Trayvon Martin

Say what you want. I'm sorry the fact that Martin was a minor is inconvenient for you. But it is the truth, and it is a fact in this case.

 

You are arguing that: human life < inconvenience.

Not just from this reply but from many of your replies in this thread, I feel bad for you that you place the value of a person's life at less than another person's inconvenience.

 

Unless it's a fetus... then reverse it.

 

FoxNews.com is showing that the Special Prosecutor Reportedly Will Charge George Zimmerman in Fatal Shooting of Trayvon Martin. No article yet, just a Breaking News Update headline.

http://www.foxnews.com/

 

Here we go...
______

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...HJ5oAT_story.html?tid=sm_twitter_postpolitics

Florida special prosecutor Angela Corey plans to announce as early as Wednesday afternoon that she is charging neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman in the shooting of Trayvon Martin, according to a law enforcement official close to the investigation.

It was not immediately clear what charge Zimmerman will face.

 

Thanks KC - here's the FoxNews link as well..although its just a reprint of the Washington Post
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/04/1...s-at-center-trayvon-martin-shooting-case-say/

 

You have a perverted sense of the word inconvenience if you want to try a rape victim for shooting her attacker. That's just sick.

 

So, you mean he was not 11 years old on February 26, 2012.

 

And Zimmerman was somehow supposed to know that Martin was not yet 18?

 

How do you account for statutory rape?

The consequences for raping a child is greater than raping an adult. So if a criminal were to rape a young woman, do you expect them to ask the girl ahead of time?

The law gives you very little wiggle room when a child is almost an adult.

A child is a child.

 

Ignorance is not a defense.

 

the charges, I mean.... it would seem that one guy wanted manslaughter charges but was in the minority. Folks here are throwing around the word MURDER like it was candy.

 

You're prejudiced.

 

In the hypothetical you mentioned it would be no problem to prover her case. Justice would be served.

But laws aren't generally made for one crazy hypothetical that is different than 99 % of the types of actions we are talking about.

 

Zimmerman wasn't supposed to follow Martin to begin with.

 

So you want a woman who gets raped or nearly raped to have to pay for her criminal defense because she saves herself from the situation by the use of deadly force?

Does your "pro-Life" stance cited here extend to victims of abortion?

 

He could have found out after the police got there had he stayed in his car as was he asked not to follow Martin.