Trayvon Martin: Before the world heard the cries

[seekerz]

I too feel like a broken record, but here goes again:

One investigation that has taken place, and did not find sufficient evidence to charge. There are 3 ongoing investigations that will determine if the 1st was properly conducted, and if criminal charges should be filed.

A criminal charge and trial is NOT “justice” if the additional 3 investigations do not find reason to charge, regardless of public pressure.

Period.

If properly conducted, they will find reason to charge because there is reason to charge, just based on the 911 call and the area map. He followed the child, he caused the child’s death. All else is for a jury to decide.

 

[Lujack]

No, they are the same. Both eliminate due process.

No, one allows for the possibility of Zimmerman’s innocence, it just holds that the best forum to determine such is in a court of law.

 

[scipio337]

If properly conducted, they will find reason to charge because there is reason to charge, just based on the 911 call and the area map. He followed the child, he caused the child’s death. All else is for a jury to decide.

Which is your personal opinion, not something that is part of due process.

The difference between our views is that if the 3 independent investigations (2 Federal ones) find no reason to charge Zimmerman, I will say “justice has been done”. I trust the FBI and DoJ findings in a law enforcement investigation over your personal views.

 

[Lujack]

Guilty of what exactly? Different charges have different elements that have to be met. Jumping the gun and charging Zimmerman with the wrong charge will have the same outcome as not charging him at all.

Except that if he is clearly innocent, a trial will actually vindicate him. I would imagine Zimmerman, if innocent or believing himself to be innocent, wants a trial quickly to clear his name.

 

[hosemonkey]

Read it again? I’m pretty sure that no matter how many times I reread, it simply will not manifest a clause that prevent people from dressing like anyone, be they gangsters, mafia, bikers, skin heads or worse.

On the other hand, the Constitution seems to take pains to protect everyone

I do not know how I could make my point any clearer, unless you are:

1. A little thick. Or:
2. Being obtuse.
   The Constitution offers no protection against anyone making an assumption based on appearance.
   One may dress in any way that one pleases, you only have to accept the consequences of presenting a certain appearance.
   If you dress like a soldier, people will assume that you are in the Army.
   If you dress like a priest, people will assume that you are a clergyman.
   Until those first impressions are confirmed or denied, people will act on those assumptions. Is that any clearer to you?

 

[vz71]

Had it been properly conducted, we wouldn’t still be stuck at this stage and the public pressure will not let up until this stalled truck gets moving again.

What evidence is there that the investigation was not properly conducted?

 

[iamrefreshed]

So why can’t you and I switch on the TV and hear discussions of the basis for the DA not charging Zimmerman?

You did. You just didn’t like the results.

 

[fix]

Yes, the police investigated, the DA did not file charges. Due process was fufilled. Now you want that eliminated because you don’t care for the results.

That’s it. It is alarming that so many are so quick to demand arrest even when there is no evidence to arrest. No one is safe with that way of thinking.

 

[Lujack]

I do not know how I could make my point any clearer, unless you are:

1. A little thick. Or:
2. Being obtuse.
   The Constitution offers no protection against anyone making an assumption based on appearance.
   One may dress in any way that one pleases, you only have to accept the consequences of presenting a certain appearance.
   If you dress like a soldier, people will assume that you are in the Army.
   If you dress like a priest, people will assume that you are a clergyman.
   Until those first impressions are confirmed or denied, people will act on those assumptions. Is that any clearer to you?

And a hoodie, being extremely common among people of all backgrounds and motives, doesn’t provide much grounds for anything. Its a fairly ubiquitous piece of clothing; I wear hoodies almost all the time in the winter and spring.

There are several possible assumptions one can make-athlete out for a jog, average person trying to keep warm, wrestler trying to cut weight…anything.

Making an assumption based off a hoodie is like making an assumption based on seeing a bunch of Italian men in suits. Yeah, they could be mobsters…but they could also be the ushers at the local parish or coming from a wake.

I understand that Zimmerman may have made an assumption based off a hoodie; if he did, it was a very poor one.

 

[vz71]

I know enough (based on what information has been released) to conclude that he should have been charged; what I do not know is the reason the DA decided not to charge.

What evidence is there to say that the investigation was not properly conducted.

We are well aware that you have the OPINION, but do you have anything concrete that says that the first investigation was improperly done?

 

[iamrefreshed]

Except that if he is clearly innocent, a trial will actually vindicate him. I would imagine Zimmerman, if innocent or believing himself to be innocent, wants a trial quickly to clear his name.

That’s not how we do things in America. We don’t send people to trial to prove innocence. We send them to trial and have to prove them guilty. I really can’t understand how people refuse to understand this simple concept.

 

[vz71]

If properly conducted, they will find reason to charge because there is reason to charge…

So you are of the opinion that the first investigation was improperly done because they did not reach the same conclusion you have?

 

[Dawnia]

Except that if he is clearly innocent, a trial will actually vindicate him. I would imagine Zimmerman, if innocent or believing himself to be innocent, wants a trial quickly to clear his name.

Innocent of which charge? A jury doesn’t decide the charge. They determine if the person is guilty or innocent of the charge against the defendant. If he is charged with premeditated murder and the evidence doesn’t support such a charge, then he will be be declared innocent even if his shooting the kid wasn’t in self-defense. And he can’t be charged again for Martin’s death if he is found innocent on a different charge.

 

[seekerz]

I do not know how I could make my point any clearer, unless you are:

1. A little thick. Or:
2. Being obtuse.
   The Constitution offers no protection against anyone making an assumption based on appearance.
   One may dress in any way that one pleases, you only have to accept the consequences of presenting a certain appearance.
   If you dress like a soldier, people will assume that you are in the Army.
   If you dress like a priest, people will assume that you are a clergyman.
   Until those first impressions are confirmed or denied, people will act on those assumptions. Is that any clearer to you?

No, because the “consequences” you refer to include actions which may result in death. To my knowledge, the Constitution does not subjugate the right to life (or any other right) of an individual to another person’s assumptions. Those rights are inalienable.

What we need is a clear law criminalizing any and all actions taken against people, based solely on physical features which are common to whole groups of people. One would have thought the protections enshrined in the Constitution would be enough, but obviously, it needs to be broken down into bite-size chunks…

 

[rlg94086]

So if you are accused, in the media, of a crime it is appropriate to have to go into hiding, be in fear for your life, have a bounty put on your head and have to leave your job? All of that is :aok:

In this country we are innocent until proven guilty.

I was about to post the same. I don’t know if Zimmerman will be brought to trial or found guilty, but two lives were destroyed in this incident. One tragically died, and the other has to live with it as a person found guilty by the masses, with or without a trial.

 

[hosemonkey]

And a hoodie, being extremely common among people of all backgrounds and motives, doesn’t provide much grounds for anything. Its a fairly ubiquitous piece of clothing; I wear hoodies almost all the time in the winter and spring.

There are several possible assumptions one can make-athlete out for a jog, average person trying to keep warm, wrestler trying to cut weight…anything.

The fact remains, people make judgements based on impressions, right,wrong or indifferent. I maintain that a certain type of dress fosters those kinds of impressions and should perhaps be avoided out of prudence.

 

[Lujack]

I was about to post the same. I don’t know if Zimmerman will be brought to trial or found guilty, but two lives were destroyed in this incident. One tragically died, and the other has to live with it as a person found guilty by the masses, with or without a trial.

This is true and unfortunate, but at the same time, Zimmerman is still alive, which means that there are things possible for him that are impossible for Martin. Also, Zimmerman made the choices that created the situation; Martin didn’t have that luxury.

 

[vz71]

Except that if he is clearly innocent, a trial will actually vindicate him. I would imagine Zimmerman, if innocent or believing himself to be innocent, wants a trial quickly to clear his name.

I wouldn’t.
I would want to be as far away from media as possible.

It is too bad he would not be eligible for the witness protection program.
The race peddlers have made him a hated man, I believe his life is now in danger.

 

[seekerz]

So you are of the opinion that the first investigation was improperly done because they did not reach the same conclusion you have?

Is that opinion more hilarious than the common defenses of Zimmerman scattered throughout this thread? When an investigation, especially one coming from Sanford, is kept secret even after it is determined that a crime was not committed, then no, it cannot claim to be above board. Not when commonsense and the two grains of evidence released, suggest that a crime may have been committed.

 

[Lujack]

The fact remains, people make judgements based on impressions, right,wrong or indifferent. I maintain that a certain type of dress fosters those kinds of impressions and should perhaps be avoided out of prudence.

So you shouldn’t wear hoodies because somebody might be a paranoid vigilante and shoot you dead? Maybe people shouldn’t be paranoid vigilantes and shoot people dead because they are in hoodies?

I was once in a restaurant near a guy about who I had a strong feeling that he was probably in the mob (for various reasons I won’t explain here). I didn’t get a gun and shoot him.