EPTTrayvon Martin Case Shadowed by Series of Police Missteps
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/17/us/trayvon-martin-case-shadowed-by-police-missteps.html
Shooting of Trayvon Martin - Page 61
| Forum Index > General Forum |
This is a sensitive and complex issue, please do not make comments without first reading the facts, which are cataloged in the OP. If you make an uninformed post, or one that isn't relevant to the discussion, you will be moderated. If in doubt, don't post. | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
Trayvon Martin Case Shadowed by Series of Police Missteps http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/17/us/trayvon-martin-case-shadowed-by-police-missteps.html | ||
|
rhs408
United States904 Posts
Talk about two individuals who completely underestimated the other though - one didn't think that the other would knock him down and start beating his ass right there on the spot after confronting him, but the guy beating his ass didn't think dude would be strapped... damn. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
On May 19 2012 12:51 rhs408 wrote: At this point, my opinion on the matter is that Zimmerman should be sentenced to time served and released, as well as having his gun license revoked or whatever needs to be legally done so that he cannot ever carry a gun again. Zimmerman is not getting off easy - his life is changed forever. I think he will end up spending at least another year in prison though just to appease Treyvon's family, which I don't mind. But as much as I hate to say it, he does not deserve to spend several years in prison for this. Talk about two individuals who completely underestimated the other though - one didn't think that the other would knock him down and start beating his ass right there on the spot after confronting him, but the guy beating his ass didn't think dude would be strapped... damn. So what is he guilty of? You have a punishment picked out for him but not a conviction? | ||
|
Dapper_Cad
United Kingdom964 Posts
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/5/18/i_know_he_was_scared_trayvon http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/18/trayvon-martins-girlfriends-testimony/ http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gYog4pvM2uaqHwEAq34FtHgrNgKA?docId=3a57c55f3a5b42fcbd59c284d6fc8971 | ||
|
Dark_Chill
Canada3353 Posts
| ||
|
smarty pants
United States78 Posts
On May 20 2012 03:04 Dark_Chill wrote: The SYG law works so that if you had reason to believe you were in immediate life-threatening danger, you could respond with necessary force right? If Trayvon was actually high at the time and his mindset was altered, could he fall under the SYG law? No. Both Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman were at a neutral state until Trayvon Martin decked George Zimmerman in the head. At that point Trayvon Martin has lost his legal protection. | ||
|
gruff
Sweden2276 Posts
On May 20 2012 04:35 smarty pants wrote: No. Both Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman were at a neutral state until Trayvon Martin decked George Zimmerman in the head. At that point Trayvon Martin has lost his legal protection. How can you tell if they were in a neutral state? If Zimmerman starts out by pointing his gun at Trevon and Trevon respond by attacking him, that wouldn't exactly be a neutral stance. I'm not saying that's what happened but as far as I can tell there's still a gap in between where Zimmerman asks him what he's doing there and the point where Trevon are attacking him. The question is what exactly triggered Trevon to presumably attack him. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
| ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
On May 20 2012 06:11 BlackJack wrote: Is SYG even relevant at all in this case? All Stand Your Ground does is remove your "duty to retreat" before using deadly force. If Zimmerman was on the ground with Trayvon on top of him then he obviously couldn't retreat, so I don't see why it wouldn't be covered by normal self-defense laws. unlikely that it is relevant. there is a blog in the op about why it isnt relevant. | ||
|
Felnarion
442 Posts
On May 20 2012 05:06 gruff wrote: How can you tell if they were in a neutral state? If Zimmerman starts out by pointing his gun at Trevon and Trevon respond by attacking him, that wouldn't exactly be a neutral stance. I'm not saying that's what happened but as far as I can tell there's still a gap in between where Zimmerman asks him what he's doing there and the point where Trevon are attacking him. The question is what exactly triggered Trevon to presumably attack him. We can reasonably assume he did not have a gum drawn by the testimony of the girlfriend. She was on the phone with trayvon at the beginning of the altercation, and Tray on expressed no surprise or fear that would be expected of someone being approached by someone wth a gun. Further, I find it unlikely trayvon would have comitted to an altercation if he knew Zimmerman had a gun. | ||
|
woody60707
United States1863 Posts
On May 20 2012 05:06 gruff wrote: How can you tell if they were in a neutral state? If Zimmerman starts out by pointing his gun at Trevon and Trevon respond by attacking him, that wouldn't exactly be a neutral stance. I'm not saying that's what happened but as far as I can tell there's still a gap in between where Zimmerman asks him what he's doing there and the point where Trevon are attacking him. The question is what exactly triggered Trevon to presumably attack him. The benefit of the doubt should always go to the defendant. | ||
|
_Ice_
18 Posts
On May 20 2012 06:11 BlackJack wrote: Is SYG even relevant at all in this case? All Stand Your Ground does is remove your "duty to retreat" before using deadly force. If Zimmerman was on the ground with Trayvon on top of him then he obviously couldn't retreat, so I don't see why it wouldn't be covered by normal self-defense laws. I don't think it even matters if Zimmerman was forced to the ground. You cannot just chase down some guy and then when he fights back, you shoot him dead. That is murder. | ||
|
NEOtheONE
United States2233 Posts
On May 21 2012 18:05 _Ice_ wrote: I don't think it even matters if Zimmerman was forced to the ground. You cannot just chase down some guy and then when he fights back, you shoot him dead. That is murder. So what if the person had stolen something? Isn't that reason to chase the person down? Zimmerman's reason for chasing Martin was based on the fact that there had been a string of thefts in the area committed by young African American men. I still think this is a case of manslaughter even with all the new evidence. Too much debateable "evidence" to label it either self-defense or full on murder. The fact remains that Martin is dead because of Zimmerman, and the evidence that is not debated suggests that this was not premeditated murder. Therefore, manslaughter is the most logical charge that should be leveled. | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
On May 21 2012 18:05 _Ice_ wrote: I don't think it even matters if Zimmerman was forced to the ground. You cannot just chase down some guy and then when he fights back, you shoot him dead. That is murder. Not under any actual law. Your opinion, yes. | ||
|
JitnikoVi
Russian Federation396 Posts
On May 19 2012 15:26 BlackJack wrote: So what is he guilty of? You have a punishment picked out for him but not a conviction? QFT, For reasons too long to list (and have already been stated several times, in the both the comments and news reports), i truly believe that although some sort of minor punishment should be made to Zimmerman purely for the sake of the death of another man (and by minor punishment I mean, removal of weapons license and at most a government issued psychiatrist which he must visit at least once a week for at least 6 months). With all these recent events coming to light it is evident that Martin was the initiator and the aggressor by physical nature. Thank goodness these new witnesses and police statements and other official reports are now coming out with solid evidence (Zimmerman's bruises and scars) which are working to shine truth upon the situation. Zimmerman most definitely does not deserve a second degree murder charge, and perhaps not even a manslaughter charge. If this man serves hard time for something like this, Ive lost my faith in the justice system... just like I did with the OJ incident. To be honest, it is hard for me to even understand why after reading all the materials posted about this case Martin still has such a large backing. Background information, incidents that happened prior that day, social standing, and literally 80% of details in this thread in the past month all point to Martin. But hell, that's just my two cents. | ||
|
Felnarion
442 Posts
On May 22 2012 00:40 NEOtheONE wrote: So what if the person had stolen something? Isn't that reason to chase the person down? Zimmerman's reason for chasing Martin was based on the fact that there had been a string of thefts in the area committed by young African American men. I still think this is a case of manslaughter even with all the new evidence. Too much debateable "evidence" to label it either self-defense or full on murder. The fact remains that Martin is dead because of Zimmerman, and the evidence that is not debated suggests that this was not premeditated murder. Therefore, manslaughter is the most logical charge that should be leveled. You're of course aware that the chain of events, the only one we have anything to go on, Zimmerman's, which is corroborated as much as is possible by every eyewitness to the events, as well as all the evidence, says that Zimmerman was heading back to his car when Trayvon approached him. | ||
|
Silvertine
United States509 Posts
On May 19 2012 02:06 dAPhREAk wrote: the fact that he was on drugs supports zimmerman's story that he thought the kid was on drugs--part of the reason why he called the police. just more evidence that supports zimmerman's story. THC stays in the system for quite a while, there's no evidence that he was actually high at the time. Also, the idea that somebody could tell you were high on cannabis simply by the way you were walking down a street is extremely unlikely. It's not acid, you would have to be extraordinarily high to appear physically impaired on herb. And if you were that high it would put you at an enormous disadvantage in a fight. So the idea that it supports Zimmerman's case is pretty silly. | ||
|
JitnikoVi
Russian Federation396 Posts
On May 22 2012 02:58 Silvertine wrote: THC stays in the system for quite a while, there's no evidence that he was actually high at the time. Also, the idea that somebody could tell you were high on cannabis simply by the way you were walking down a street is extremely unlikely. It's not acid, you would have to be extraordinarily high to appear physically impaired on herb. And if you were that high it would put you at an enormous disadvantage in a fight. So the idea that it supports Zimmerman's case is pretty silly. The kid is 17, im sure if he has just a taste of any substance (alcohol, weed, acid) he would be walking/acting funny due to a low tolerance, watch the video of him in the 7/11 the way hes acting is already suspicious, and i had indication of him being on some sort impairment then, and this was before i read that he had thc in his body at that same time. EDIT: not to mention he has just got suspended from school that week for having an empty baggie of weed on him, not making any solid statements, but if i was a 17 year old kid who didnt care about school and smoked weed id probably be smoking it on the days that i got kicked out of school and have nothing to do and am lonely and possibly depressed. Also, him being disadvantaged in a fight high states absolutely nothing, even if disadvantaged does that mean he cant cause bodily harm? | ||
|
PanN
United States2828 Posts
On May 22 2012 03:09 JitnikoVi wrote: The kid is 17, im sure if he has just a taste of any substance (alcohol, weed, acid) he would be walking/acting funny due to a low tolerance, watch the video of him in the 7/11 the way hes acting is already suspicious, and i had indication of him being on some sort impairment then, and this was before i read that he had thc in his body at that same time. EDIT: not to mention he has just got suspended from school that week for having an empty baggie of weed on him, not making any solid statements, but if i was a 17 year old kid who didnt care about school and smoked weed id probably be smoking it on the days that i got kicked out of school and have nothing to do and am lonely and possibly depressed. Also, him being disadvantaged in a fight high states absolutely nothing, even if disadvantaged does that mean he cant cause bodily harm? Him being 17 has nothing to do with his tolerance. If you think age has something to do with tolerance, you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. I had friends at 13-14 that could out smoke an adult and still act more sober, age has NOTHING (BOLD SON) to do with his tolerance. And yeah him being high doesn't affect whether he can kick someones ass or not, I do kickboxing / jiu jitsu high as a Georgia pine all the time and I do pretty damn well. | ||
|
Twiggs
United States600 Posts
On May 19 2012 03:55 Zaqwert wrote: I would say the lesson to be learned here is to not trust the media, they have no interest in truth, only in sensationalism. They report the story they want to report, facts be damned. However this is lesson # 238,191 from this particular curriculum and people never learn and never hold the media accountable. A few years ago it was the Duke lacross phony rape allegations, now it's this story, and in a few years it will be some other story. The media will latch onto some imagined salacious angle on some story that turns out to be completely bogus. ...is what drives ratings. I just want to reiterate exactly what this guy has sad because it is completely the truth. Its sad but in America our lives revolve around entertainment. Reality TV is a direct product of this addiction to sensationalist entertainment. "Reality" TV: where everyone is yelling, getting into fights and getting arrested on a daily basis; that's not a normal American's reality. But the media has picked up on this and for years have spun the truth or just put out incorrect information altogether so that they might be the "first" network to get you the news that you "want" (all the controversial stuff). In an effort to make more money and fame the media has fed our desire for controversy and given us this shit for a long time; I for one would much prefer the straight truth. I think the bottom line with this case is: be skeptical of the media and what they are telling you as fact. We need to take it upon ourselves to search for the correct information from multiple sources before we formulate our opinions on the issues that these networks present to us. | ||
| ||
