" angle, even Trayvon's parents have stated time and time again that they didn't believe that race was a factor in the killing, but that Zimmerman had acted willfully and recklessly and was not being prosecuted. The most salient point that seems to have been (intentionally) overlooked by the press in the question of why Zimmerman was was not immediately arrested and charged is that his father is a retired county judge.

I'm not going to sit here and talk about what a great kid Trayvon was. He was a teenager and likely as troubled as many one of us here ever were. Yes, he had some issues with drugs. So does half the teen population of the US. I'm certain he was no saint. But I don't see any of those factors as justifying the shooting. In fact, I don't see ANYTHING that Zimmerman did in re Martin that was justified, reasonable, or in keeping with the level of responsibility one has while carrying. I fully believe in the right to carry, but I also fully believe that a person should be subject to criminal prosecution for abusing that right.

The biggest problem I see with the situation is that this case is being tried in the media plus the media manipulating the facts to inflame people.

I also have a problem with the special prosecutor refusing to take the case to a Grand Jury. I think the prosecutor believed the case would be thrown out and refused to take that chance. She wants to make a name for herself.

With the Feds sending in all the dogs, of course she is bowing to Federal pressure to try the case.

They are already talking about trying Zimmerman for a Civil Rights Violation if the murder case fails.

What happened to a fair trial? What happened to seeing what the evidence is in court before a judgement is made?

This is a volatile issue, so let's all give each other the benefit of the doubt when replying. It is easy to misunderstand each other.

From a stand your ground perspective, the issue is a mess. As soon as the confrontation was in progress, both could claim protection under that rule, the way it was phrased.
From what I have read so far, race did not really play into it. Trayvon could have been white, hispanic or something else, and it would have gone down like that.
Zimmerman was too hasty and took dangerous initiative that was not required, and one of them ended up dead.

He was not a cop, and there was no evidence of a crime being in progress or people being in danger. As such, there was no real need (moral or otherwise) to engage.
The controverse imo is mainly about the fact that he was not arrested and charged. But that seems to be more the influence of his daddy, rather than a case of institutionalized racism like with the rodney king case.

The sad thing is that both the left and right wing have taken this as a rallying issue, and are spinning propaganda on both sides to further their own agenda.
It has become a media circus.

LMAO

Period end of story, only two people knew the truth, now only one does, and we sure don't....

One thing that stands out is the fact that the media manipulated this case from day one, NBC should have it's license pulled for the Audio Tape editing, that was down right inflamatory... and Morally wrong.

Originally Posted by gssixgun

LMAO

Period end of story, only two people knew the truth, now only one does, and we sure don't....

One thing that stands out is the fact that the media manipulated this case from day one, NBC should have it's license pulled for the Audio Tape editing, that was down right inflamatory... and Morally wrong.

There were a couple of witnesses so perhaps the image will clear up. But you're right. NBC should be dismantled over that stunt.
Words can't begin to describe just how evil that was.

As the late Daniel Patrick Moniyhan once said, "Everybody is entitled to their own opinion, but they're not entitled to their own facts." As Glen so wisely said. Only two people really know what happened that night; and sadly, one of the key witnesses is dead.

Personally, I'm not as quick to condemn the media about its handling of the Trayvon Martin case. IMHO, the Sanford Police were the real manipulators of this case. The Chief of Police initially ignored the recommendation of his own chief homicide investigator to at least arrest the perpetrator; and the county prosecutor was ready to let the perpetrator walk, without any followup inquiry into the "facts" surrounding the shooting or interviewing witnesses who overheard the confrontation between Martin and Zimmerman.

So while some people may want to condemn the media for its coverage of the Trayvon Martin case, I am thankful that the media's so-called "manipulation of this case from day one" resulted in the exposure of the conflicting testimony, etc. that at least made the state of Florida take another look at this tragic event. I am convinced that if it hadn't been for the media, this shooting would have disappeared in the files of the Sanford, FL Police dept. as another "justifiable homicide."

George Zimmerman may be convicted. Then again he may be still be acquitted. But in either case that is not because of the media, but because of the court's ability to prove--beyond the shadow of a doubt--that what occurred either was or was not a criminal act.

I must confess that my own perspective has been influenced a great deal by a recent book that I just read. If any of you are interested, here is the link: Amazon.com: The Condemnation of Blackness: Race, Crime, and the Making of Modern Urban America (9780674035973): Khalil Gibran Muhammad: Books

This is about the law not the situation. I think it should be called the "dead men tell no tales law". Basically you can shoot someone dead and say you feared for your life and if the other person is dead and no witnesses you're home free. It will be very difficult to get a successful prosecution. Unfortunately this has turned into a media frenzy and I think the State prosecutor is in a win win situation. If she wins the case of course she wins. If she loses she can say she tried and blame it on the law. She wins there too.

I also think the media convoluted this story from day one. After all, the media has a vested interest in keeping people watching, as well as a track recored for promoting the message that guns are bad. It turned out that Trayvon was not the nice little 12 year old the media perpetuated either. So there it is. The media warped the story. As far as Zimmerman going about being a Jr. G Man, well he'll answer for that in court, where he is now. IMO- Justice has been served and this story is over.

My biggest issue with this is that the gun-grabbers keep saying "This is the result of crazy gun laws in this country." Unfortunately the pro-gun voices have allowed the gun-grabbers to define the debate, and as a result have taken the tack of defending Zimmerman's actions rather than demanding the prosecution of someone who is clearly guilty of voluntary manslaughter, at the very least. Like Jhenry said above, this has more to do with police misconduct than anything else. Defending Zimmerman is playing right into the gun-grabbers hands.

Trayvon Martin's killer showed signs of injury: neighbors

Trayvon Martin's killer showed signs of injury: neighbors | Reuters

Just sayin'.

Just from my standpoint, I've been beat down on more than one occasion. Done some beatin down on others. Never had a desire to kill the other guy with a gun. I don't own anything that I'd kill somebody over. Messing with my family or my life is a whole 'nuther issue. I rarely carry anymore. Carrying is a royal pain in the rump in more ways than one. At home, I'm rarely over 4 steps from a loaded firearm that I am intimately familiar with. My wife and son are both very familiar with guns. I hope none of us ever has to use one other than for fun.

I have used guns in the past to get my rear end out of a crack on more than one occasion when I knew beyond any shadow of a doubt that my well being was in danger. I'm still here.

Did that kid deserve to die for beating the other guy down. Probably not. I can think of a scenario where it might have come to that. If the deceased was going for Zimmerman's gun, then the rules could change very quickly.

Zimmerman was an idiot for getting himself into that situation. He should have disengaged and let the big boys handle it. It would have played a lot better in his defense if he had been running away from that kid and gotten attacked than the way it went down.

As has been stated, most of the media has done a piss poor job of reporting what few facts are known.

Furthermore, according to Florida law and US law, he is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.