The evidence allowed for multiple scenarios, and surely this is one of them. Yet the question remains, are we more willing to send innocent people to prison or let the guilty escape punishment? As we now live in a country that believe guilty must be proven beyond reasonable doubt, the jury ruled based on that criteria.
Well, I’m not quite sure that’s a “fact.” The defense doesn’t have to prove their version of events.
The point is they actually did invoke the right to life as THE fundamental civil right. Which is why I quoted it in my post. So I’m not sure why you are saying they won’t ever do it. They did.
If it is perfectly plausible why didn’t the prosecution make that claim.Everybody who looked at all the evidence in this case said he was not guilty.From the initial police report to the Jury verdict they all said no crime was committed.I have a feeling that in many minds the mere fact he was carrying a gun makes him guilty.
Trayvon Martin was not the one who was tried, that was George Zimmernan unless I have completely missed the news stories.post 414 you asserted that the defense said the Travyon was violent and foolish. I gave you a source. I was you since you said the defense said it than the jury must agreed because they found it self-defense.
Your welcome!
You don’t get the fact that charging someone with a civil rights violation is a different charge than 2nd degree murder or manslaughter? Really?
Of COURSE it is a different charge. But the charge is for the same ACT. Or should we be okay with a govt that simply keeps bringing new charges for the same act against someone when they didn’t get a conviction on other charges? You could keep someone locked up awaiting trials for decades under this standard.
OTOH, why are states willing to promote vigilantes by writing state laws that promote it? Again, let us go back to the days where carrying a concealed weapon is a felony.
Yes, he smoked pot (as do millions of Americans). Perhaps I used a poor choice of words, perhaps I should have said Martin wasn’t “high.”
Really? So after Zimmerman pulled his gun Martin threw him to the ground, straddled him and started punching him and only then did Zimmerman shoot him?
The medical examiner disagrees with you.
With the much higher murder rates? I’ll pass.
No, the fact that he was negligent in following TM after being told not to makes him guilty of manslaughter.
What does that have to do with the post you responded too?
We know Trayvon Martin had marijuana in his system. I don’t know if this means he was high at the time of the altercation.
Why do you keep saying this when it is a questionable claim at best or completely false at worst?
It amazes me how many times the same details have been presented from evidence at the trial and yet some folks still insist on repeating things they have heard that have been proven inaccurate. That is a big part of the problem. The inaccurate stories just get repeated. Many people didn’t watch the trial or even read transcripts and yet repeat something based on opinion or something the untrustworthy media fabricated. When will that stop?