Trayvon Martin

Yes...since no evidence has been released...I am basing my comments on an assumption there was a confrontation before Trayvon responded with violence. I think there will be a charge of manslaughter to appease the court of public opinion. Now, whether he is found guilty depends on the facts of the case of which we have none really so just speculation.

 

But don't you find it unfair to assume something you have no evidence of? Especially when it could condemn a man for murder?

Is it appropriate to have a charge to appease public opinion when the public's opinion was manipulated from the get-go?

 

Whether it was murder, manslaughter or justified self-defense is yet to be determined.

I personally tend to think it was either manslaughter or possibly even murder, but you cannot say for sure that it was murder yet.

 

1+2 = 3a irrelevant (in most states)

FL law is so poorly written that it left a loophole. Zimmerman may get off on that loophole. FL law makers already acknowledged that and surely that law will get revised so this doesn't happen again.

In most states, it is extemely hard to do #1 and #2 AND claim self defense.

 

What did he assume? He was suspicious of him, I guess you could say he assumed he was up to something.

Just because an unarmed black person is killed, doesn't make it a racially motivated crime. From the evidence and statements that have been provided...

There had been a great deal of crime recently in the area
The area was a gated community
He was a neighborhood watchman
He knew most of his neighbors due to his position
It was raining
Tall unknown man in a hoodie walking close to buildings (likely to get some protection from the rain, although it appears there is only 2 feet of awning hanging over to protect someone.

He claims he was confronted by Mr. Martin when he was returning to his car after being asked to get the address off the building he saw Mr. Martin walking towards...all of this, btw, was initially omitted from the 911 transcript the media released in the immediate aftermath of this event.

So he assumed he was suspicious. He didn't necessarily assume he was armed. We don't even know how he was shot, was he on the ground, standing up, on top, on the bottom...all of this has not been released by the forensic investigation.

Is it that outlandish to find someone unfamiliar suspicious in a gated neighborhood when you are in a position to know a great deal of your neighbors, not to mention the recent crime activity.

He was asked whether the man was white, black, hispanic. He said "I think he's black" No evidence suggests he followed Mr. Martin after being told it was not necessary.

You are making many more assumptions that he did.

Murder gives the connotation that he deliberately shot and killed Mr. Martin. We have yet to see evidence to corroborate either side, so I don't think it is fair for anyone to make any assumptions until the evidence is available.

By that time it may turn out to be too late as public opinion is so stacked against Mr. Zimmerman he would find it almost impossible to find a fair jury.

 

Having a gun and confronting someone is stupid, I agree with you there. If you have a gun you have the responsibility of intelligently acting with that weapon. Confronting someone would not be an intelligent thing to do, but we don't even know that HE DID confront him. And if he did we don't know if he was attacked or attacked first.

Originally the claim was made that he was on night watch, in which case it is incredibly stupid if not blatantly against policy to carry a weapon. Now we find out he was on his way to Target or something, in which case he has every right to carry a weapon. So it's not like he went out patrolling thinking if I see someone I can confront them because I am armed.

 

Mr. Zimmerman, as far as we know, had no illegal motivation. He was not going to rob Mr. Martin. I want him charged with murder if the facts support it. I am not basing my desires on media speculation who have manipulated this entire situation.

I am saying there is no evidence that proves he deliberately followed him. From what I understand he was asked not to proceed, he said okay, then they asked him to get the address of where he was around, and he claims he was attacked on his way back to the car after relaying that information to the 911 dispatcher.

I initially, like you and many others, thought he deliberately ignored her and proceeded to follow Mr. Martin, but apparently the full tape does not suggest such a thing. It was edited to make it appear that way, and someone from MSNBC was fired over it, but it was too late as so many people have taken that short recording and used it as proof of his guilt.

 

Do you understand the difference between murder and manslaughter?

 

it's a more subtle difference than the one between manslaughter and self defense...

 

Yes, that's why I am asking...because he keeps saying that it was murder as if that is a fact. He doesn't even seem open to considering other possibilities. Premature mental closure.

And as a side note, I am not the spelling police, but it kind of bugs me that he won't stop writing "their" instead of "there" and "beleive" instead of "believe"...

 

You're completely right, but just because he COULD be guilty of this, doesn't mean he IS guilty. I think it is only fair to hear ALL the evidence before rushing to any judgement.

I am not claiming Zimmerman is innocent/guilty. I am simply stating that the media has made this a much more difficult case by manipulating the evidence to fit their headlines. By doing this the public took their spun headline as truth and people were at each others throats before the TRUTH every really did come out.

There are instances when the evidence is just slapping you in the face with guilt. There are is no such evidence in this case. The EMTs have not released their report, nor has the forensics team. Two crucial pieces of evidence that are going to either exonerate Zimmerman, or put him behind bars. Until that information is released it would be silly and irresponsible to assume he is guilty.

I can't stress enough how upset I am with the media over this though. We all know they spin things to sell their lines, but not like this. The deliberate editing of a tape, the posting of photos 5 years old falsely representing someone as a small child when they were in fact a 17 year old young man standing over 6' tall. What little trust I had for the national media just went out the window.

 

And on the flipside, if two people are in a room and one guy kills the other guy he can tell the truth and there will be a portion of the population that doesn't believe him no matter what. (I think racial factors apply to why that portion won't believe him no matter what...among other factors. Like spelling.)

 

It's actually more than stupid. In most states that invalidates your ability to claim self defense.

Correct me if I am wrong or perhaps I am not up to date but we have Zimmerman's voice on 911 indicating that he will approach Martin. So a reasonable person would conclude that he did in fact do so given the result.

Again, in most states a "bar fight" does not rise to allow justification of using deadly force. Given your #1 and #2, in most states it is irrelevant who started the fight at that point. Zimmerman put himself willingly into a risky situation knowing he was armed. In most states, MAYBE you can claim self defense but you would have a hard time justifying deadly force.

If you enter a lion cage ...and the lion roar's at you (since we all know that what lions do), you can't shoot the lion in self defense. The right answer is you should not have gone into the cage.

Zimmerman intentionally tailed Martin, whom Zimmerman said on tape that he suspected the person was a criminal. So Zimmerman intentionally walked into the lion cage while armed.

 

Careful krosfyah, one would think you were suggesting willful intent on the part of Mr Zimmerman.

 

If what was said at the press conference is accurate, than Zimmerman was asked (which can be verified on the full tape) to take down the address or number of the building he was seen at. He claims it was when he was returning to his car he was approached by Martin. We have to wait and see if the evidence supports this claim before any further judgement can be made. You don't know if he was the one approached him, why are you claiming you do?

 

fixed.