Gun, drug texts feature in new Trayvon Martin shooting evidence

[JD55]

I object to this post.

First, what are you saying, that in that neighborhood, merely being black makes one a suspect?

Second, Zimmerman had no idea Martin was found with jewelry and a screwdriver. Are you suggesting Zimmerman's actions should be found acceptable after the fact depending on what we find inside the dead person's bookbag (or what may have been found there previously?) Are you suggesting that Zimmerman should take a shoot first ask questions later policy? If it turned out Martin was a straight-A student with no record, no priors, no school disciplinary actions, and nothing unusual in his cell phone, Zimmerman would plead guilty to Murder? Because that conclusion naturally follows from your apparent assertion that the existence of these negative aspects of Martin's life somehow mitigate the severity of what Zimmerman did. If I am misinterpreting or misrepresenting your post, please clarify for me.

Third - MARTIN escalated this into a brawl? What? Zimmerman had no authority to act as he did. And Martin has absolutely no legal requirement to stick around and be harassed by Zimmerman in any way. Zimmerman was not identifiable in any way, did not identify himself to Martin, was armed, and was a larger man than Martin by approximately 40 pounds, from what I understand. He has no legal right to try to detain, question, or chase Martin. Zimmerman made the first move and the last move, and none of this would have happened if he had just minded his business and done what he was told. So what if a couple kids got away last time? That's the way it goes sometimes.

We have something called courts and warrants and the fourth amendment. Cops cannot just go around detaining and harassing and questioning people just because statistically there is a nonzero chance they have been involved in a crime. ALL OF US have a statistically nonzero chance of having been involved in a crime. And if the police cannot act this way, some wannabe-cop neighborhood watchguy certainly cannot either. To put it another way, which is worse - a couple of kids getting away with a burglary because the cops did not arrive in time, or Trayvon Martin being killed because Zimmerman was tired of "these assholes always getting away" (Zimmerman's words). Let's not ignore the obvious fact that Zimmerman put his own life in danger as well for no good reason. Now, the point can be debated whether in fact his life WAS in danger, but obviously Zimmerman will claim so, since that is his sole defense for killing Martin.

Brav-fuckingo. Excellent post that sums up my viewpoints. Couldn't of said that better myself.

 

[slimvictor]

I object to this post.

First, what are you saying, that in that neighborhood, merely being black makes one a suspect?

Second, Zimmerman had no idea Martin was found with jewelry and a screwdriver. Are you suggesting Zimmerman's actions should be found acceptable after the fact depending on what we find inside the dead person's bookbag (or what may have been found there previously?) Are you suggesting that Zimmerman should take a shoot first ask questions later policy? If it turned out Martin was a straight-A student with no record, no priors, no school disciplinary actions, and nothing unusual in his cell phone, Zimmerman would plead guilty to Murder? Because that conclusion naturally follows from your apparent assertion that the existence of these negative aspects of Martin's life somehow mitigate the severity of what Zimmerman did. If I am misinterpreting or misrepresenting your post, please clarify for me.

Third - MARTIN escalated this into a brawl? What? Zimmerman had no authority to act as he did. And Martin has absolutely no legal requirement to stick around and be harassed by Zimmerman in any way. Zimmerman was not identifiable in any way, did not identify himself to Martin, was armed, and was a larger man than Martin by approximately 40 pounds, from what I understand. He has no legal right to try to detain, question, or chase Martin. Zimmerman made the first move and the last move, and none of this would have happened if he had just minded his business and done what he was told. So what if a couple kids got away last time? That's the way it goes sometimes.

We have something called courts and warrants and the fourth amendment. Cops cannot just go around detaining and harassing and questioning people just because statistically there is a nonzero chance they have been involved in a crime. ALL OF US have a statistically nonzero chance of having been involved in a crime. And if the police cannot act this way, some wannabe-cop neighborhood watchguy certainly cannot either. To put it another way, which is worse - a couple of kids getting away with a burglary because the cops did not arrive in time, or Trayvon Martin being killed because Zimmerman was tired of "these assholes always getting away" (Zimmerman's words). Let's not ignore the obvious fact that Zimmerman put his own life in danger as well for no good reason. Now, the point can be debated whether in fact his life WAS in danger, but obviously Zimmerman will claim so, since that is his sole defense for killing Martin.

Agree with everything, apart from one small detail: Travyon Martin was a boy, not a man.
A man killed a boy. For no good reason.

 

[severely etarded]

Agree with everything, apart from one small detail: Travyon Martin was a boy, not a man.
A man killed a boy. For no good reason.

In many states in the US, 17 is considered a man. At 17 you can be sent to adult prison in many states.

If the man killed the other man in strictly self defense when he was simply minding his business, then I would be okay with it. But the evidence tells me Zimmerman was all-but minding his own business.

 

[slimvictor]

In many states in the US, 17 is considered a man. At 17 you can be sent to adult prison in many states.

That is only because the "justice system" bends the rules.
The US is one of the few developed countries in the world to routinely send juveniles to adult prison.
Officially, one is a child until 18 in most respects (but 21 for some things in some states).
Voting, drinking, smoking, joining the army all have at least an 18-year old or older cutoff.
17 really is still a boy.

(But I agree with your second paragraph.)

 

[dopemaster]

Ive been following this case.

The police told Zimmerman that it wasnt his job to mess with the kid. They told him to back off. He was a neighboorhood watch volunteer. He punched himself in the face to justify murdering a kid. So what if the kid smoked pot and had a gun. The only shame is the kid didnt have a gun when he was murdered in cold blood by a racist adrenaline junkie.

Id be fucking scared if a car followed me around my own neighborhood and a man with a gun on his hip fucking charged at me. The kid was so scared he called a friend and asked what to do. Some creepy dude follows you around your OWN neighborhood. Id have whooped his ass to. It wasnt his place to do anything. The police have him on tape calling the kid a "coon after they told him to back off". I really dont understand how the police saying to back off and doing the opposite was a good idea. It led to an unnecesary death. He called the cops and thats all neighborhood watch does. So I hope he goes to prison and gets raped by a bunch of real gangsters.

 

[severely etarded]

Ive been following this case.

The police told Zimmerman that it wasnt his job to mess with the kid. They told him to back off. He was a neighboorhood watch volunteer. He punched himself in the face to justify murdering a kid. So what if the kid smoked pot and had a gun. The only shame is the kid didnt have a gun when he was murdered in cold blood by a racist adrenaline junkie.

Id be fucking scared if a car followed me around my own neighborhood and a man with a gun on his hip fucking charged at me. The kid was so scared he called a friend and asked what to do. Some creepy dude follows you around your OWN neighborhood. Id have whooped his ass to. It wasnt his place to do anything. The police have him on tape calling the kid a "coon after they told him to back off". I really dont understand how the police saying to back off and doing the opposite was a good idea. It led to an unnecesary death. He called the cops and thats all neighborhood watch does. So I hope he goes to prison and gets raped by a bunch of real gangsters.

whoa he called him a "coon"? who said that? I never heard that... source? How do you know he punched himself in the face? Witnesses said they heard Zimmerman getiing his ass wooped.

However I do agree Zimmerman approaching Martin could have made Martin in fear for his life, which would mean the Stand your Ground statute could work in favor of the posthumous Martin, meaning he was in fear for his life when Zimmerman approached, ensuing an assault (in fear for his own life), followed by Zimmerman's discharge of his weapon.

 

[BlueHues]

If you listen to the tape of the 911 call, there's a point where it sounds like he says "coon" under his breath, after making a statement where he says something about "they always get away....coons"...but it's not really conclusive if that's really what he's saying...

As far as punching himself in the face, I hadn't heard that particular theory, but a lot of people are livid about this case, so it wouldn't surprise me if people were saying that...

what really amazes me is that there's still people out there who think Zimmerman was completely in the right and deserves to just walk. It's pretty clear he's the instigator here and needs to pay for what he's done, whether it's truly murder in the legal sense, I don't know...It's plain as day that Zimmerman is responsible for this, not Trayvon Martin! whether or not he smoked marijuana and engaged in petty larceny in the past has nothing to do with the night in question. On the night he was murdered he was walking home from the corner store with soda and candy!

 

[Fjones]

That is only because the "justice system" bends the rules.
The US is one of the few developed countries in the world to routinely send juveniles to adult prison.
Officially, one is a child until 18 in most respects (but 21 for some things in some states).
Voting, drinking, smoking, joining the army all have at least an 18-year old or older cutoff.
17 really is still a boy.

(But I agree with your second paragraph.)

Excellent points.

I work with kids of all ages, some of them as old as 17, and I do not look at them and think "adult." Trayvon Martin was a Junior in high school. He was a kid. This whole story just bothers me to no end.

But (in response to BlueHues' last statement) I am not surprised people defend Zimmerman. There are millions of people out there who think most of us on this forum should be put in prison because of our lifestyle choices, and some of those would probably not lose a night of sleep if any of us were the victim in a similar case.

 

[JD55]

Excellent points.

I work with kids of all ages, some of them as old as 17, and I do not look at them and think "adult." Trayvon Martin was a Junior in high school. He was a kid. This whole story just bothers me to no end.

But (in response to BlueHues' last statement) I am not surprised people defend Zimmerman. There are millions of people out there who think most of us on this forum should be put in prison because of our lifestyle choices, and some of those would probably not lose a night of sleep if any of us were the victim in a similar case.

That's why it's up to us to be their stolen voices :/ No doubt like you said they'd love to see us gone because of the shit they see in the news. But for every one bad drug user I bet there are thousands of decent people like us..it's a shame I'd identify with a scarlet letter to prove that point but the stigma will always be king.

 

[!_MDMA_!]

martin had just as much right to start whoopin on zimmerman to prevent detainment as zimmerman had right to detain him

both are equally in the wrong for the violent encounter
yea you could say martin wouldnt have died if zimmerman stayed in his car, ill just say martin wouldnt have died if he didnt resort to violence

i would understand if zimmerman got charged with involuntary manslaughter or something, but to act like martin was an innocent victim is ridiculous and im tired of him being portrayed that way

someone has an issue with you and they think you robbed a house, you dont start a fist fight with them to get rid of them

 

[Fjones]

martin had just as much right to start whoopin on zimmerman to prevent detainment as zimmerman had right to detain him

both are equally in the wrong for the violent encounter
yea you could say martin wouldnt have died if zimmerman stayed in his car, ill just say martin wouldnt have died if he didnt resort to violence

i would understand if zimmerman got charged with involuntary manslaughter or something, but to act like martin was an innocent victim is ridiculous and im tired of him being portrayed that way

someone has an issue with you and they think you robbed a house, you dont start a fist fight with them to get rid of them

Well, this is nonsense.

Zimmerman had zero right to try to detain Martin.

Martin had every right to prevent detainment by Zimmerman.

Martin was innocent, and a victim, so by my estimation, that makes him an innocent victim.

If you think Zimmerman should be charged with involuntary manslaughter, I do not think you know what involuntary manslaughter is. He attempted to kill Martin and succeeded. There was nothing involuntary about it.

How exactly SHOULD Martin have gotten rid of Zimmerman? He was scared and being chased by an unknown and possibly armed assailant! People react in different ways in that situation, but the fault lies wit the initial aggressor.

 

[23536]

But (in response to BlueHues' last statement) I am not surprised people defend Zimmerman. There are millions of people out there who think most of us on this forum should be put in prison because of our lifestyle choices, and some of those would probably not lose a night of sleep if any of us were the victim in a similar case.

Don't you think this is a bit of a straw man?

I kind of (kind of) defend Zimmerman because I don't think every killer needs to be convicted of murder or manslaughter. In nearly every fight--not an assault, but a conflict--there are winners and there are losers. It's a dangerous precedent when we start prosecuting every victor.

If Trayvon had ripped the gun out of Zimmerman's hand and shot him in the head, would you be calling for Trayvon to get life?

Now, maybe the prosecution knows stuff that I don't. In which case I'll reserve my judgement until after the evidence has been presented.

 

[23536]

and to clarizy, I'm not defending GZ as a person. I'm saying I don't think he deserves murder or manslaughter charges.

 

[Fjones]

Don't you think this is a bit of a straw man?

I kind of (kind of) defend Zimmerman because I don't think every killer needs to be convicted of murder or manslaughter. In nearly every fight--not an assault, but a conflict--there are winners and there are losers. It's a dangerous precedent when we start prosecuting every victor.

If Trayvon had ripped the gun out of Zimmerman's hand and shot him in the head, would you be calling for Trayvon to get life?

Now, maybe the prosecution knows stuff that I don't. In which case I'll reserve my judgement until after the evidence has been presented.

I do not see the Straw Man.

There are people who believe Martin "got what he deserved" because of facts that came to light after the killing (possible or likely drug use, etc.), just as their are people in this country who believe that all drug sellers, buyers, and users are hard criminals who should be locked up for a long time. Where is the straw man?

For that matter, If you are suggesting I used a straw man, exactly whose argument are you claiming I am distorting or misrepresenting?

And no, had Trayvon managed to rip the gun away and shoot Zimmerman, I would not be calling for life for Martin. That's called Self-defense.

And I am not suggesting we prosecute the winner of every fight. now you have committed a straw man. When one person aggresses against another, then responds to fists with a fatal gunshot, that is hardly the same scenario as "well, he won the fight so he is guilty of something."

and to clarizy, I'm not defending GZ as a person. I'm saying I don't think he deserves murder or manslaughter charges.

What then? You are saying Zimmerman should walk? I could maybe understand if you thought murder charges were inappropriate, but manslaughter charges are exactly what are used when murder is deemed too harsh. If not manslaughter, then what? Do you want to give Zimmerman a ticket for disorderly conduct?

 

[23536]

^forget the straw man bit, so long as you're not saying that the people you disagree with in this thread think that way.

What is the crime that you contend Zimmerman committed? If you're focusing on the actual pulling of the trigger, Zimmerman will contend that Trayvon was trying to wrest the gun away from him. Given that defense, I could not vote him guilty of murder or manslaughter.

 

[Fjones]

^forget the straw man bit, so long as you're not saying that the people you disagree with in this thread think that way.

What is the crime that you contend Zimmerman committed? If you're focusing on the actual pulling of the trigger, Zimmerman will contend that Trayvon was trying to wrest the gun away from him. Given that defense, I could not vote him guilty of murder or manslaughter.

Of course Trayvon was trying to wrest the gun away! Zimmerman was trying to shoot him with it. That doesn't mean Zimmerman can legally shoot Trayvon. The relevant factors are whether Zimmerman was the initial aggressor, whether he attacked Martin or vice versa, and whether he was justified in pulling the gun in the first place. Maybe people know something I don't, but the evidence we have heard does not seem favorable to Zimmerman's case.

 

[23536]

^I think Zimmerman is going to contend that TM tried to pull the gun out of his waist (in the midst of the fist fight). I actually wouldn't believe him if he said that, but I wouldn't be able to know for sure that he's lying. Like the scene in 12 Angry Men, I couldn't sit in the jury room and call him guilty unless the State has divested me of doubts.

I mean, the kid in 12 Angry Men was probably guilty as well. But they couldn't say he was definitely guilty. Therefore they said he should walk.

I also think the state can't charge involuntary manslaughter (or whatever) after it has prosecuted someone for murder. I think that's double jeopardy. So charging murder is an all-or-nothing proposition now. Chances are GZ will beat the murder charge and will walk, unless the State has more evidence than it has presented thus far.

 

[Fjones]

^I think Zimmerman is going to contend that TM tried to pull the gun out of his waist (in the midst of the fist fight). I actually wouldn't believe him if he said that, but I wouldn't be able to know for sure that he's lying. Like the scene in 12 Angry Men, I couldn't sit in the jury room and call him guilty unless the State has divested me of doubts.

I mean, the kid in 12 Angry Men was probably guilty as well. But they couldn't say he was definitely guilty. Therefore they said he should walk.

I also think the state can't charge involuntary manslaughter (or whatever) after it has prosecuted someone for murder. I think that's double jeopardy. So charging murder is an all-or-nothing proposition now. Chances are GZ will beat the murder charge and will walk, unless the State has more evidence than it has presented thus far.

That's a good point.

And I never understood why there is this all or nothing stuff. Can't the prosecution just present the case, and have the jury decide whether the actions constitute murder or manslaughter?

 

[BlueHues]

^I think in some cases they can, I don't think it necessarily is all or nothing. He can only be tried once, but I think the jury could find him guilty of manslaughter in lieu of second degree murder. I remember seeing cases where someone was charged with first degree murder but found guilty by the jury of second degree murder.

Zimmerman chased him down, he's the one who had the gun and he had no legal authority to order TM to do anything. If he had walked up to him in a completely non-threatening manner and then Trayvon Martin started viciously attacking him, he'd still be responsible for his death unless he had justification to use his gun because his life was being threatened. Trayvon Martin was un-armed and was trying to get away from Zimmerman, I don't see how anyone could think that Zimmerman was justified in his actions here, and it actually does seem like a racially biased point of view.

again, if it had been a 35 year old white woman that Zimmerman was chasing after and she started slapping him when he grabbed her and tried to prevent her from leaving and was shot in the ensuing melee, I don't believe anyone would even question whether or not he should be charged. It really does seem like a case where everything is being flipped around and TM is the one on trial for being a "young black hoodlum".

If I had broken the window on someone's car and was walking away with stolen property and the owner of the car pursued me, we got in a fight and I ended up dead, it would be a completely different story, but trying to grab someone with no justification other than mere suspicion constitutes assault! Physically grabbing someone is "assault", and if he grabbed Trayvon Martin to prevent him from leaving, that definitely qualifies as initiating the physical confrontation. He was the aggressor! The fact that he was getting his ass handed to him after he started the fight is irrelevant. aimmerman started it!

 

[23536]

Since this thread is delving into legal discussion, it's helpful to define "2nd degree murder" in Florida:

NSFW:

I think GZ demonstrably had ill will toward TM, but did he cause TM's death by a criminal act? If you can prove that GZ was stalking TM, then yes.

Should be a very interesting trial.