Trayvon Martin

Guitar92player · July 2013

mookeywrench wrote:

Guitar92player wrote:

Last-12-Exit wrote:

Why is everyone so upset? He was acqitted of the charges (forcibly) brought to him by the prosecution. There was no evidence that supports anything but self defense.

A tragedy did happen. A young man was shot dead. Many things could've happened to prevent this.
1) Zimmerman could have not left his truck
2) Martin didn't have to confront Zimmerman.
Just to name 2.
Please stop naming this a race case. Its simply a self defense case.

Regarding number 2, if some guy was following you and you felt threatened, wouldn't you confront him and ask why they are following?

But that's all a reasonable person would have done. There wouldn't have been punches thrown or any sort of scuffles. Instead Trayvon acted like a teenager (shocking huh?) and escalated the situation with raw emotion against a neighborhood watchman whose zealousy also further escalated the situation.

Once the scuffle broke out it was a battle of self-defense. Only two people know if it was a life threatening scuffle and the prosecution could not prove beyond reasonable doubt that it wasn't.

Civil court does not have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that's where Zimmerman will meet his punishment.

True, I forgot to say that Trayvon was in the wrong once he fought.

But think about, couldn't Trayvon have been fighting in self-defense as well? Maybe he did see his gun and tried to pin-down Zimmerman before he could take his gun out? I guess we'll never know.

Last-12-Exit · July 2013

Guitar92player wrote:

Last-12-Exit wrote:

Why is everyone so upset? He was acqitted of the charges (forcibly) brought to him by the prosecution. There was no evidence that supports anything but self defense.

A tragedy did happen. A young man was shot dead. Many things could've happened to prevent this.
1) Zimmerman could have not left his truck
2) Martin didn't have to confront Zimmerman.
Just to name 2.
Please stop naming this a race case. Its simply a self defense case.

Regarding number 2, if some guy was following you and you felt threatened, wouldn't you confront him and ask why they are following? Trayvon could have just went to a nearby house (however, Zimmerman maybe would have assumed he was going to the house to commit a crime or something) but what happened happened.

So what I am saying his that it was more reasonable for Trayvon to turn around and confront Zimmerman than it was for Zimmerman to get out of his truck. Zimmerman saw a kid walking and automatically assumed he was up to no good. If it was me, I would have thought it was some regular citizen walking late at night. I would have drove the truck up to him and tell him to hurry up and get to where he was going, its late at night.

I am glad he was not convicted of murder, but a manslaughter charge sounds more reasonable. But in the end it doesn't matter, God will be the ultimate judge (sorry to get religious but that is my belief. )

If he really felt threatened by a guy following him, why on earth would he confront him?

jlaustin · July 2013

Last-12-Exit wrote:

Guitar92player wrote:

Last-12-Exit wrote:

Why is everyone so upset? He was acqitted of the charges (forcibly) brought to him by the prosecution. There was no evidence that supports anything but self defense.

A tragedy did happen. A young man was shot dead. Many things could've happened to prevent this.
1) Zimmerman could have not left his truck
2) Martin didn't have to confront Zimmerman.
Just to name 2.
Please stop naming this a race case. Its simply a self defense case.

Regarding number 2, if some guy was following you and you felt threatened, wouldn't you confront him and ask why they are following? Trayvon could have just went to a nearby house (however, Zimmerman maybe would have assumed he was going to the house to commit a crime or something) but what happened happened.

So what I am saying his that it was more reasonable for Trayvon to turn around and confront Zimmerman than it was for Zimmerman to get out of his truck. Zimmerman saw a kid walking and automatically assumed he was up to no good. If it was me, I would have thought it was some regular citizen walking late at night. I would have drove the truck up to him and tell him to hurry up and get to where he was going, its late at night.

I am glad he was not convicted of murder, but a manslaughter charge sounds more reasonable. But in the end it doesn't matter, God will be the ultimate judge (sorry to get religious but that is my belief. )

If he really felt threatened by a guy following him, why on earth would he confront him?

Yeah, why would Zimmerman do that?

Guitar92player · July 2013

Last-12-Exit wrote:

Guitar92player wrote:

Last-12-Exit wrote:

Why is everyone so upset? He was acqitted of the charges (forcibly) brought to him by the prosecution. There was no evidence that supports anything but self defense.

A tragedy did happen. A young man was shot dead. Many things could've happened to prevent this.
1) Zimmerman could have not left his truck
2) Martin didn't have to confront Zimmerman.
Just to name 2.
Please stop naming this a race case. Its simply a self defense case.

Regarding number 2, if some guy was following you and you felt threatened, wouldn't you confront him and ask why they are following? Trayvon could have just went to a nearby house (however, Zimmerman maybe would have assumed he was going to the house to commit a crime or something) but what happened happened.

So what I am saying his that it was more reasonable for Trayvon to turn around and confront Zimmerman than it was for Zimmerman to get out of his truck. Zimmerman saw a kid walking and automatically assumed he was up to no good. If it was me, I would have thought it was some regular citizen walking late at night. I would have drove the truck up to him and tell him to hurry up and get to where he was going, its late at night.

I am glad he was not convicted of murder, but a manslaughter charge sounds more reasonable. But in the end it doesn't matter, God will be the ultimate judge (sorry to get religious but that is my belief. )

If he really felt threatened by a guy following him, why on earth would he confront him?

1. If he didnt turn around, the guy behind him could have sneak attacked him (luckily that wasnt Zimmerman's goal)
2. By turning around he had a fighting chance
3. By turning around he could have asked why he was following. Sadly it turned into a fight

vant0037 · July 2013

musicismylife78 wrote:

haha. respect the process. reaffirm the process. silver lining. Wow. What a joke. You followed the american justice system the last, oh 200 years? You are only fooling yourself. Louima, King, Tim Thomas, Diallo. Gee, I wonder what the process is. Id never serve on a jury in my life if called up. Because id tell them straight up when they interviewed me "I dont believe in the system, its corrupt, racist and classist, and Ive given money to Mumia, Peltier and the WM3".

As someone who's done work for groups like the Innocence Project, I don't believe this case belongs in the same category of miscarriage as Mumia, Leonard Peltier or the WM3. As someone who's done work for all three causes, it's concerning to hear someone comparing a case where the State failed to meet its burden of proof and it resulted in an acquittal to 3 instances where the State arguably prevailed by nefarious means and obtained convictions when they shouldn't have. Either we want a process where the State can only exert its will and imprison people if it can meet its burden or we don't. It's doubly scary that someone who professes to care about social justice issues would blindly state they wouldn't sit on a jury if called. By what right can you criticize the conclusions of other people who did?

Do I believe Zimmerman was guilty of a crime here? Yes. The circumstantial evidence just never added up to his claims and actions being reasonable and personally, I think much of it could be construed in just the opposite way that the jury apparently did: to show criminal liability on Zimmerman's part. But in a world where a "jury of my peers" is often the only protection we have against the power of the State, I refuse to throw away or ignore our Constitutional process for a racist prick like George Zimmerman. The fact that the pro-gun crowd and the social justice crowd continue to use this result and case as a means to further their own political agendas is not only short sighted but also cheapens immeasurably the life of a dead boy many are claiming to care about.

blondieblue227 · July 2013

Godfather. wrote:

very sad but I don't see the racism issue.

Godfather.

'they' always get away with it.

quote from Zimmerman.

Guitar92player · July 2013

blondieblue227 wrote:

Godfather. wrote:

very sad but I don't see the racism issue.

Godfather.

'they' always get away with it.

quote from Zimmerman.

this

Its Evolution Baby · July 2013

The Law in Fla made it hard for a conviction. In CA where we don't have stand your ground Zimmerman would have gotten Manslaugher for sure.

The only fact I can take away from this case is BOTH humans should still be alive today.

musicismylife78 · July 2013

vant0037 wrote:

musicismylife78 wrote:

haha. respect the process. reaffirm the process. silver lining. Wow. What a joke. You followed the american justice system the last, oh 200 years? You are only fooling yourself. Louima, King, Tim Thomas, Diallo. Gee, I wonder what the process is. Id never serve on a jury in my life if called up. Because id tell them straight up when they interviewed me "I dont believe in the system, its corrupt, racist and classist, and Ive given money to Mumia, Peltier and the WM3".

As someone who's done work for groups like the Innocence Project, I don't believe this case belongs in the same category of miscarriage as Mumia, Leonard Peltier or the WM3. As someone who's done work for all three causes, it's concerning to hear someone comparing a case where the State failed to meet its burden of proof and it resulted in an acquittal to 3 instances where the State arguably prevailed by nefarious means and obtained convictions when they shouldn't have. Either we want a process where the State can only exert its will and imprison people if it can meet its burden or we don't. It's doubly scary that someone who professes to care about social justice issues would blindly state they wouldn't sit on a jury if called. By what right can you criticize the conclusions of other people who did?

Do I believe Zimmerman was guilty of a crime here? Yes. The circumstantial evidence just never added up to his claims and actions being reasonable and personally, I think much of it could be construed in just the opposite way that the jury apparently did: to show criminal liability on Zimmerman's part. But in a world where a "jury of my peers" is often the only protection we have against the power of the State, I refuse to throw away or ignore our Constitutional process for a racist prick like George Zimmerman. The fact that the pro-gun crowd and the social justice crowd continue to use this result and case as a means to further their own political agendas is not only short sighted but also cheapens immeasurably the life of a dead boy many are claiming to care about.

I speak for myself, not others. I think its hypocritical and poppycock to portray yourself as somehow speaking for others.

My right is my right. I can support who I want. I can serve or not serve. No one has the right to judge me. A justice system that throws the wm3, mumia and peltier in prison is not one I want to be a part of. The justice system is beyond repair and I refuse to pat it on its back.

the system doesnt magically work. MUmia, peltier and wm3 werent abnormalities and exceptions to an otherwise pretty good or decent justice system. Its all rotten. from the top down, from the front to the back.

I find it disturbing otherwise socially aware individuals would turn a blind eye to a system that is broken. Acting like it works some of the time allows people like peltier and mumia to rot in prison. And it does a disservice to the millions of innocent black men in prison for no other reason than the color of their skin.

A system that allows such injustice to exist is not one I want to even be a part of. Being part of a jury is condoning such actions. It reaffirms and tacitly accepts the justice system as is, as something that can be just and fair. Serving on a jury or applauding any judicial action reaffirms the idea that the justice system works and is a slap in the face not only to the black boy that was murdered but to the millions of people in prison, millions of people who will never be known to the public. Its a slap in the face to the thousands of black men lynched, the 401 treaties the U.S. failed to comply with-with the native americans.

I have publicly called for an abolition to prisons, and to the building of new ones. they serve no purpose other than to make people wealthy.

I find it disturbing someone who supposedly is aware of the nature of the justice system would blindly and knowingly say the process worked.

American justice is a joke. Anyone who thinks otherwise has the wool pulled over there eyes. Yes, even you, my dear.

musicismylife78 · July 2013

the innocence project is a noble cause. But it comes at it from the perspective that the justice system usually gets it right and that if only we work within the system and get the few people out of prison who were wrongly convicted, we will have a fine justice system again.

Im not interested in reformist politics or working within the system. its boring. And its tired and its proven to not do anything.

Any observer can see the justice system is corrupt beyond repair. its not just a few innocent people. Or a few corrupt police or judges etc... Its the entire thing thats bad.

Its like the Obama vs Romney debate. Democrat vs Republican. Both parties share the same values. Are Obamas drones and spying and allowing of Gitmo any different than Bush's? Its only the tactics that change. The mentality remains.

Reform is pointless.

mookeywrench · July 2013

Guitar92player wrote:

True, I forgot to say that Trayvon was in the wrong once he fought.

But think about, couldn't Trayvon have been fighting in self-defense as well? Maybe he did see his gun and tried to pin-down Zimmerman before he could take his gun out? I guess we'll never know.

Trayvon absolutely could have been/was fighting in self-defense, he didn't commit any crimes and wasn't being detained by an officer, that's why neighborhood watchmen are only supposed to report to police. If he had gotten a hold of the gun and shot Zimmerman out of fear for his life, he would have been equally protected by the "stand your ground" law.

musicismylife78 · July 2013

mookeywrench wrote:

Guitar92player wrote:

True, I forgot to say that Trayvon was in the wrong once he fought.

But think about, couldn't Trayvon have been fighting in self-defense as well? Maybe he did see his gun and tried to pin-down Zimmerman before he could take his gun out? I guess we'll never know.

Trayvon absolutely could have been/was fighting in self-defense, he didn't commit any crimes and wasn't being detained by an officer, that's why neighborhood watchmen are only supposed to report to police. If he had gotten a hold of the gun and shot Zimmerman out of fear for his life, he would have been equally protected by the "stand your ground" law.

Nah. Had it been reversed, we would have had a guilty verdict and death sentence within days of the trial starting. When has america looked at a black youth as anything other than a threat?

Guitar92player · July 2013

mookeywrench wrote:

Guitar92player wrote:

True, I forgot to say that Trayvon was in the wrong once he fought.

But think about, couldn't Trayvon have been fighting in self-defense as well? Maybe he did see his gun and tried to pin-down Zimmerman before he could take his gun out? I guess we'll never know.

Trayvon absolutely could have been/was fighting in self-defense, he didn't commit any crimes and wasn't being detained by an officer, that's why neighborhood watchmen are only supposed to report to police. If he had gotten a hold of the gun and shot Zimmerman out of fear for his life, he would have been equally protected by the "stand your ground" law.

So basically the whole Stand Your Ground law is pure shit it seems.

vant0037 · July 2013

musicismylife78 wrote:

I speak for myself, not others. I think its hypocritical and poppycock to portray yourself as somehow speaking for others.

I'm not sure where I implied that I was speaking for others. If it was because I said the pro-gun crowd and social justice crowd are using this case as a proxy war for their own political agendas, I stand by that statement. Turn on a TV...it's happening right now.

musicismylife78 wrote:

My right is my right. I can support who I want. I can serve or not serve. No one has the right to judge me. A justice system that throws the wm3, mumia and peltier in prison is not one I want to be a part of. The justice system is beyond repair and I refuse to pat it on its back.

Who's patting the system on it's back? I've only argued that currently, it's the system we have. Zimmerman was acquitted by a jury of his peers. What should have happened? Should he have been convicted? Fine, but aren't you then looking for justice and resolution in a system you claim to want no part of? And if he shouldn't have been convicted, what should have been done with him? If not our current justice system, how would you propose we deal with individuals like George Zimmerman?

musicismylife78 wrote:

the system doesnt magically work. MUmia, peltier and wm3 werent abnormalities and exceptions to an otherwise pretty good or decent justice system. Its all rotten. from the top down, from the front to the back.

You're absolutely right. It takes thoughtful, patient and considerate people to make it work. It takes judges who are willing to listen to arguments and make decisions impartially. It takes prosecutors who want to see justice (not convictions). It takes defense attorneys who care about their clients and give good counsel. It takes jurors who take their job seriously and are willing to acquit or convict, if the evidence warrants it. For every Mumia, Peltier, WM3 or Juan Ramos, there are literally countless instances where people were rightfully acquitted or convicted.

Trust me, as a leftist and prosecutor, no one takes more seriously the idea that there are serious issues within the criminal justice system that need resolving. But those instances on the whole do not prove the claim that the entire system is flawed or "rotten." To say so shows how little experience one has with it.

musicismylife78 wrote:

I find it disturbing otherwise socially aware individuals would turn a blind eye to a system that is broken. Acting like it works some of the time allows people like peltier and mumia to rot in prison.

...so does refusing to sit on a jury. Remember: it takes one "not guilty" vote on a jury to acquit someone. By refusing to sit on one, you're potentially allowing another innocent man to be convicted.

musicismylife78 wrote:

Being part of a jury is condoning such actions. It reaffirms and tacitly accepts the justice system as is, as something that can be just and fair. Serving on a jury or applauding any judicial action reaffirms the idea that the justice system works and is a slap in the face not only to the black boy that was murdered but to the millions of people in prison, millions of people who will never be known to the public. Its a slap in the face to the thousands of black men lynched, the 401 treaties the U.S. failed to comply with-with the native americans.

Being on a jury isn't condoning anything, unless you do so with a clear bias in mind or ignore the evidence before you. Again, your one vote, withheld from lack of service, could be the vote that acquits an innocent man or convicts a guilty one. If you've done work with wrongfully convicted people (again, I have. Have you?), ask them about their impressions of jurors. Virtually every one of them has questions about why one of them didn't speak up.

Refusing jury service is a slap in the face to wrongfully convicted people everywhere.

musicismylife78 wrote:

I have publicly called for an abolition to prisons, and to the building of new ones. they serve no purpose other than to make people wealthy.

No one's debating you on the evils of the prison-industrial complex. I've read Angela Davis too.

musicismylife78 wrote:

IAmerican justice is a joke. Anyone who thinks otherwise has the wool pulled over there eyes. Yes, even you, my dear.

Lastly, spare me your condescending champy little nickname. I'm willing to debate you respectfully, but I'm not your "dear."

vant0037 · July 2013

musicismylife78 wrote:

the innocence project is a noble cause. But it comes at it from the perspective that the justice system usually gets it right and that if only we work within the system and get the few people out of prison who were wrongly convicted, we will have a fine justice system again.

Take a spin around their website. Talk to one of the lawyers that donate their time doing the cases pro bono. Read one of the many books published by their attorneys and founders.

You couldn't be more wrong when you say that they start with the assumption that the justice system "usually gets it right."

Ledbetterman10 · July 2013

I've always thought there should be professional jurors. And I'm not saying this because of the Zimmerman verdict because I guess they technically got it right. Nothing against any jurors past, present, or future. But overall, people's lives are on the line in these things. Someone that doesn't understand a judge's direction or someone that lets emotions cloud their minds, can totally screw up a verdict. And I'm not saying to have professional jurors for all trials. And not in this Zimmerman one either. But for capital crimes like murder 1, I think it should be decided by people that know the legal system inside and out, not some farmer that was only selected because he doesn't watch TV and hasn't heard of the defendant.

musicismylife78 · July 2013

refusing jury duty is championing and a fist upraised to the wrongly imprisoned that numbers in the millions.

Im sorry but by being a prosecutor you outdo all the good work you do by supporting the innocence project.

Any allowance at all, and by being a prosecutor, and supporting a reformist organization, you essentially suggest the system works, but has a few kinks and bumps in the road. Thats psychotic.

A justice system that refused to acknowledge a SINGLE ONE of the 401 treaties with the Native americans is one im just not comfortable working with or within. Thats just my opinion. By definition the american justice system is fantasy. Its stolen land, treaties were not followed, so any judgement at all, any legal action at all, from traffic infractions to murder cases, are all outside the jurisdiction of the US gov't and the justice system and thereby all legal judgements are outright farces.

By refusing to participate in a jury, its my right. And im being honest. Id flat out refuse to render any judgement. I believe cops are brutal by nature, and I believe the entire justice system is corrupt. Forget and throw away whether you personally agree with my sentiments, my beliefs as stated mean Im incapable of being "fair" in a courtroom or jury situation. Why would anyone want me on a jury. If Im going to flat out say "cops are evil and the justice system is a joke", the person who selects the jury would have to be high to believe id be a good choice to serve on a jury.

Refusing to sit on a jury doesnt make an impact in terms of possibly allowing a person to be sent to jail or not. Ive done my homework enough to know Mumia and Peltier are not exceptions. Black men routinely are thrown into jail for nonviolent drug crimes. In fact, most blacks in jail are in for this reason. over 1 million. I consider them to be innocent. Any system that views such people as criminals, and worthy of imprisonment is insane and not worthy of being served.

Im questioning the entire system. The legitimacy and point of prisons. The corrupt police. All of it.

Your solution to Mumia, Peltier, and Wm3 and millions of black men is to be a prosecutor and support a reformist organization thats unwilling to look too deep into the situation. The root causes of why all this happens. And what can be done about it. Im a radical. I look at the root causes of things. Anyone working inside the justice system views it as inherently good and just.

Reformist and electoral politics are jokes. We need a complete dismantling of the system, abolition of prisons, and the dismantling of civilization as a whole.

mookeywrench · July 2013

musicismylife78 wrote:

mookeywrench wrote:

Guitar92player wrote:

True, I forgot to say that Trayvon was in the wrong once he fought.

But think about, couldn't Trayvon have been fighting in self-defense as well? Maybe he did see his gun and tried to pin-down Zimmerman before he could take his gun out? I guess we'll never know.

Trayvon absolutely could have been/was fighting in self-defense, he didn't commit any crimes and wasn't being detained by an officer, that's why neighborhood watchmen are only supposed to report to police. If he had gotten a hold of the gun and shot Zimmerman out of fear for his life, he would have been equally protected by the "stand your ground" law.

Nah. Had it been reversed, we would have had a guilty verdict and death sentence within days of the trial starting. When has america looked at a black youth as anything other than a threat?

If the gun was Trayvon's; I'd say their be a greater 'race' hurdle to jump over. But with witnesses hearing/seeing being fought by a man twice his size and age. I'd say he'd was in a life threatening situation.

musicismylife78 · July 2013

the game is rigged. its always been this way. Its rigged in 2013 just as it was rigged in 1888 or 1792. It was rigged in 92 with King. IN 1999 with Diallo. The guy was shot 41 times and the pigs still got off. Louima was raped by 2 of NYPD's finest and the cops were found not guilty. those pigs in LAPD were filmed beating and brutalizing King ON TAPE and still went free.

This isnt about fairness. Never has been. Justice has never existed for those who are of a different class and race and skin color or those who are "others.

mookeywrench · July 2013

Guitar92player wrote:

mookeywrench wrote:

Guitar92player wrote:

True, I forgot to say that Trayvon was in the wrong once he fought.

But think about, couldn't Trayvon have been fighting in self-defense as well? Maybe he did see his gun and tried to pin-down Zimmerman before he could take his gun out? I guess we'll never know.

Trayvon absolutely could have been/was fighting in self-defense, he didn't commit any crimes and wasn't being detained by an officer, that's why neighborhood watchmen are only supposed to report to police. If he had gotten a hold of the gun and shot Zimmerman out of fear for his life, he would have been equally protected by the "stand your ground" law.

So basically the whole Stand Your Ground law is pure shit it seems.

Exactly, there's too much grey area as to what a 'life-threatening' situation is. And are you suppose to 'stand your ground' to prevent a life threatening situation from occurring? Or only when the life threatening situation has occurred?

If guns are suitable weapons for the stand your ground law, these grey areas shouldn't exist. It works great during a home invasion when you can assume the worst with a home intruder. But it's a horrible law for public conflicts.

Trayvon Martin

Comments

Categories