You really need to back away from the keyboard. You've been wrong on this subject from day 1 and these types of irrational emotional posts don't help convince anyone of anything. You lost this debate miserably so please move on.
Just because he was acquitted of criminal charges does not mean he did the right thing and does not mean he isn't to blame. All it means is that the state could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that all elements of the criminal charge were satisfied. Personally, I can't wait for the trial on the wrongful death lawsuit. Different burden of proof and a different set of elements which must be proven. That will be a better metric of blame.
Thanks for being a voice of reason in this thread. I understand you're a lawyer, so your commentary is actually valuable around here, unlike most of the peanut gallery hooting and holler and thumping their chests.
Look, I'm going to reply to this ironic new persona you inhabit today. You calling anyone else on this BBS "intellectually lazy" is almost criminal in its hilarity. Years of posting history back up the irony overload of that. That said, I happily and proudly admit I do not follow the details of the case at hand -- i will not let the media terrorists win my valuable time and emotional energy. Nor am I an expert on manslaughter, thought I've seen it applied to the point of conviction in many similar cases (especially involuntary manslaughter, in both its manifestations). Glad we "agree" on the media, in this moment, but as soon as Fox has its next Obama contriversy, you'll be posting true to your old form, no? (that's rhetorical). Have a good, Sunday, brah.
That's why I asked if the evidence showed that Zimmerman was just following him, and not threatening him with a weapon.
You are assuming Martin knew that Zimmerman was armed. However, that is typical of the assumptions made in this case. My question now is whether Zimmerman will be "allowed" to sue certain media outlets for distorting the facts via audio edits and choice of photos and whether he can sue the Justice Department and Obama. After all, the Justice Department paid for anti-Zimmerman rallies and Obama painted Zimmerman as guilty long before the investigation even concluded. Then, too, should Zimmerman file suit as the Sanford city manager for firing city police chief John Lee because Lee told him there was insufficient evidence to pursue the case (which proved correct) as well as the State of Florida for spending large sums for one party but not the other. Because of the rush to judgment by all of these entities, Zimmerman lost two years of his life, will have to live in fear for the rest of hi life, and pay attorneys in civil rights suits launched by the NAACP and Eric Holder's highly soiled Justice Department. This trial was a travesty and will continue to be a stain on the American judicial system.
I'm not assuming anything. I'm asking what we know to be the case. Did Martin attack as a response to a perceived threat, or did he just feel like beating up a middle-aged white guy? If its the latter, then he's an aggressor. If its the former, then you could argue it was self-defense. Either way, it was a bad decision on his part.
One misconception is that Zimmerman confronted Martin, when all he was doing was trying to keep line of sight (community WATCH) on Martin until police arrived. It was Martin who doubled back and decided to confront Zimmerman about why he was being followed. http://www.wagist.com/2012/dan-linehan/evidence-that-trayvon-martin-doubled-back
Zimmerman will probably get a lot financial backing to get him through a civil trial. Even if he isn't found liable that won't do anything to clear his name in the eyes of the mainstream media or the mob mentality that seeks retribution no matter what the facts are in this case.
One man was alive to tell his story and conform it to his benefit and the other wasn't. When you murder black kids, just say you SAW something.. a gun or felt threatened…even when no other witnesses saw such a thing and no other weapon but your own was found. These ****ing punks always get away was his feelings before anything transpired. Well GZ made sure this punk didn't get away with his iced tea and skittles to go watch the all star game. "Feelin' like a stranger in my own land, Got me feeling like Brody in Homeland" Jay-Z
yep, I'm sure people were doing that after the Casey A. verdict..... not. When OJ was found innocent, (some) people were celebrating in the steets. It's just sad.
The prosecutors were horrible and now they are dealing with the choice they made. They went all or nothing and it bit them in the ass. I dont really have an opinion on the case itself my opinions lie with the issue of racism. African americans are the most racist people in america, there is no race in america that hurts its own people than the black community. Its like jesse jackson always says nothing has changed, well that is on the black community for not trying to break the stereotypes and the profile, but instead try to attack anyone who utters anything about them in a negative sense
And make sure you have witnesses confirming that you were being beaten and injuries to support that you were being beaten.
There was too much evidence to put this scenario in doubt or support that TM was on top of GZ. Too much doubt. And that is what the justice system is - beyond reasonable doubt. GZ may be a liar. And he might have gotten away with something here because why else would he lie? But that's not enough to convict him when there are witnesses saying TM was on top of GZ and the top forensic pathologist in the country is saying TM was on top of GZ. How do you overcome that evidence? You can't do it with rationale, you need hard evidence to support your case. And that doesn't exist. And that's required under the premise it's worse to send an innocent person to jail then let a guilty man walk. Furthermore, both TM & GZ are at fault here. GZ should not have followed TM. But TM should not have attacked GZ in the way that he did. Both of these cats were fools. Both should have assumed the other had a gun and let the police handle the situation. Sadly, one had to lose their life. What's the lesson here? Don't confront people on the street that you don't have to confront. Let the police do their job. Don't get into street fights. Don't chase after people. Call the cops.
You don't attack based on perceived threat, you defend. Point me to case law that states you are given the right to defend yourself using physical force for simply being followed or questioned. Again, this is a hypothetical since the prosecution could not prove TM was being followed at the time the confrontation occurred.
