How exactly would you prove that Zimmerman posed a threat to Martin? Zimmerman made his intentions clear on the phone, there's no definitive proof he continued to follow Martin and Zimmerman is claiming self defense because some ill tempered punk who had issues with authority (own mother kicked him out of her house, suspended from school 3 times in 7 months) assaulted him. Martin had a lot of history that you don't seem to want to recognize.
Wait a minute, OJ was guilty as hell but the threat was to riot if he got convicted.... was that denial of justice for OJ? That he got convicted in civil court with lower standards means nothing to them, I'm sure. Zimmerman was fighting for his life and the black kid who apparently attacked him got killed and riots were threatened if Zimmerman, first, isn't charged and, second, isn't tried and convicted. Zimmerman had numerous injuries while Trayvon had one fatal one. If the past can be used to justify the present, we may never progress. Ask MLK or Ghandi...
The skittles and a drink are completely irrelevant to the case. I don't even know why it was even brought up, other than to portray Martin as a little innocent boy out to get a soda and some candy. Point blank, Martin didn't need an excuse to be out walking through the neighborhood. There is no evidence of anyone breaking any laws up until the point of the escalation into a fight.
I agreed. I don't know why people get upset about the skittles, or hoody in this case. I'd rather just deal with the relevant evidence. The only way skittles becomes relevant is when people like the idiot writer of the article posted bobmarley try and present the idea that Martin was up to no good at the time Martin spotted him, and that was his intent of being out that evening.
You are right it is irrelevant because he wasn't buying skittles when he assaulted Zimmerman. What matters is that Martin foolishly decided to assault someone instead of calling the police. A person can do something ordinary one moment and illegal the next. I'm not saying that Martin was up to no good. Zimmerman thought he looked suspicious, reported him and tried to make sure he could give the police an idea where Martin could be found so they could question him. Zimmerman's suspicions could be wrong as hell but that doesn't give Martin the right to assault him.
Well I'll wait for an examination of the evidence before making up which evidence is accurate and which evidence isn't accurate like you've done. We don't know that Martin assaulted Zimmerman. He may have, or he could have tried to defend himself. Evidence possibly goes both ways depending on what you want to believe.
You didn't answer a single question I posed and now you're trying to change the subject. You said some groups are prone to violence and as evidence you submitted that Barbie blondes didn't riot at the OJ trial. What caused the Rodney King and Watts riots giddy and why is it anything but obtuse to believe Barbie Blondes would participate in those riots or any other riots that began due to a history of abuse and racism within the criminal justice system? Please explain. Many of the ugly pages of American history have been obscured and forgotten. A society is always eager to cover misdeeds with a cloak of forgetfulness, but no society can fully repress an ugly past when the ravages persist into the present. America owes a debt of justice which it has only begun to pay. If it loses the will to finish or slackens in its determination, history will recall its crimes and the country that would be great will lack the most element of greatness — justice. - MLK I have to say I enjoy the recent conservative attempts to co-opt MLK's message by taking a phrase or two out of context and trying to claim him as a conservative.
But he was a teenage boy out to get soda and candy. It's a fact, just a fact you don't like because it underscores the innocent activity he was participating in until he was followed in the dark by an adult with a gun contrary to the instructions of 911.
I believe that is exactly what I said. Don't argue for the sake of arguing. Whether he was out getting a bag of skittles, or out for a peaceful walk or smoking a joint or casing a house does not give either party a reason to attack the other. Who escalated the event is all that matters, not why they were out of their house at the time. Just because Martin was not breaking any laws in the previous moments doesn't make him innocent just as if he was breaking laws in the previous moments doesn't make him guilty.
So MLK is saying that America owes what it already owes-- justice. That means truth and fairness... i.e. OJ is convicted raather than let off. What happened to justice there? How did we fail MLK's vision? Everyone knows that the riots in LA were due to the cops who beat Rodney King being found NOT GUILTY. Does that justify the riots and the damage done? Reginald Denny gets dragged from his semi and beat more severely than was Rodney King. Let's not forget that Rodney King led these cops on a high speed chase and since he was high on PCP or something it took four cops (or more) to subdue him in hand to hand fighting. I don't recall the specifics of why the cops were let off but nothing I saw on that video exceeded the violence in the video of Reginald Denny's beating. Rioting is vigilantism and that comes with a price not approval.
Man stop with your BS had Zimmerman listened to the dispather there wouldn't have been a issue. And how do you know who attacked who you keep saying that Martin assaulted Zimmerman where's your proof.
LOL at who is using BS to support his position. Zimmerman doesn't have to prove he is innocent. The Prosecution has to prove him guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. There's no proof that Zimmerman didn't listen to the dispatcher. There is a witness who saw Martin on top of Zimmerman beating him. The witness said Zimmerman was screaming for help. Martin had an abrasion on his hand and grass stains on his knees. Zimmerman had a broken nose, grass stains on the back of his clothes and lacerations to the back of his head. You do the math.
So these Skittles are like Magic Beans that keep teenage boys from committing illegal acts after they are purchased. He wasn't buying Skittles when Zimmerman saw him walking around in the rain in a gated community and in Zimmerman's mind acting suspiciously. Again.....no proof that Zimmerman didn't follow the instruction to not follow Martin.
Here's what the Prosecution has to prove.... The crime of Second Degree Murder occurs when a person commits either: •Murder with a Depraved Mind or •Accomplice Felony Murder Murder with a Depraved Mind Murder with a Depraved Mind occurs when a person is killed, without any premeditated design, by an act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind showing no regard for human life. The primary distinction between Premeditated First Degree Murder and Second Degree Murder with a Depraved Mind is that First Degree Murder requires a specific and premeditated intent to kill. Definition of DEPRAVED : marked by corruption or evil; especially : perverted — de·praved·ly \-ˈprā-vəd-lē, -ˈprāvd-lē\ adverb — de·pra·ved·ness \-ˈprā-vəd-nəs, -ˈprāvd-nəs\ noun See depraved defined for English-language learners » Examples of DEPRAVED the work of depraved minds He acted with depraved indifference to human suffering. Now what evidence do Martin supporters believe supports proving this beyond all reasonable doubt? Cue the crickets....
This has been stated previously. Under FL's stand your ground law Martin has as much right to stand his ground as Zimmerman does. Just because Martin got the best of Zimmerman, until he was shot, doesn't mean that Martin wasn't justified to use physical force if Zimmerman started the confrontation. Also it isn't clear who was calling out for help.
If someone is following you and you think they might try to rob or beat you don't you have the right to defend yourself? How did Martin know Zimmerman wasn't out to hurt him?
Im not sure what your point is. We have established this and beat it in the ground. It doesn't matter what either party was doing before hand. We are fairly certain neither were breaking laws. It doesn't matter who was winning or losing the fight. The only two things that matter are 1) Who escalated the fight. If it was Zimmerman, then he should be brought up on manslaughter or second degree murder charges. If Martin escalated, then Zimmerman is justified only if: 2) He really thought his life was in danger. It can be said both escalated it and both are guilty. By bringing up second degree charges, the prosecutors assume Zimmerman escalated the fight. As Granville noted, the prosecution has to prove that Zimmerman was out looking for blood (as Refman believes) and started the fight. From what we know, there is no evidence to suggest this. It doesn't matter if this is true or not, there is just no evidence. The only other witness is dead. Zimmerman is innocent until proven guilty. That said, I believe they overcharged, much like in the Anthony trial, intentionally to ensure Zimmerman walks. And just like in the Anthony trial, its the jury who will take the heat, not Zimmerman. If this is true, I am very disappointed in the legal system. (and this will be proven if no further evidence is brought forth). Its akin to the 1800's where black people were sentenced for crimes they didn't commit to keep the white people happy.
My point was to rebut Granville's view that Martin was definitely the aggressor. Martin could've been acting also in self-defense. As I stated earlier in the thread I don't think this was intentional murder and everything I have seen still points to manslaughter in my mind but I will also admit to not knowing the FL statutes that well for why the prosecutors feel that 2nd degree is the proper charge. True I think the prosecution has set themselves a difficult task and my own view though if consider this manslaughter that Zimmerman didn't intend to kill anyone but negligently put himself into the situation whether he was looking for blood or not doesn't matter that much. Further to argue that Martin was the violent punk as Granville paints him has nothing to do with Zimmerman's state of mind leading to the incident since Martin can't know that and we are only learning this from Zimmerman's own after the fact testimony. We still have to consider the fact that Zimmerman deliberately followed Martin and that he was told he didn't need to do that. That pretty much proves right there that the Zimmerman put himself into a potentially dangerous situation. That is certainly possible.
