Thread: The ridiculous Trayvon Martin case

How do you know what really happened?

If anything it illustrates the danger inherent in carrying a gun. If you happen to get into a fight that otherwise would have ended with a bloody nose or black eye, once the gun is discovered it instantly becomes a life or death struggle!

That's one of the downsides, but think of all of the thugs out there who would totally take advantage of a disarmed law abiding faction of the public. I haven't judged whether Trayvon was a thug or not because I don't know enough about him, but if he was one and knew that only criminals have guns, he would have been likely to not just have a gun in that situation. He would have been likely to pull it.

I believe the justice system worked the way it was intended, whether or not you agree with the verdict. Would you rather not give someone a fair trial with a jury to hear his side of the story and examine evidence because you think you know what happened?

My initial reaction to this case, was that Zimmerman was guilty of second degree murder. However, none of us can know for certain what happened, but given the evidence, I support the verdict. Trayvon very likely was not a threat to Zimmerman, and shooting Trayvon was most likely uncalled for, but Zimmerman felt threatened, and that apparently gives him the right to kill. A lot of people seem to be protesting, making the argument that Zimmerman needs to go to jail.
Zimmerman is not really the villain here though, broken laws and legislation are. That's what people should be protesting against. Zimmerman is only a minor part of all this.

Yeah, the whole thing is really disturbing. I understand that Zimmerman didn't break any laws - self defense and all thought. Its just disturbing how easy it is to kill a person in this system, because you felt threatened, whether or not your life actually was.

If people insist on having guns for self defense, then I think they should take self defense classes and learn a thing or two about swinging and blocking punches...

The next time I hear a person link Stand Your Ground laws to this case, I'm probably going to backflip off a cliff.

None of us know what happened. I don't claim to know who did what and if it was truly self defense. We don't know if, had Zimmerman not had a gun, Martin would have beaten him to death. If someone starts beating the crap out of me at night, I would put a bullet in their chest too. However, the reactions to the decision seem to be ridiculous. The NAACP guy calling it a "Modern Lynching" is an insult to both those who were lynched and the jurors. They made the best decision they good based off of the evidence available. In our justice system one is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. As much as the sensationalists want it otherwise, the fact that Trayvon allegedly threw the first punch, coupled with the lack of evidence on the prosecutor's side in my humble uneducated opinion leads to a free Zimmerman.

Originally Posted by SpaceCowboyDave

... a free Zimmerman.

We'll see about that. It sounds like our old pal Eric Holder wants to nail him to a tree regardless of the findings of both the jury and the FBI.

I think the Jacksonville Jaguar's Uche Nwaneri said it best, although over Twitter, so it's just a wall of text:

...............................This puts it in perspective. It's what Uche Nwaneri wrote about the verdict on his FB: "Im tired and sleepy, but i will give my two cents on this Not guilty verdict. Let me first say, this was a tragedy. a young kid died because of poor judgement. We will never truly know what happened on that fateful night this much i am sure of. But I will also say that anyone who brings up the race card is not only being irresponsible, but they are also being ignorant to the merits of our justice system. While not perfect, it does state very clearly and without gray area the merits of Murder in this country. George Zimmerman is not an innocent man in this situation. I believe he had no intention of killing this young man when he chose to follow Trayvon Martin. But I also believe that in their conflict which resulted in this young kids death, he made a poor judgment with deadly results. The reason he walked free is because of the INCOMPETENT case brought by the Prosecution. These seekers of "justice" provided no proof of premeditation, and based their entire case off of the sad details and frantic inaudible 911 call during the altercation. In other words, they played with the emotional strings of that court hoping that with an all women jury they could sway a guilty verdict. In this they not only compromised the entire case, they also ignored the fact that by rolling the dice on tragedy of this situation, it was a win or go home situation without compromise. This case was FULL of gray area, and almost completely devoid of any evidence that would indicate premeditated murder. That and that ALONE is why he is a free man. Had they not fallen into the MEDIA trap that DIVIDES THIS COUNTRY AT ITS CORE (RACE) they would have pursued the appropriate charge of MANSLAUGHTER. That would have been an easy win. By definition it was absolutely manslaughter. But a jury cannot convict on that charge because again, the prosecution failed to even fight that battle. So to all those with the typical knee jerk racial epithet reactions, calm down and look at this case from the point of view of lady justice. she sees no color, feels no emotion, and cares not for the opinions of talk show hosts, CNN, FOX news, or any other society dividing juggernauts of influence. She only believes in undeniable FACTS, and unbreakable PROOF BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT. Her ears are all that matters because her eyes are covered. There is no room for gray area in her world. And while she may not be perfect (OJ, GZ, etc) she will only serve justice based on the triumphs of one argument, or on the pitfalls of another. And in this case, the latter has spoken and she has passed judgement accordingly whether we agree or not. We should all just get over the race issue because tomorrow is another day that we must all work next to someone or walk next to someone who may not be the same as us. should we hate them? should we resent them? or should we embrace that your life and your culture is different than mine. We may not always see eye to eye, but thats the beauty of it. Humans will never see it all the same. Ill pray for Trayvons family, as well as Georges because regardless of his freedom, he must live with the guilt and heartache of having extinguished a life, not out of malice, but out of overzealous action backed by what i am sure were positive and protective intentions. And on the other side, a family must now begin to heal and move on with life after the light of one of their loved ones was extinguished in what can really only be called a sad and tragic situation. Uche Signing off..."

A few points from myself:

- I agree with the jury's verdict.

- I don't think the facts in the case were able to contradict Zimmerman's claim of self-defense.

- I agree that Zimmerman should not have actively pursued Martin, but in doing so he neither did anything unlawful, nor does a watchman tailing you justify a physical confrontation. Simply following a suspicious person, in a neighborhood where break-ins have been frequent, does not automatically make you the instigator of a subsequent fight.

- I could see the exact same scenario playing out, regardless of color. The only reason this has turned into a race-related issue (aside from media influence) is because of the wide-spread assumption that Zimmerman wouldn't have though Trayvon was a suspicious character, if he had been white. There is nothing to support this. Zimmerman even told dispatch that the guy looked like he might have been on something, and he was wandering about aimlessly in a dark hoodie, early in the dark, and in the rain. (Is there anyone here, who wouldn't find that suspicious, in a neighborhood that has had frequent break-ins? Seriously. Show of hands.)

- If someone had mounted me, dropping bombs on my face and smashing my head into the concrete while I was screaming for help (if it was, indeed, Zimmerman screaming), I honestly might have shot them, too. Reluctantly, and with no degree of satisfaction, but it might have happened.

- I was leaning more toward Martin's defense at the start of the case. I've lived near Sanford since I was 13, and I know how color plays a lot into what goes on there. I thought it might have just been another case of 'white wannabe cop shoots unarmed black teen for no reason', but when the facts began coming out, I started seeing things differently.

- Everyone is advertising the 'Skittles and Iced Tea' element, as if Martin was an innocent schoolboy out for snacks, ignoring the fact that it is 2/3 of the ingredients for Lean (cough syrup-based, intoxicating drink), which Martin was known to have had on occasion.

- Martin's zeal for fighting in general was pretty damning to the prosecution.


But what really makes my blood burn, over this whole thing, is the aftermath. I've already read reports of small-scale rioting in LA; random, racially-motivated attacks/beatings by black youths yelling 'this is for Trayvon!'; Jesse Jackson's calling Florida an "apartheid state"; and now, President Obama's (continued) fanning of the flames by saying things like "If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon" and "Trayvon could have been me, 35 years ago."

I feel like this f'cking media circus has set race relations back in this country about 20 years. I also think the fervor was completely manufactured by the media, and not only is it being used as an effective psy-op to divide (and conquer) the nation and distract from other (actually crucial) issues going on right now, but it is also completely playing into the racial stereotypes that actually infuriate bigots the most. I mean, making a national uproar about a racial issue, when there was no real evidence of the incident being racially-motivate in the first place? Whose Bright Idea Was This? You know what it does? It promotes already-bigoted blacks to further hate the "white man" (or 'white-hispanic man', whatever the hell that fabricated piece of literary race-bait means) for (allegedly) profiling and shooting another black youth, as well as promoting already-bigoted whites to further hate the black people who 'just seem to think everything is about race,' and 'just can't seem to 'get over' slavery'.

To me, every new image I see if the protests, or stories I read about the DOJ looking to try to overturn the verdict (setting precedence for another slippery-slope for our justice system), or "Justice for Trayvon" post I see on FB is a dubious reminder of how easily the actual problems with racism in this country can be shoved under the rug, while counter-productive trash like this only adds fuel to the fire. As a black man in America, it is sickeningly painful to watch.

It is propaganda at its finest, and if this is the kind of illogical crap we can expect, now that the governmental propaganda ban has been lifted, I think we are all in for a world of sh!t.

/rant

I honestly don't care anymore. Not as much as other people, at least. This was hardly a unique case.

Zimmerman could not be proven guilty. Everyone is considered innocent until proven guilty. That's the way the system works.

People want to end racism, crime, etc. So do I, but focusing on this one case and threatening a potentially innocent man isn't going to solve anything.

I just don't understand why, out of all the thousands of murders since then, everyone is still talking about this one. There are a lot of more important things for people to focus on than what the jury decided on one case. I disagree with their decision, but they already decided and all these protests are doing nothing.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut Zero

/rant

Very nice

Damn O, I wish you were president!!

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Damn O, I wish you were president!!

Haha. No way. Too much stress (and moral compromise) for me.

No doubt. Is it telling that Obama identifies not with the protector of the community, but with the suspicious character who was walking "right under the eaves of the houses" and who viciously attacked with murderous intent as soon as he was challenged?

To the OP, what do you mean "the weak side"


Justice system has always been fucked up, it's just most people don't see it.

A part of the reason I think he got a not-guilty verdict was because Zimmerman represented Gun-owners. 2 of the Jurors were gun-owners and naturally they would side with the idea that you can shoot someone in self-defense. Murder is not justifiable at all...not even in self-defense. I honestly think these self-defense laws are just an excuse to kill

Peace and love is the only way your going to beat these people..and its not a black and white thing. The case has gotten so much publicity and attention though, he's done if they get the Federal charges against him and it looks like they will. Gun-owners and hateful people will be pissed off


You don't kill people in this world..simple as that.

Originally Posted by Majestic

To the OP, what do you mean "the weak side"


Justice system has always been fucked up, it's just most people don't see it.

A part of the reason I think he got a not-guilty verdict was because Zimmerman represented Gun-owners. 2 of the Jurors were gun-owners and naturally they would side with the idea that you can shoot someone in self-defense. Murder is not justifiable at all...not even in self-defense. I honestly think these self-defense laws are just an excuse to kill

Peace and love is the only way your going to beat these people..and its not a black and white thing. The case has gotten so much publicity and attention though, he's done if they get the Federal charges against him and it looks like they will. Gun-owners and hateful people will be pissed off


You don't kill people in this world..simple as that.

So if someone tries to kill you, the only way to beat those people is to let them kill you? If you are incapable of simply incapacitating them in your self-defense, you should be held accountable for the result of their actions? Now I realize you could say that once you allow killing in self-defense, people will simply bypass trying to incapacitate their attacker and go straight for the kill. But I mean really, who wants to kill someone besides psychopaths/sociopaths? You would have to live with that the rest of your life. Personally, in my community, I would rather have a person that killed someone that attacked them with the intent to end their life living next to me than a person who would kill for much lesser reasons.

I get your point, it would be nice if we could all live in peace, but there is absolutely no reason you should have to be the one to die if someone attacks you with intent to kill, even if that means killing them.

In order for a killing to be murder, it must be premeditated. If you were to kill someone in self-defense, you would not be guilty of murder. To murder someone and to kill someone is not the same thing. They are nearly synonymous, but not quite. Murder always implies intent, killing does not.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Is it telling that Obama identifies not with the protector of the community, but with the suspicious character who was walking "right under the eaves of the houses" and who viciously attacked with murderous intent as soon as he was challenged?

What made Treyvon more suspicious than George Zimmerman? He wasn't doing anything wrong when Zimmerman started following him. We don't know exactly what happened, so you can't really say Zimmerman was the "protector of the community" and Treyvon was just a "suspicious character". We don't know what either of them were thinking then, exactly why he started following Treyvon, or who attacked first and why, everyone is just guessing and assuming.

Originally Posted by snoop

So if someone tries to kill you, the only way to beat those people is to let them kill you? If you are incapable of simply incapacitating them in your self-defense, you should be held accountable for the result of their actions? Now I realize you could say that once you allow killing in self-defense, people will simply bypass trying to incapacitate their attacker and go straight for the kill. But I mean really, who wants to kill someone besides psychopaths/sociopaths? You would have to live with that the rest of your life. Personally, in my community, I would rather have a person that killed someone that attacked them with the intent to end their life living next to me than a person who would kill for much lesser reasons.

I get your point, it would be nice if we could all live in peace, but there is absolutely no reason you should have to be the one to die if someone attacks you with intent to kill, even if that means killing them.

In order for a killing to be murder, it must be premeditated. If you were to kill someone in self-defense, you would not be guilty of murder. To murder someone and to kill someone is not the same thing. They are nearly synonymous, but not quite. Murder always implies intent, killing does not.

I understand people want to feel safe and protect their life..but NO-ONE is just going to walk up to you and try to kill you for no reason. There's almost always a provocation behind it.

Peace is the only way to win. The Zimmerman case will only raise the murder rate if people think hey can shoot-or kill in self-defense if they get in a fight or whatever reason. Some people are killing and claiming it was self-defense just to get off like the Michael Dunn guy which is obviously bullshit.


Either ban guns or get rid of the justice system/law enforcement completely. People would be a lot more careful and respectful of each other if they knew someone could kill you with absolutely no consequences or anyone to stop them.

Originally Posted by Majestic

I understand people want to feel safe and protect their life..but NO-ONE is just going to walk up to you and try to kill you for no reason. There's almost always a provocation behind it.

Peace is the only way to win. The Zimmerman case will only raise the murder rate if people think hey can shoot-or kill in self-defense if they get in a fight or whatever reason. Some people are killing and claiming it was self-defense just to get off like the Michael Dunn guy which is obviously bullshit.


Either ban guns or get rid of the justice system/law enforcement completely. People would be a lot more careful and respectful of each other if they knew someone could kill you with absolutely no consequences or anyone to stop them.

You're telling me it's not possible for someone insane to go on a rampage and kill totally random people? Not everything happens for a reason, sometimes things happen for no reason at all, or at least reasons beyond your control. If you could possibly defend yourself from death in these circumstances, why is it wrong to do so?

edit: Also, I agree with your last point, but how would banning guns prove that point? Truth is it doesn't. On the contrary, what would work instead is to force everyone to carry guns. Personally, I can say confidently that I would be okay with that.

Forcing people to carry guns would still be revoking freedoms and would not end well.

At all.

I was just saying that forcing everyone to carry arms would more reinforce the point he was making than to ban them all.

Originally Posted by Woodstock

What made Treyvon more suspicious than George Zimmerman? He wasn't doing anything wrong when Zimmerman started following him. We don't know exactly what happened, so you can't really say Zimmerman was the "protector of the community" and Treyvon was just a "suspicious character". We don't know what either of them were thinking then, exactly why he started following Treyvon, or who attacked first and why, everyone is just guessing and assuming.

Zimmerman was a representative of the neighborhood watch, doing his job to protect the neighborhood - a smaller-scale version of the president, who is SUPPOSED to be protecting and looking out for the American people. Martin on the other hand was trespassing - walking not only in the yards, but right up in front of the walls and windows of the houses. I understand it was raining, so that explains why he was probably doing it as well as wearing his hood up, but in any event once you're confronted with a neighborhood watchman who asks you what's your business on this street it's pretty suspicious to attack him, making racist remarks and death threats while bashing his head repeatedly into the concrete - rather than just say "I live nearby, and I know this looks pretty suspicious, being so close up against the houses and all, but it's just to stay dry."

I see no problem at all with Zimmerman following him, but there's a BIG problem when Martin attacked. And even more so after he broke his nose and got him down on the ground and, rather than leaving, started bashing his skull into the concrete repeatedly while telling him "You're going to die tonight". How is that not suspicious? What is that other than attempted murder? Once somebody's had his nose broken all the fight is generally gone out of him and he's in shock, at that point most real fights would be over. To continue attacking a man who's down and covered with his own blood and bash his head into the street repeatedly is not fighting, it's trying to kill. This kind of behavior isn't suspicious to you?

Obama said that could have been him - what did he mean by that? That he would most likely have attacked a neighborhood watchman viciously and attempted to murder him while making racist statements and death threats? Because that's what got Martin killed, not jut the fact that he was trespassing through all the yards.

Though considering Obama's policies I think it does make sense he identifies more with Martin.