Trayvon Martin: Before the world heard the cries

[Dawnia]

You know, I don’t disagree with you that such things can look suspicious, and can be grounds for calling 911. The issue arrives when we come to the question of whether or not that’s enough to initiate direct confrontation. I think that if you are an untrained private citizen, you should be pretty confidence that someone else (or yourself) is in danger of harm before trying to do the job of people who are trained to do it.

Jumping to conclusions on a 911 call is all well and good; that’s what’s it there for. Outside of that realm, though, things get trickier.

I don’t think you should confront anyone you don’t know, because frankly you don’t know how they will react. For your own self preservation, you should never assume that the other person is going to react rationally. Far better to call 911 and let the police deal with it than risk putting yourself in danger.

 

[vz71]

Who set into motion the events that resulted in the confrontation?

If we really want to keep pushing blame backward with a notion of what or who set the series of events in motion, let me cut to the chase.

Eve bit into that forbidden fruit. It has been a struggle since then.

Let’s blame her.

 

[scipio337]

Who set into motion the events that resulted in the confrontation?

Immaterial. None of that is criminal. Unwise? Absolutely, but not criminal.

There was either an assualt, and the shooting was self defense, or there was no assualt, and Zimmerman committed manslaughter or murder 2.

 

[vz71]

Immaterial. None of that is criminal. Unwise? Absolutely, but not criminal.

There was either an assualt, and the shooting was self defense, or there was no assualt, and Zimmerman committed manslaughter or murder 2.

I understand they are looking at second degree murder.

 

[seekerz]

Nothing suspicious in the activity as described.
But I somehow doubt that Zimmerman was suspicious of an activity that is not suspicious.

There was more going on. We will eventually hear what that is.

Perhaps there was a history of crimes in the area. Anyone that is not a familiar face in the neighborhood would immediately be under suspicion.

That’s the part I don’t get: he sees a suspicious stranger, there’s a history of crime in the area, the police are on their way and he follows the child! How many burglaries can a human being commit in the mere minutes between the end of that 911 call and the fatal shot? It’s not like he can even say, well, the police were delayed and Martin was picking someone’s lock! Now I just heard his lawyer on Fox claiming that after he was told not to follow, he went and got the address and then was returning to his car. New spin on an old tale? Not on Fox?!

I think the reason his supporters fear a jury is because they understand that Zimmerman’s decisions and the various explanations will end up not making sense to the average person of normal intelligence.

 

[iamrefreshed]

That’s the part I don’t get: he sees a suspicious stranger, there’s a history of crime in the area, the police are on their way and he follows the child! How many burglaries can a human being commit in the mere minutes between the end of that 911 call and the fatal shot? It’s not like he can even say, well, the police were delayed and Martin was picking someone’s lock! Now I just heard his lawyer on Fox claiming that after he was told not to follow, he went and got the address and then was returning to his car. New spin on an old tale? Not on Fox?!

I think the reason his supporters fear a jury is because they understand that Zimmerman’s decisions and the various explanations will end up not making sense to the average person of normal intelligence.

I suspect he followed him so he would not lose sight of him.

How do you know his supporters fear a jury? Did they claim that?

 

[estesbob]

There is a report that there is a tape that hasn’t been released to the public. Evidently we’ll find out at 6PM EDT

 

[seekerz]

Immaterial. None of that is criminal. Unwise? Absolutely, but not criminal.

There was either an assualt, and the shooting was self defense, or there was no assualt, and Zimmerman committed manslaughter or murder 2.

I don’t know Florida law, so this is just my personal opinion, if you engage in actions - legal or not - which could forseeably and unnecessarily place your life at risk, you should not be able to claim self-defense. No crime was being committed, the police were on their way, he suspected Martin to be a criminal and he was carrying a concealed weapon: commonsense alone dictates that you remain at a safe distance rather than enter a potentially dangerous situation.

If the only good that comes from out of this is that the Stand Your Ground law is fixed, so that it cannot be misused to randomly dispense of the human lives that cross our paths, then Trayvon’s life would not have been in vain.

 

[seekerz]

I suspect he followed him so he would not lose sight of him.

How do you know his supporters fear a jury? Did they claim that?

That’s not what his former lawyer just said on Fox, sorry. The story now is that he went and got the address and was returning to his car.

As to your question: when people equate a trial to an execution, it’s not hard to detect that they fear seeing him in front of a jury.

 

[pnewton]

“It can happen here. The law is the same - the law that protects the guy that shot Trayvon,” Coleman said.

Then I will stand my ground and just disagree with you. I know what the penal code says on self-defense. Note the representative says it is similar, not the same. I do not know who Coleman is, or if he has even read the law he is commenting on. Houston politicians have shown that they are often ignorant of that which they comment on, especially when it is hot political stories.

9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person
is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.31;
(2)** if a reasonable person in the actor’s situation **
would not have retreated; and
(3) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect himself against the other’s use or
attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of
aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual
assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
(b) **The requirement imposed by Subsection (a)(2) does not **
**apply to an actor who uses force against a person who is at the time **
**of the use of force committing an offense of unlawful entry in the **
habitation of the actor.

Retreat is required outside of one’s home. I have seen this exercised in a murder trial where self-defense was not established because retreat was possible and it was in public.

 

[vz71]

As to your question: when people equate a trial to an execution, it’s not hard to detect that they fear seeing him in front of a jury.

I fear that any potential jury pool has been tainted by the falsehoods propogated by the media.

Real question here…is it possible for him to get a fair trial given the falsehoods and publicity? If not, will this lead to a mistrial?

 

[seekerz]

I fear that any potential jury pool has been tainted by the falsehoods propogated by the media.

Real question here…is it possible for him to get a fair trial given the falsehoods and publicity? If not, will this lead to a mistrial?

If Casey Anthony could get a fair trial, anyone can. Zimmerman is just another person, no special exceptions need apply.

 

[iamrefreshed]

That’s not what his former lawyer just said on Fox, sorry. The story now is that he went and got the address and was returning to his car.

As to your question: when people equate a trial to an execution, it’s not hard to detect that they fear seeing him in front of a jury.

I didn’t see the Fox report. That’s why I said “I suspect”.

As to your second statement that is strictly your opinion. You should not present it as fact. I’m sure you do not like words being put into your mouth.

 

[seekerz]

I didn’t see the Fox report. That’s why I said “I suspect”.

As to your second statement that is strictly your opinion. You should not present it as fact. I’m sure you do not like words being put into your mouth.

I gave my impression, based on the comparisons you were busy making this morning. Of course, you are free to accept it as fact if you so choose…

 

[rlg94086]

Who set into motion the events that resulted in the confrontation?

Either Martin, due to suspicious activity, or Zimmerman for mistaking something innocent for suspicious activity. Either way, it is irrelevant. The confrontation did not have to end in a death. It is the manner of that confrontation that is relevant.

 

[vz71]

If Casey Anthony could get a fair trial, anyone can. Zimmerman is just another person, no special exceptions need apply.

They did not have the burden of the various race peddlers stirring up the prospective jury.

 

[rlg94086]

Immaterial. None of that is criminal. Unwise? Absolutely, but not criminal.

There was either an assualt, and the shooting was self defense, or there was no assualt, and Zimmerman committed manslaughter or murder 2.

Precisely.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

I hate to be a party-pooper here and go against the nice conversation , but now that Zimmerman is going to be charged, I just KNOW that folks are going to say “he’s not going to get a fair trial--------just let him go. Miscarriage of justice for him to be charged.”

Like DA Corey has NO reason to charge him. No evidence. Plain as day and obvious it is the way Zimmerman said it was.
Would any of you feel the same way if it was the other way around amd Martin was being chrged with killing neighborhood watch captain GZ?

BTW----sorry if I sound sarcastic here----I just feel that, just like many have already made up their minds about TM’s “guilt,” many have already made up their mind about GZ’s “innocence.”
The rush to judgement has been on BOTH sides here.

Look, I admit I tend to lean towards the TM side of things, I admit it----but I’m also open to have my mind changed by any evidence presented at the trial.
Let’s see how the trial works out.

I’m interested in how the defense is going to spin the “stand your ground” defense---------especially since the guy who pushed the law through AND Jeb Bush both say GZ is not covered under it-----who knows? Will be interested in finding out.

 

[Vincent_N]

pnewton:

Then I will stand my ground and just disagree with you. I know what the penal code says on self-defense. Note the representative says it is similar, not the same. I do not know who Coleman is, or if he has even read the law he is commenting on. Houston politicians have shown that they are often ignorant of that which they comment on, especially when it is hot political stories.

Retreat is required outside of one’s home. I have seen this exercised in a murder trial where self-defense was not established because retreat was possible and it was in public.

Absurd. GZ shot TM in self defense when retreat was not possible. This has never been refuted.

 

[rlg94086]

That’s the part I don’t get: he sees a suspicious stranger, there’s a history of crime in the area, the police are on their way and he follows the child! How many burglaries can a human being commit in the mere minutes between the end of that 911 call and the fatal shot? It’s not like he can even say, well, the police were delayed and Martin was picking someone’s lock! Now I just heard his lawyer on Fox claiming that after he was told not to follow, he went and got the address and then was returning to his car. New spin on an old tale? Not on Fox?!

I think the reason his supporters fear a jury is because they understand that Zimmerman’s decisions and the various explanations will end up not making sense to the average person of normal intelligence.

So, Fox is “spinning” by allowing Zimmerman’s lawyer to say something about the incident? I thought that was called journalism.