Trayvon Martin: Before the world heard the cries

  • Thread starter Thread starter SwizzleStick
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
donsnow said:
Good evening, SwizzleStick,

Ya, the parent always remembers the toddler child. Always.

God loves you,
Don
Click to expand...
Yes. Obviously, the child grows and is replaced by a man or woman, but still, we remember.

Bless you, donsnow. God does indeed love us all.
 
7_Sorrows said:
that is what i am afraid of and what i don’t want to see happen.
Click to expand...
I think that no matter what, Zimmerman’s life will never again be the same. If he is charged, goes to trial, found guilty and then goes to prison, I doubt he will survive long in prison. If he is not charged because evidence does not support him being charged or if he is found not guilty if things advance to trial, I suspect he will have to relocate, change his identity and maybe much, much more to be able to live here in the States.
 
mtbender said:
The fact is Zimmerman did not do anything illegal leading up to the altercation.

Zimmerman did not break the law by carrying a gun.
Zimmerman did not break the law by following Martin.
Zimmerman did not break the law by confronting Martin.
Zimmerman did not break the law by reporting Martin.
Click to expand...
All true statements, but not all the true statements. We can also add that:

Martin did not break the law by walking through the neighborhood
Martin did not break the las by carrying Skittles.
Martin did not break the law if he decided to confront Zimmerman.

In any case, nothing here is in question. Rather the question is rather Zimmerman broke the law by killing Martin. If he did so in legitimate self-defense, he is not criminally liable. If Martin struck Zimmerman in legitimate self-defense, he too committed no crime.
 
pnewton said:
All true statements, but not all the true statements. We can also add that:

Martin did not break the law by walking through the neighborhood
Martin did not break the las by carrying Skittles.
Martin did not break the law if he decided to confront Zimmerman.

In any case, nothing here is in question. Rather the question is rather Zimmerman broke the law by killing Martin. If he did so in legitimate self-defense, he is not criminally liable. If Martin struck Zimmerman in legitimate self-defense, he too committed no crime.
Click to expand...
It was a gated community, he was trespassing

If he jumped Zimmerman and smashed him in the nose, and bashed his head against the ground, he was breaking the law
 
gilliam said:
No, sorry, his father lives in a condo complex outside the gated community. Trayvon was trespassing.
Click to expand...
No, I’m sorry. I misunderstood then. I thought Dad’s fiancee lived in the gated community.
 
SwizzleStick said:
No, I’m sorry. I misunderstood then. I thought Dad’s fiancee lived in the gated community.
Click to expand...
No I think she lives outside the gated community too. This is why we can’t judge this case. We don’t know all the facts.
 
gilliam said:
No I think she lives outside the gated community too. This is why we can’t judge this case. We don’t know all the facts.
Click to expand...
👍

That is so true, we certainly don’t know all the facts. 🙂
 
gilliam said:
Trayvon was trespassing.
Click to expand...
Just because it is a gated community doesn’t make anyone on the street who doesn’t live in one of the houses a trespasser, and it’s terrible to throw this at a kid after his death, after he got shot down. Trayvon was visiting his father at his father’s girlfriend’s house. How can that be called trespassing? It doesn’t show much compassion or charity.
 
Jerry_Miah said:
Just because it is a gated community doesn’t make anyone on the street who doesn’t live in one of the houses a trespasser, and it’s terrible to throw this at a kid after his death, after he got shot down. Trayvon was visiting his father at his father’s girlfriend’s house. How can that be called trespassing? It doesn’t show much compassion or charity.
Click to expand...
I am pretty sure both his father and his father’s girlfriend live outside this particular gated community.
 
gilliam said:
If the map on the top of this page is correct (and this appears to be from the NY Times, so I would assume it is accurate) then I am mistaken, Trayvon was returning to a condo in the complex. See:
nytimes.com/interactive/2012/04/02/us/the-events-leading-to-the-shooting-of-trayvon-martin.html
Click to expand...
Yes, by any and all reports I have seen, it is uncontested that Trayvon was visiting his father in this father’s girlfriend’s house. That’s what he was doing in the neighborhood, it’s not a mystery.
 
7_Sorrows said:
that is what i am afraid of and what i don’t want to see happen.
Click to expand...
My, my, comparing the demand for arrest and trial of an admitted shooter to the condemnation of our innocent Savior?! On the other hand, if some see a valid comparison here, they should encourage Zimmerman to pick up his cross and follow the example set for him…
 
Havard said:
I think what he’s saying is based on the supposition that Trayvon didn’t know Zimmerman was armed?

In that case, Trayvon would be justified in fighting back with non-lethal force, because lethal force is only justified when there’s a threat of lethal force.
Click to expand...
We don’t know if Trayvon saw the gun or not, but that’s immaterial to his right to self-defense.

What I really, really, really don’t get here are the double standards underlying common suppositions about this killing:
  1. It seems to be commonly assumed that Zimmerman had a right to self-defense against Martin, but many people have to be reminded that Martin had a similar right. Considering that Zimmerman was the only one armed, that is simply astounding to me.
  2. It also seems to be commonly assumed that Martin only had grounds for self-defense, if he knew Zimmerman was armed - so what are Zimmerman’s grounds for self-defense? Obviously, Martin wasn’t armed…and from the looks of things he might well have been faulted if he had been armed and Zimmerman was dead today.
  3. It seems to be too readily assumed that Zimmerman was well within his rights to take whatever action he took that night, but that Martin was not…why is that?
  4. It seem too readily assumed that if Martin had any sort of criminal history, the shooting would have been justified. Why? Zimmerman, by his own admission on the 911 call, didn’t know Martin or anything about him. So how does Martin need to be an angel for his killing to be wrong?
These are some of the key issues puzzling the Moms of other Trayvons out there…
 
gilliam said:
If the map on the top of this page is correct (and this appears to be from the NY Times, so I would assume it is accurate) then I am mistaken, Trayvon was returning to a condo in the complex. See:
nytimes.com/interactive/2012/04/02/us/the-events-leading-to-the-shooting-of-trayvon-martin.html
Click to expand...
Thanks for the clarification. You posted a link to a different map than I’d seen before, but they both indicate that Martin’s dad’s fiancee lived in the gated community, so Martin was not trespassing since he was visiting.
 
bellasbane said:
According to this absurd “stand your ground” law, Trayvon Martin would have been justified in killing George Zimmerman. He would have been acting perfectly within his rights to have smashed the guys head to a pulp on the concrete of the sidewalk. **If I were Trayvon’s parents, I would wish he had. **
Click to expand...
You misunderstand the law and you have a problem with your morals. Following someone and asking them a question is not an assault, threat or use of force. Martin attacked Zimmerman without cause and while Zimmerman was returning to his vehicle. Martin struck Zimmerman, broke his nose, and started slamming his head to the pavement. Many prosecutors would call that attempted murder. If you think you can attack someone because they are following you then perhaps you should be in a jail cell. Good luck with your national lynching. The Truth will prevail.
 
seekerz said:
We don’t know if Trayvon saw the gun or not, but that’s immaterial to his right to self-defense.

What I really, really, really don’t get here are the double standards underlying common suppositions about this killing:
  1. It seems to be commonly assumed that Zimmerman had a right to self-defense against Martin, but many people have to be reminded that Martin had a similar right. Considering that Zimmerman was the only one armed, that is simply astounding to me.
  2. It also seems to be commonly assumed that Martin only had grounds for self-defense, if he knew Zimmerman was armed - so what are Zimmerman’s grounds for self-defense? Obviously, Martin wasn’t armed…and from the looks of things he might well have been faulted if he had been armed and Zimmerman was dead today.
  3. It seems to be too readily assumed that Zimmerman was well within his rights to take whatever action he took that night, but that Martin was not…why is that?
  4. It seem too readily assumed that if Martin had any sort of criminal history, the shooting would have been justified. Why? Zimmerman, by his own admission on the 911 call, didn’t know Martin or anything about him. So how does Martin need to be an angel for his killing to be wrong?
These are some of the key issues puzzling the Moms of other Trayvons out there…
Click to expand...
Martin NEVER had the grounds for self defense since he was never attacked. Following someone is not attacking them. Asking someone what they are doing there is not an attack. Martin instigated violence against Zimmerman and Zimmerman used force to stop that violence.
 
pnewton said:
All true statements, but not all the true statements. We can also add that:

Martin did not break the law by walking through the neighborhood
Martin did not break the las by carrying Skittles.
Martin did not break the law if he decided to confront Zimmerman.

In any case, nothing here is in question. Rather the question is rather Zimmerman broke the law by killing Martin. If he did so in legitimate self-defense, he is not criminally liable. If Martin struck Zimmerman in legitimate self-defense, he too committed no crime.
Click to expand...
Martin DID break the law by breaking Zimmerman’s nose, knocking him on the ground and slamming his head repeatedly into the pavement. The shooting happened AFTER this occurred and was in response to violence perpetrated by Mr. “no_limit_*****” Martin (<–Martin’s Twitter account)

The authorities will declare this is was legitimate self defense because they have the facts and they are calling up law enforcement from outside the community to deal with the inevitable riots.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top