On March 29 2012 08:33 Silidons wrote: news stations such as faux news and your general unconvinced civilian for some reason love to point "HEY LOOK HE DID THIS IN THE PAST, HE USED DRUGS! SO HE WAS A BAD PERSON!" but they don't actually understand the entire point of this fucking shooting, is that at the time of the shooting he was actually doing nothing wrong. what type of country do we really live in that killing someone who was unarmed and minding their own business justified if they smoke weed, has sucker punched someone before, was suspended from school? does this somehow justify the killing of him? obviously not and i don't want to live in a country that thinks it does (or its civilians that think it does).
They're trying to point out a flaw in the credibility that Travyon was a "harmless boy who never did anything to anyone".
I can't even tell you how many times in Chicago that when a kid is shot(most seem to be African American, but that is REALLY beside the point, there have been Hispanic/Whites as well) no one ever has anything negative to say about the child.
I'm really skeptical about this case. At first I was sure he killed the kid in cold blood, but then Zimmerman somehow gets punched in the face and the back of the head(I believe that was it)? Something doesn't add up imo.
being punched in the head when stalking someone = uncommon? what would you do if someone was stalking you? "Oh hello good sir, may I ask why is it you have been following me for the past 10 minutes?"
get real. if someone was following me and was aggressive towards me at all you bet your ass i would fight him and subdue him.
since when does getting punched in the head = life in danger?
If someone was following me, I would ask them, without assaulting them, what was up, or I would go somewhere where people, or into my car or home. I may even call the police. But I would not assault them, and someone following me is definitely not grounds to attack them or threaten them.
No one would, except if you were nuts. Why, do you punch anyone who happens to be walking the same way as you? What about cars? What if a car is 'following' you, but just another person driving to New York from California (or whever you are and going)? 'Get Real'.
If Zimmerman was 'aggressive', as in said threatening comments or attacked him, then Trayvon could attack back, and zimmerman would be a murderer.
But we don't know what happened there. So get over it, stop speculating, and stop being a puppet and think for yourself, instead of let people who have an agenda (like al sharpton who gets money for riling people up, or media who want to sensationalize a case so you watch their channel) think for you.
And yea, getting punched in the head definitely is 'life in danger'. That's pretty fucking threatening. Unless you punch me in the head and then run away (which means 95%+ of the time you won't get hit with 100% of the bullets shot at you, by the way, as a moving target further and further away), I will definitely fear for my life unless you were much smaller than me. If you were big enough to bloody me though, that's definitely life in danger.
yeah i'm a puppet, is that really the best come back you could come up with? then you just happened to mention someone who works for msnbc lol. i can already tell what type of person you are. just to let you know that i'm not even registered to vote and won't ever will so i don't listen to people who have an agenda (or anyone for that matter). i've only read the facts listed in many of the threads etc and this is the decision that i've come to.
would you fear for your life if you had a gun, and 100lbs + on the guy? if you do, then you have a problem.
giving guns to idiots = stupid shit like this happening. shoot to disable, don't shoot to kill. but the general gun holder doesn't understand this (nor do cops) and this is why i'm against guns also.
You assume he wasnt holding him. I only think he might have hold him wich would need to be hardly investigated thats all.
For me this whole thing needs to be brought to a higher instance and be investigated by a court.
EDIT: Sorry not a murder but he would have acted highly negligent.
I didn't assume anything. Maybe Zimmerman is a murderer because he threatened Trayvon's well being or attacked him or restrained him physically, or maybe he defended himself when trayvon attacked or threatened zimerman first. We don't know, and although evidence seems to support that Zimmerman defended himself, it's not conclusive.
What is conclusive is:
1. We don't know for sure what happened, so anything else is speculation.
2. Regardless of what happened, as what's been released so far to the general public, there is not enough information to convict Zimmerman of a crime, so therefore, regardless of what really happened, he should not be charged with murder because not enough evidence exists to.
3. Believing that one thing happened or another, is just making assumptions and speculation.
I also personally believe, that anyone who actually believes that zimmerman murdered trayvon, is just being brainwashed and picking up their pitchforks because they are too easy to believe the media, an outlet that is known for having an interest in sensationalizing stories for their ratings. Think for yourself, please.
It also doesn't help anyone to speculate on the case. Even if Trayvon was murdered, it doesn't help to dig into the case so that everyone finds out the private information of a child. It's a case about a minor, leave it alone to the professionals. Now the whole world knows he smoked pot, or had some trouble as a kid, as every kid does. You think his parents like this information becoming public? It's not right. He's a kid, but no one is going to look at it that way, everyone is going to look at him as any adult gangster drug dealer, or whatever, now, and that's not right. Regardless of what he did, he's just a kid, who isn't responsible for what he did, and it's unfortunate he died, but it doesn't put zimmerman at fault if he was just defending himself, either (it's just no one's fault, really).
We are able to speculate on this case and everyone is. The point of an discussion is to clear all possibilitys and im throwing one in here. I dont claim im right i only say it might happend that way. For me it is very disrespectfull to the relatives to say zimmerman should not be brought to court. In Germany this would be a no brainer the case is too difficult to be solved by the police so a court would look at it and say if its justified or not. I dont have a clue if in america its "all or nothing" and zimmerman needs to be accused to be a murder to bring him to court. Here we can just see the case as a case and therefore the judge need to decide what he did wrong and what punishment is appropiate (if he did something wrong).
You assume he wasnt holding him. I only think he might have hold him wich would need to be hardly investigated thats all.
For me this whole thing needs to be brought to a higher instance and be investigated by a court.
EDIT: Sorry not a murder but he would have acted highly negligent.
I didn't assume anything. Maybe Zimmerman is a murderer because he threatened Trayvon's well being or attacked him or restrained him physically, or maybe he defended himself when trayvon attacked or threatened zimerman first. We don't know, and although evidence seems to support that Zimmerman defended himself, it's not conclusive.
What is conclusive is:
1. We don't know for sure what happened, so anything else is speculation.
2. Regardless of what happened, as what's been released so far to the general public, there is not enough information to convict Zimmerman of a crime, so therefore, regardless of what really happened, he should not be charged with murder because not enough evidence exists to.
3. Believing that one thing happened or another, is just making assumptions and speculation.
I also personally believe, that anyone who actually believes that zimmerman murdered trayvon, is just being brainwashed and picking up their pitchforks because they are too easy to believe the media, an outlet that is known for having an interest in sensationalizing stories for their ratings. Think for yourself, please.
It also doesn't help anyone to speculate on the case. Even if Trayvon was murdered, it doesn't help to dig into the case so that everyone finds out the private information of a child. It's a case about a minor, leave it alone to the professionals. Now the whole world knows he smoked pot, or had some trouble as a kid, as every kid does. You think his parents like this information becoming public? It's not right. He's a kid, but no one is going to look at it that way, everyone is going to look at him as any adult gangster drug dealer, or whatever, now, and that's not right. Regardless of what he did, he's just a kid, who isn't responsible for what he did, and it's unfortunate he died, but it doesn't put zimmerman at fault if he was just defending himself, either (it's just no one's fault, really).
We are able to speculate on this case and everyone is. The point of an discussion is to clear all possibilitys and im throwing one in here. I dont claim im right i only say it might happend that way. For me it is very disrespectfull to the relatives to say zimmerman should not be brought to court. In Germany this would be a no brainer the case is too difficult to be solved by the police so a court would look at it and say if its justified or not. I dont have a clue if in america its "all or nothing" and zimmerman needs to be accused to be a murder to bring him to court. Here we can just see the case as a case and therefore the judge need to decide what he did wrong and what punishment is appropiate.
it is unconstitutional for them to arrest him for murder/manslaughter if they believe that there is insufficient evidence. and its not the police that decided in this case, it was the state attorney's office.
You assume he wasnt holding him. I only think he might have hold him wich would need to be hardly investigated thats all.
For me this whole thing needs to be brought to a higher instance and be investigated by a court.
EDIT: Sorry not a murder but he would have acted highly negligent.
I didn't assume anything. Maybe Zimmerman is a murderer because he threatened Trayvon's well being or attacked him or restrained him physically, or maybe he defended himself when trayvon attacked or threatened zimerman first. We don't know, and although evidence seems to support that Zimmerman defended himself, it's not conclusive.
What is conclusive is:
1. We don't know for sure what happened, so anything else is speculation.
2. Regardless of what happened, as what's been released so far to the general public, there is not enough information to convict Zimmerman of a crime, so therefore, regardless of what really happened, he should not be charged with murder because not enough evidence exists to.
3. Believing that one thing happened or another, is just making assumptions and speculation.
I also personally believe, that anyone who actually believes that zimmerman murdered trayvon, is just being brainwashed and picking up their pitchforks because they are too easy to believe the media, an outlet that is known for having an interest in sensationalizing stories for their ratings. Think for yourself, please.
It also doesn't help anyone to speculate on the case. Even if Trayvon was murdered, it doesn't help to dig into the case so that everyone finds out the private information of a child. It's a case about a minor, leave it alone to the professionals. Now the whole world knows he smoked pot, or had some trouble as a kid, as every kid does. You think his parents like this information becoming public? It's not right. He's a kid, but no one is going to look at it that way, everyone is going to look at him as any adult gangster drug dealer, or whatever, now, and that's not right. Regardless of what he did, he's just a kid, who isn't responsible for what he did, and it's unfortunate he died, but it doesn't put zimmerman at fault if he was just defending himself, either (it's just no one's fault, really).
We are able to speculate on this case and everyone is. The point of an discussion is to clear all possibilitys and im throwing one in here. I dont claim im right i only say it might happend that way. For me it is very disrespectfull to the relatives to say zimmerman should not be brought to court. In Germany this would be a no brainer the case is too difficult to be solved by the police so a court would look at it and say if its justified or not. I dont have a clue if in america its "all or nothing" and zimmerman needs to be accused to be a murder to bring him to court. Here we can just see the case as a case and therefore the judge need to decide what he did wrong and what punishment is appropiate.
it is unconstitutional for them to arrest him for murder/manslaughter if they believe that there is insufficient evidence. and its not the police that decided in this case, it was the state attorney's office.
He isnt guilty so why should they arrest him? He would be a suspect and therefor only need to say what happend in his eyes. He would be free till its proven otherwise.
And ofcourse the police cant decide this case. But they collect evidences and take statements.
would you fear for your life if you had a gun, and 100lbs + on the guy? if you do, then you have a problem.
Yes, I would definitely fear for my life if a 17 year old black male, who might be armed too, by the way, and was acting suspicious (like if on drugs), punched me in the face. Sorry, but I've been held up at gun point, I've seen multiple people shot (some to death) in gang shoot-outs, and seen multiple people die from events that started with a punch in the face, actually. In some of these cases, it was 17 year old black men who looked just like Trayvon, actually (not saying black people are a threat here, I'm saying people who looked just like Trayvon, young black, skinny, are capable of murder too). And in some cases, if I DIDNT fear for my life, I would have a couple holes in me, if I wasn't killed.
giving guns to idiots = stupid shit like this happening. shoot to disable, don't shoot to kill. but the general gun holder doesn't understand this (nor do cops) and this is why i'm against guns also.
What is so stupid about the scenario that Trayvon attacked Zimmerman, and Zimmerman defended himself? If anything, thank goodness he was armed, he might have died to a would-be murderer that he did not provoke. But, we don't know what happened, so I'm going to avoid making assumptions that are clearly made because you believed someone's story over another.
shoot to disable, don't shoot to kill. but the general gun holder doesn't understand this (nor do cops) and this is why i'm against guns also.
Shooting to disable often leads to death....
You being against guns has nothing to do with this case. Either Trayvon attacked zimmerman, and zimmerman defended himself and then the attacker died (either by a tazer, knife, a punch too hard to the head, or an unfortunate fall to the curb, or in this case, a gun), or Zimmerman assaulted Trayvon. We don't know. Stop assuming shit, and stop using it as a pedestal to talk about your wonderfully enlightened position about guns, and politicisizing an event that shouldn't be politisized. A kid got killed, that's it. Who's fault is it? We don't know. Move on.
No one is trained for knives, fighting, or CARS for that matter, yet people die much more to cars than to guns. Are you against cars too? Because I find that ridiculous. I am glad people have cars, and I am glad people have access to guns so they can protect themselves against people who are going to get guns in illegal ways (I think you should be trained to carry a gun in public, and I believe zimmerman was trained to carry a firearm, but this is why I dont carry my gun with me, and why my hobby as a gun owner, isn't also my personal protection, and I only carry a knife for my job in a dangerous area).
You assume he wasnt holding him. I only think he might have hold him wich would need to be hardly investigated thats all.
For me this whole thing needs to be brought to a higher instance and be investigated by a court.
EDIT: Sorry not a murder but he would have acted highly negligent.
I didn't assume anything. Maybe Zimmerman is a murderer because he threatened Trayvon's well being or attacked him or restrained him physically, or maybe he defended himself when trayvon attacked or threatened zimerman first. We don't know, and although evidence seems to support that Zimmerman defended himself, it's not conclusive.
What is conclusive is:
1. We don't know for sure what happened, so anything else is speculation.
2. Regardless of what happened, as what's been released so far to the general public, there is not enough information to convict Zimmerman of a crime, so therefore, regardless of what really happened, he should not be charged with murder because not enough evidence exists to.
3. Believing that one thing happened or another, is just making assumptions and speculation.
I also personally believe, that anyone who actually believes that zimmerman murdered trayvon, is just being brainwashed and picking up their pitchforks because they are too easy to believe the media, an outlet that is known for having an interest in sensationalizing stories for their ratings. Think for yourself, please.
It also doesn't help anyone to speculate on the case. Even if Trayvon was murdered, it doesn't help to dig into the case so that everyone finds out the private information of a child. It's a case about a minor, leave it alone to the professionals. Now the whole world knows he smoked pot, or had some trouble as a kid, as every kid does. You think his parents like this information becoming public? It's not right. He's a kid, but no one is going to look at it that way, everyone is going to look at him as any adult gangster drug dealer, or whatever, now, and that's not right. Regardless of what he did, he's just a kid, who isn't responsible for what he did, and it's unfortunate he died, but it doesn't put zimmerman at fault if he was just defending himself, either (it's just no one's fault, really).
We are able to speculate on this case and everyone is. The point of an discussion is to clear all possibilitys and im throwing one in here. I dont claim im right i only say it might happend that way. For me it is very disrespectfull to the relatives to say zimmerman should not be brought to court. In Germany this would be a no brainer the case is too difficult to be solved by the police so a court would look at it and say if its justified or not. I dont have a clue if in america its "all or nothing" and zimmerman needs to be accused to be a murder to bring him to court. Here we can just see the case as a case and therefore the judge need to decide what he did wrong and what punishment is appropiate.
it is unconstitutional for them to arrest him for murder/manslaughter if they believe that there is insufficient evidence. and its not the police that decided in this case, it was the state attorney's office.
He isnt guilty so why should they arrest him? He would be a suspect and therefor only need to say what happend in his eyes. He would be free till its proven otherwise.
And ofcourse the police cant decide this case. But they collect evidences and take statements.
if he isnt guilty, what basis do they have for bringing him in front of a judge? it is unconstitutional for the gov't to force potential criminal defendants to give testimony, so why would he participate in such a proceeding? if he is free, why would he agree to attend a hearing that could potentially make him not free?
edit: i think what you want to see happen is what is already happening: a grand jury is determining whether to have him arrested.
You assume he wasnt holding him. I only think he might have hold him wich would need to be hardly investigated thats all.
For me this whole thing needs to be brought to a higher instance and be investigated by a court.
EDIT: Sorry not a murder but he would have acted highly negligent.
I didn't assume anything. Maybe Zimmerman is a murderer because he threatened Trayvon's well being or attacked him or restrained him physically, or maybe he defended himself when trayvon attacked or threatened zimerman first. We don't know, and although evidence seems to support that Zimmerman defended himself, it's not conclusive.
What is conclusive is:
1. We don't know for sure what happened, so anything else is speculation.
2. Regardless of what happened, as what's been released so far to the general public, there is not enough information to convict Zimmerman of a crime, so therefore, regardless of what really happened, he should not be charged with murder because not enough evidence exists to.
3. Believing that one thing happened or another, is just making assumptions and speculation.
I also personally believe, that anyone who actually believes that zimmerman murdered trayvon, is just being brainwashed and picking up their pitchforks because they are too easy to believe the media, an outlet that is known for having an interest in sensationalizing stories for their ratings. Think for yourself, please.
It also doesn't help anyone to speculate on the case. Even if Trayvon was murdered, it doesn't help to dig into the case so that everyone finds out the private information of a child. It's a case about a minor, leave it alone to the professionals. Now the whole world knows he smoked pot, or had some trouble as a kid, as every kid does. You think his parents like this information becoming public? It's not right. He's a kid, but no one is going to look at it that way, everyone is going to look at him as any adult gangster drug dealer, or whatever, now, and that's not right. Regardless of what he did, he's just a kid, who isn't responsible for what he did, and it's unfortunate he died, but it doesn't put zimmerman at fault if he was just defending himself, either (it's just no one's fault, really).
We are able to speculate on this case and everyone is. The point of an discussion is to clear all possibilitys and im throwing one in here. I dont claim im right i only say it might happend that way. For me it is very disrespectfull to the relatives to say zimmerman should not be brought to court. In Germany this would be a no brainer the case is too difficult to be solved by the police so a court would look at it and say if its justified or not. I dont have a clue if in america its "all or nothing" and zimmerman needs to be accused to be a murder to bring him to court. Here we can just see the case as a case and therefore the judge need to decide what he did wrong and what punishment is appropiate.
it is unconstitutional for them to arrest him for murder/manslaughter if they believe that there is insufficient evidence. and its not the police that decided in this case, it was the state attorney's office.
He isnt guilty so why should they arrest him? He would be a suspect and therefor only need to say what happend in his eyes. He would be free till its proven otherwise.
And ofcourse the police cant decide this case. But they collect evidences and take statements.
if he isnt guilty, what basis do they have for bringing him in front of a judge? it is unconstitutional for the gov't to force potential criminal defendants to give testimony, so why would he participate in such a proceeding? if he is free, why would he agree to attend a hearing that could potentially make him not free?
edit: i think what you want to see happen is what is already happening: a grand jury is determining whether to have him arrested.
Becouse he pulled the trigger of a gun wich killed someone who was unarmed. In such cases this should be standart acting.
Everyone might be wrongly accused of soemthing. If everyone ever brought to court would already be guilty we would need no courts.
Yeah and thats very importand and the correct decision.
You assume he wasnt holding him. I only think he might have hold him wich would need to be hardly investigated thats all.
For me this whole thing needs to be brought to a higher instance and be investigated by a court.
EDIT: Sorry not a murder but he would have acted highly negligent.
I didn't assume anything. Maybe Zimmerman is a murderer because he threatened Trayvon's well being or attacked him or restrained him physically, or maybe he defended himself when trayvon attacked or threatened zimerman first. We don't know, and although evidence seems to support that Zimmerman defended himself, it's not conclusive.
What is conclusive is:
1. We don't know for sure what happened, so anything else is speculation.
2. Regardless of what happened, as what's been released so far to the general public, there is not enough information to convict Zimmerman of a crime, so therefore, regardless of what really happened, he should not be charged with murder because not enough evidence exists to.
3. Believing that one thing happened or another, is just making assumptions and speculation.
I also personally believe, that anyone who actually believes that zimmerman murdered trayvon, is just being brainwashed and picking up their pitchforks because they are too easy to believe the media, an outlet that is known for having an interest in sensationalizing stories for their ratings. Think for yourself, please.
It also doesn't help anyone to speculate on the case. Even if Trayvon was murdered, it doesn't help to dig into the case so that everyone finds out the private information of a child. It's a case about a minor, leave it alone to the professionals. Now the whole world knows he smoked pot, or had some trouble as a kid, as every kid does. You think his parents like this information becoming public? It's not right. He's a kid, but no one is going to look at it that way, everyone is going to look at him as any adult gangster drug dealer, or whatever, now, and that's not right. Regardless of what he did, he's just a kid, who isn't responsible for what he did, and it's unfortunate he died, but it doesn't put zimmerman at fault if he was just defending himself, either (it's just no one's fault, really).
We are able to speculate on this case and everyone is. The point of an discussion is to clear all possibilitys and im throwing one in here. I dont claim im right i only say it might happend that way. For me it is very disrespectfull to the relatives to say zimmerman should not be brought to court. In Germany this would be a no brainer the case is too difficult to be solved by the police so a court would look at it and say if its justified or not. I dont have a clue if in america its "all or nothing" and zimmerman needs to be accused to be a murder to bring him to court. Here we can just see the case as a case and therefore the judge need to decide what he did wrong and what punishment is appropiate.
it is unconstitutional for them to arrest him for murder/manslaughter if they believe that there is insufficient evidence. and its not the police that decided in this case, it was the state attorney's office.
He isnt guilty so why should they arrest him? He would be a suspect and therefor only need to say what happend in his eyes. He would be free till its proven otherwise.
And ofcourse the police cant decide this case. But they collect evidences and take statements.
if he isnt guilty, what basis do they have for bringing him in front of a judge? it is unconstitutional for the gov't to force potential criminal defendants to give testimony, so why would he participate in such a proceeding? if he is free, why would he agree to attend a hearing that could potentially make him not free?
edit: i think what you want to see happen is what is already happening: a grand jury is determining whether to have him arrested.
Becouse he pulled the trigger of a gun wich killed someone who was unarmed. In such cases this should be standart acting.
Everyone might be wrongly accused of soemthing. If everyone ever brought to court would already be guilty we would need no courts.
Yeah and thats very importand and the correct decision.
i am very confused about what you are saying. in the U.S., you are presumed innocent until the gov't proves otherwise. you don't need to prove your innocence ever. so, a person (suspect or defendant) has no reason to participate in a extra-judicial proceeding that would ultimately lead to them either getting arrested or potentially convicted, especially since everything you say in this proceeding will likely be used against you at trial.
You assume he wasnt holding him. I only think he might have hold him wich would need to be hardly investigated thats all.
For me this whole thing needs to be brought to a higher instance and be investigated by a court.
EDIT: Sorry not a murder but he would have acted highly negligent.
I didn't assume anything. Maybe Zimmerman is a murderer because he threatened Trayvon's well being or attacked him or restrained him physically, or maybe he defended himself when trayvon attacked or threatened zimerman first. We don't know, and although evidence seems to support that Zimmerman defended himself, it's not conclusive.
What is conclusive is:
1. We don't know for sure what happened, so anything else is speculation.
2. Regardless of what happened, as what's been released so far to the general public, there is not enough information to convict Zimmerman of a crime, so therefore, regardless of what really happened, he should not be charged with murder because not enough evidence exists to.
3. Believing that one thing happened or another, is just making assumptions and speculation.
I also personally believe, that anyone who actually believes that zimmerman murdered trayvon, is just being brainwashed and picking up their pitchforks because they are too easy to believe the media, an outlet that is known for having an interest in sensationalizing stories for their ratings. Think for yourself, please.
It also doesn't help anyone to speculate on the case. Even if Trayvon was murdered, it doesn't help to dig into the case so that everyone finds out the private information of a child. It's a case about a minor, leave it alone to the professionals. Now the whole world knows he smoked pot, or had some trouble as a kid, as every kid does. You think his parents like this information becoming public? It's not right. He's a kid, but no one is going to look at it that way, everyone is going to look at him as any adult gangster drug dealer, or whatever, now, and that's not right. Regardless of what he did, he's just a kid, who isn't responsible for what he did, and it's unfortunate he died, but it doesn't put zimmerman at fault if he was just defending himself, either (it's just no one's fault, really).
We are able to speculate on this case and everyone is. The point of an discussion is to clear all possibilitys and im throwing one in here. I dont claim im right i only say it might happend that way. For me it is very disrespectfull to the relatives to say zimmerman should not be brought to court. In Germany this would be a no brainer the case is too difficult to be solved by the police so a court would look at it and say if its justified or not. I dont have a clue if in america its "all or nothing" and zimmerman needs to be accused to be a murder to bring him to court. Here we can just see the case as a case and therefore the judge need to decide what he did wrong and what punishment is appropiate.
it is unconstitutional for them to arrest him for murder/manslaughter if they believe that there is insufficient evidence. and its not the police that decided in this case, it was the state attorney's office.
He isnt guilty so why should they arrest him? He would be a suspect and therefor only need to say what happend in his eyes. He would be free till its proven otherwise.
And ofcourse the police cant decide this case. But they collect evidences and take statements.
if he isnt guilty, what basis do they have for bringing him in front of a judge? it is unconstitutional for the gov't to force potential criminal defendants to give testimony, so why would he participate in such a proceeding? if he is free, why would he agree to attend a hearing that could potentially make him not free?
edit: i think what you want to see happen is what is already happening: a grand jury is determining whether to have him arrested.
Becouse he pulled the trigger of a gun wich killed someone who was unarmed. In such cases this should be standart acting.
Everyone might be wrongly accused of soemthing. If everyone ever brought to court would already be guilty we would need no courts.
Yeah and thats very importand and the correct decision.
i am very confused about what you are saying. in the U.S., you are presumed innocent until the gov't proves otherwise. you don't need to prove your innocence ever. so, a person (suspect or defendant) has no reason to participate in a extra-judicial proceeding that would ultimately lead to them either getting arrested or potentially convicted, especially since everything you say in this proceeding will likely be used against you at trial.
But you can only prove your guilt by a court. So if it would be like you said no one ever would be guilty. I dont know if you aware of this paradoxon, but if there is doubt about someone is a murder he can still be brought to court. He doesnt need to prove his innocence but the court need to proove his guilt.
We comin furthure and furthure from the actual case so i will stop discussion here sorry.
You assume he wasnt holding him. I only think he might have hold him wich would need to be hardly investigated thats all.
For me this whole thing needs to be brought to a higher instance and be investigated by a court.
EDIT: Sorry not a murder but he would have acted highly negligent.
I didn't assume anything. Maybe Zimmerman is a murderer because he threatened Trayvon's well being or attacked him or restrained him physically, or maybe he defended himself when trayvon attacked or threatened zimerman first. We don't know, and although evidence seems to support that Zimmerman defended himself, it's not conclusive.
What is conclusive is:
1. We don't know for sure what happened, so anything else is speculation.
2. Regardless of what happened, as what's been released so far to the general public, there is not enough information to convict Zimmerman of a crime, so therefore, regardless of what really happened, he should not be charged with murder because not enough evidence exists to.
3. Believing that one thing happened or another, is just making assumptions and speculation.
I also personally believe, that anyone who actually believes that zimmerman murdered trayvon, is just being brainwashed and picking up their pitchforks because they are too easy to believe the media, an outlet that is known for having an interest in sensationalizing stories for their ratings. Think for yourself, please.
It also doesn't help anyone to speculate on the case. Even if Trayvon was murdered, it doesn't help to dig into the case so that everyone finds out the private information of a child. It's a case about a minor, leave it alone to the professionals. Now the whole world knows he smoked pot, or had some trouble as a kid, as every kid does. You think his parents like this information becoming public? It's not right. He's a kid, but no one is going to look at it that way, everyone is going to look at him as any adult gangster drug dealer, or whatever, now, and that's not right. Regardless of what he did, he's just a kid, who isn't responsible for what he did, and it's unfortunate he died, but it doesn't put zimmerman at fault if he was just defending himself, either (it's just no one's fault, really).
We are able to speculate on this case and everyone is. The point of an discussion is to clear all possibilitys and im throwing one in here. I dont claim im right i only say it might happend that way. For me it is very disrespectfull to the relatives to say zimmerman should not be brought to court. In Germany this would be a no brainer the case is too difficult to be solved by the police so a court would look at it and say if its justified or not. I dont have a clue if in america its "all or nothing" and zimmerman needs to be accused to be a murder to bring him to court. Here we can just see the case as a case and therefore the judge need to decide what he did wrong and what punishment is appropiate.
it is unconstitutional for them to arrest him for murder/manslaughter if they believe that there is insufficient evidence. and its not the police that decided in this case, it was the state attorney's office.
He isnt guilty so why should they arrest him? He would be a suspect and therefor only need to say what happend in his eyes. He would be free till its proven otherwise.
And ofcourse the police cant decide this case. But they collect evidences and take statements.
if he isnt guilty, what basis do they have for bringing him in front of a judge? it is unconstitutional for the gov't to force potential criminal defendants to give testimony, so why would he participate in such a proceeding? if he is free, why would he agree to attend a hearing that could potentially make him not free?
edit: i think what you want to see happen is what is already happening: a grand jury is determining whether to have him arrested.
Becouse he pulled the trigger of a gun wich killed someone who was unarmed. In such cases this should be standart acting.
Everyone might be wrongly accused of soemthing. If everyone ever brought to court would already be guilty we would need no courts.
Yeah and thats very importand and the correct decision.
i am very confused about what you are saying. in the U.S., you are presumed innocent until the gov't proves otherwise. you don't need to prove your innocence ever. so, a person (suspect or defendant) has no reason to participate in a extra-judicial proceeding that would ultimately lead to them either getting arrested or potentially convicted, especially since everything you say in this proceeding will likely be used against you at trial.
But you can only prove your guild by a court. So if it would be like you said no one ever would be guilty. I dont know if you aware of this paradoxon, but if there is doubt about someone is a murder he can still be brought to court. He doesnt need to prove his innocence but the court need to proove his guilt.
We comin furthure and furthure from the actual case so i will stop discussion here sorry.
i think this article might help you understand why there is no paradox.
you need "probable cause" to arrest and bring a defendant before the court (i.e., a trial, or pre-trial evidentiary hearings). this is a very low standard. in the present case, a grand jury will determine if there is "probable cause" to arrest zimmerman. absent probable cause, you cannot arrest someone or bring them in front of a court, and a criminal defendant/suspect is not obligated to testify in front of the grand jury due to constitutional issues (dont have to give testimony against yourself).
you need "beyond a reasonable doubt" to convict them of the crime. this will be determined by a jury after a trial.
I've been following this story and honestly don't know what to think. If Zimmerman did act out of racist tendencies then he deserves to be punished. I don't get why he was following Martin at all. If I saw someone suspicious I'd walk away instead of continuing to follow. Martin may very well be the victim but given the amount of information that was hidden about him I have trouble making a clear decision. Why were pictures of him from years ago used? He wasn't just a child like he was initially portrayed to be.
Either way messed up story. I'll be interested to see where it goes and what happened. Racism is something that needs to be cut out of society. (It will never be done given the strong roots that exist in America IMO)
On March 29 2012 15:48 Drmooose wrote: I've been following this story and honestly don't know what to think. If Zimmerman did act out of racist tendencies then he deserves to be punished. I don't get why he was following Martin at all. If I saw someone suspicious I'd walk away instead of continuing to follow. Martin may very well be the victim but given the amount of information that was hidden about him I have trouble making a clear decision. Why were pictures of him from years ago used? He wasn't just a child like he was initially portrayed to be.
Either way messed up story. I'll be interested to see where it goes and what happened. Racism is something that needs to be cut out of society. (It will never be done given the strong roots that exist in America IMO)
Zimmerman was apart of the neighbordhood watch and he was on his shift. There had been a series of break ins. He was following him to make sure he didnt do anything illegal while the police were coming.
You assume he wasnt holding him. I only think he might have hold him wich would need to be hardly investigated thats all.
For me this whole thing needs to be brought to a higher instance and be investigated by a court.
EDIT: Sorry not a murder but he would have acted highly negligent.
I didn't assume anything. Maybe Zimmerman is a murderer because he threatened Trayvon's well being or attacked him or restrained him physically, or maybe he defended himself when trayvon attacked or threatened zimerman first. We don't know, and although evidence seems to support that Zimmerman defended himself, it's not conclusive.
What is conclusive is:
1. We don't know for sure what happened, so anything else is speculation.
2. Regardless of what happened, as what's been released so far to the general public, there is not enough information to convict Zimmerman of a crime, so therefore, regardless of what really happened, he should not be charged with murder because not enough evidence exists to.
3. Believing that one thing happened or another, is just making assumptions and speculation.
I also personally believe, that anyone who actually believes that zimmerman murdered trayvon, is just being brainwashed and picking up their pitchforks because they are too easy to believe the media, an outlet that is known for having an interest in sensationalizing stories for their ratings. Think for yourself, please.
It also doesn't help anyone to speculate on the case. Even if Trayvon was murdered, it doesn't help to dig into the case so that everyone finds out the private information of a child. It's a case about a minor, leave it alone to the professionals. Now the whole world knows he smoked pot, or had some trouble as a kid, as every kid does. You think his parents like this information becoming public? It's not right. He's a kid, but no one is going to look at it that way, everyone is going to look at him as any adult gangster drug dealer, or whatever, now, and that's not right. Regardless of what he did, he's just a kid, who isn't responsible for what he did, and it's unfortunate he died, but it doesn't put zimmerman at fault if he was just defending himself, either (it's just no one's fault, really).
We are able to speculate on this case and everyone is. The point of an discussion is to clear all possibilitys and im throwing one in here. I dont claim im right i only say it might happend that way. For me it is very disrespectfull to the relatives to say zimmerman should not be brought to court. In Germany this would be a no brainer the case is too difficult to be solved by the police so a court would look at it and say if its justified or not. I dont have a clue if in america its "all or nothing" and zimmerman needs to be accused to be a murder to bring him to court. Here we can just see the case as a case and therefore the judge need to decide what he did wrong and what punishment is appropiate.
it is unconstitutional for them to arrest him for murder/manslaughter if they believe that there is insufficient evidence. and its not the police that decided in this case, it was the state attorney's office.
He isnt guilty so why should they arrest him? He would be a suspect and therefor only need to say what happend in his eyes. He would be free till its proven otherwise.
And ofcourse the police cant decide this case. But they collect evidences and take statements.
if he isnt guilty, what basis do they have for bringing him in front of a judge? it is unconstitutional for the gov't to force potential criminal defendants to give testimony, so why would he participate in such a proceeding? if he is free, why would he agree to attend a hearing that could potentially make him not free?
edit: i think what you want to see happen is what is already happening: a grand jury is determining whether to have him arrested.
Becouse he pulled the trigger of a gun wich killed someone who was unarmed. In such cases this should be standart acting.
Everyone might be wrongly accused of soemthing. If everyone ever brought to court would already be guilty we would need no courts.
Yeah and thats very importand and the correct decision.
i am very confused about what you are saying. in the U.S., you are presumed innocent until the gov't proves otherwise. you don't need to prove your innocence ever. so, a person (suspect or defendant) has no reason to participate in a extra-judicial proceeding that would ultimately lead to them either getting arrested or potentially convicted, especially since everything you say in this proceeding will likely be used against you at trial.
But you can only prove your guild by a court. So if it would be like you said no one ever would be guilty. I dont know if you aware of this paradoxon, but if there is doubt about someone is a murder he can still be brought to court. He doesnt need to prove his innocence but the court need to proove his guilt.
We comin furthure and furthure from the actual case so i will stop discussion here sorry.
i think this article might help you understand why there is no paradox.
you need "probable cause" to arrest and bring a defendant before the court (i.e., a trial, or pre-trial evidentiary hearings). this is a very low standard. in the present case, a grand jury will determine if there is "probable cause" to arrest zimmerman. absent probable cause, you cannot arrest someone or bring them in front of a court, and a criminal defendant/suspect is not obligated to testify in front of the grand jury due to constitutional issues (dont have to give testimony against yourself).
you need "beyond a reasonable doubt" to convict them of the crime. this will be determined by a jury after a trial.
I dont see this working sorry. This is highly based on opinion of some people and it opens door to abuse. Its like having a court before the court wich is not really complete and in danger of being casually. But i think critic on the US law system isnt in place here. I just hope they make this a case of negligent homicide and bring it to court.
would you fear for your life if you had a gun, and 100lbs + on the guy? if you do, then you have a problem.
Yes, I would definitely fear for my life if a 17 year old black male, who might be armed too, by the way, and was acting suspicious (like if on drugs), punched me in the face. Sorry, but I've been held up at gun point, I've seen multiple people shot (some to death) in gang shoot-outs, and seen multiple people die from events that started with a punch in the face, actually. In some of these cases, it was 17 year old black men who looked just like Trayvon, actually (not saying black people are a threat here, I'm saying people who looked just like Trayvon, young black, skinny, are capable of murder too). And in some cases, if I DIDNT fear for my life, I would have a couple holes in me, if I wasn't killed.
Unfortunately in the USA there are more 17 year old black teens in jail than in college. Source : (QI, BBC). So I don't think anyone can say the guy was harmless because he was only 17 years old.
I've been following this story and honestly don't know what to think. If Zimmerman did act out of racist tendencies then he deserves to be punished. I don't get why he was following Martin at all. If I saw someone suspicious I'd walk away instead of continuing to follow. Martin may very well be the victim but given the amount of information that was hidden about him I have trouble making a clear decision. Why were pictures of him from years ago used? He wasn't just a child like he was initially portrayed to be.
It's not illegal to be racist, or to follow someone. And it may be true he 'deserves' to be punished, but that doesn't necessarily mean the government is the entity that should or could do it. Right now, the government should or could not do it, because not enough evidence exists over what may or may not happened (according to what we know right now).
He was following martin because he thought he was suspicious (dont know if he actually was), and because he was someone he had never seen before in his gated community. The fact he stopped a burglarly before, possibly by someone who matched the same physical description, also may add to why he was watching Trayvon. I think it's perfectly reasonable that he was curious about someone he had never seen before in a gated community.
Hell, I lived in a suburban neighborhood growing up, and my friend and I always walked around, all day, and up to 4 AM, all the while growing up, from 7 years old to 18 years old. People called the police on us ALL the time, even though everyone knew we lived there and weren't trouble makers.
While it was kind of weird, there was nothing wrong with people calling the police on us. We had friendly conversation with the police, and 2 minutes later that was that when they left us alone.
Nothing wrong with what Zimmerman did, up to the part that is contentious (who assaulted who first).
f I saw someone suspicious I'd walk away instead of continuing to follow.
What if your job was to follow? Zimmerman was some sort of police in the neighborhood. Now, maybe he's a nutjob for being self annoited security officer, but whatever, it's his job, whether it's a delusion or not, and he's had some training in the matter.
So maybe he's a bit nutty. Whatever. But if you thought it was your job, regardless if it was nutty or not to think so, there is nothing nutty about doing your job. Does this make sense? Anyways, you are you, zimmerman is zimmerman. I would inquire if I saw someone suspicious walking around. Not everyone is a pussy.
I'm joking. But seriously, not everyone would just walk away, and it's not wrong to walk away or to wonder what's up.
What would be wrong, is to assault someone. Which is what we don't know.
Why were pictures of him from years ago used? He wasn't just a child like he was initially portrayed to be.
The media wants to sensationalize a story to get ratings, and sometimes people have an agenda to push that makes certain politicians look better. It may benefit a certain political party to make it seem that the white guy was a racist, and the black guy was a poor, downtrodden black man, and that this political party supports this black man, means that the other party are a bunch of racists, while this particular party supports the black man, and the other one doesn't.
It's nearing election time.... who cares what the facts are, one party will be seen as racist, and the other will be seen as supporting black people. When all that happened, was someone got shot, and neither the victim or attacker/defender were thinking of international politics when this shit went down. I seriously doubt even race or beliefs of any kind were at issue when this happened.
Either way messed up story. I'll be interested to see where it goes and what happened. Racism is something that needs to be cut out of society. (It will never be done given the strong roots that exist in America IMO)
What will happen is news stories will get ratings, and people will continue to watch the same channels they've been watching, even though these same news channels might have misled them on this case. Certain people will be motivated to vote for a certain political party to right injustices that don't really exist, because the other party is 'evil'. The other party will be seen as racist.
It doesn't matter what really happens. Because that other party isn't racist, and that certain party isn't fighting any injustice, or at least, isn't doing anything that has anything to do with this case. These news channels might have misled people, or they might not have, but they did sensationalize a case without knowing what the real story is.
The truth doesn't matter, what really happened doesn't matter. The results are in. Meanwhile, the kid's family will be known as having a drug addicted gangster as a son, regardless of if that's true or not and shouldn't be public anyways because he was a minor, and the Zimmerman guy will be known as a racist, bible-thumping idiot, regardless if he is or not. The only people who will always be fucked over, are the people involved - not the people who are trying to take advantage of what happened.
Winners are already being chosen, and it won't be anyone involved in the case.
On March 29 2012 08:33 Silidons wrote: news stations such as faux news and your general unconvinced civilian for some reason love to point "HEY LOOK HE DID THIS IN THE PAST, HE USED DRUGS! SO HE WAS A BAD PERSON!" but they don't actually understand the entire point of this fucking shooting, is that at the time of the shooting he was actually doing nothing wrong. what type of country do we really live in that killing someone who was unarmed and minding their own business justified if they smoke weed, has sucker punched someone before, was suspended from school? does this somehow justify the killing of him? obviously not and i don't want to live in a country that thinks it does (or its civilians that think it does).
They're trying to point out a flaw in the credibility that Travyon was a "harmless boy who never did anything to anyone".
I can't even tell you how many times in Chicago that when a kid is shot(most seem to be African American, but that is REALLY beside the point, there have been Hispanic/Whites as well) no one ever has anything negative to say about the child.
I'm really skeptical about this case. At first I was sure he killed the kid in cold blood, but then Zimmerman somehow gets punched in the face and the back of the head(I believe that was it)? Something doesn't add up imo.
being punched in the head when stalking someone = uncommon? what would you do if someone was stalking you? "Oh hello good sir, may I ask why is it you have been following me for the past 10 minutes?"
get real. if someone was following me and was aggressive towards me at all you bet your ass i would fight him and subdue him.
since when does getting punched in the head = life in danger?
Since a single punch to the head can render you unconscious and unable to retain your firearm.
Actually it can do a lot more than that- people have died from single punches to the head. If you lose consciousness before you hit the ground your head can hit the concrete at a high speed and cause a fatal brain injury. It happens more than you would think.
^ that's so aweful! I feel like killing your own brother with 1 punch would be punishment enough, the idea it's murder is ludicroius. I guess manslaughter... but that seems a little extreme, I don't think just a single punch constitutes "an appreciable risk of serious injury"
On March 29 2012 13:15 Belial88 wrote: Zimmerman can say whatever he wants to trayvon. He could have went up to trayvon and said "your mother is a whore". If trayvon assaulted him first, no matter what words were exchanged, zimmerman would have been okay to defend himself using any means necessary, including the use of a deadly force, such as pushing the kid hard enough that he may fall and crack his head, a knife, tazer, or gun.
I mean really, if trayvon assaulted zimmerman first, no matter what words zimmerman said, then thank god he had the gun.
Not taking any stance in this, but just pointing out. I'm sure certain verbal exchange wouldn't protect him, for example "I'm going to rob you.", or "I'm going to kill you". Then the guy who initiated assault may become self defense?
The new footage from ABC at the police station seems to indicate that the shooter was unharmed after the arrest. It will be difficult in the court to prove that the shooter was under any real threat since there is no proof of any struggle. A heated discussion and possibly an attempt to push the shooter over may not be sufficient enough claim the right to take action.
EPT
