Trayvon Martin: Before the world heard the cries

  • Thread starter Thread starter SwizzleStick
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
catharina said:
Are you aware that such ‘killings’ to prevent reports of any
criminal activities (such as assault) happen every day?

Guess not.
Click to expand...
Killed because you’re a witness to another crime is one thing, being killed because your a witness to being killed makes absolutely no sense. 🤷 How is someone killed twice?
 
CNS News provides more insight on why Stand Your Ground is irrelevant in this case, courtesy of Ken Blackwell and Ken Klukowski of Liberty University School of Law:
Under any version of the facts, Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law did not apply in the Trayvon Martin incident. If Zimmerman pursued a confrontation with Martin, then Zimmerman was an attacker and cannot claim SYG. If Zimmerman’s account is true that he was on the ground and Martin was on top of him, then retreat was impossible, so there would be no duty to retreat anyway. A victim in such a situation can use deadly force, but only if he reasonably believes he is being attacked with deadly force.

To our knowledge, that is the law in all fifty states. It was the law before SYG statutes were ever passed, and SYG did nothing to change it.
So why is this not common knowledge after all the reporting on the Martin shooting? Tragically, some anti-gun activists are misinforming the public. They are aided by media commentators who failed the public trust by not researching and understanding the SYG issue before presuming to editorialize on it.

The police are usually not at hand when you are attacked by a criminal. The Second Amendment guarantees the right of law-abiding people to defend themselves. And laws like Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground have restored that right in states where it had been eroded, not to take innocent life, but instead to preserve it.
 
40.png
catharina:
Opinions are formed over a continuum of time.
Comments are made over a continuum of time.

Re your posts: one thing led to another.
I did no digging. All was as fresh as the morn.

PS - it’s the way that most forums work.
No mystery, no digging.
1 + 1 = 2
Click to expand...
You don’t know anything about. 🤷
 
catharina said:
First post quoted above is primary example of your speculation.
Click to expand...
Indeed. 👍

Another bit of “speculation”----more like “agreed-upon assumption”—seems to be that TM attacked GZ first.

What evidence is there that he did? The “wounds?” Inconclusive and Ambigous, at best----could go either way.
To be honest—what evidence there is that is definite that EITHER person initiated a “fight?”🤷

Why don’t we let the science aspect deal with this at court?

Just like there has been a rush to assume all sorts of things about GZ, there has also been a rush to assume things about Trayvon.

Although I lean towards the TM (in case it has not been obvious yet) I am willing to keep an open mind and look at the evidence presented by both sides objectively. If the evidence changes my mind, then so be it.

BOTH sides need to let the process work.

That’s what TM’s parents wanted anyway. a chance to look at ALL the evidence, without one side’s story being accepted unquestioningly. 👍
 
gilliam said:
CNS News provides more insight on why Stand Your Ground is irrelevant in this case, courtesy of Ken Blackwell and Ken Klukowski of Liberty University School of Law:
Under any version of the facts, Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law did not apply in the Trayvon Martin incident. If Zimmerman pursued a confrontation with Martin, then Zimmerman was an attacker and cannot claim SYG. If Zimmerman’s account is true that he was on the ground and Martin was on top of him, then retreat was impossible, so there would be no duty to retreat anyway. A victim in such a situation can use deadly force, but only if he reasonably believes he is being attacked with deadly force.

To our knowledge, that is the law in all fifty states. It was the law before SYG statutes were ever passed, and SYG did nothing to change it.
So why is this not common knowledge after all the reporting on the Martin shooting? Tragically, some anti-gun activists are misinforming the public. They are aided by media commentators who failed the public trust by not researching and understanding the SYG issue before presuming to editorialize on it.

The police are usually not at hand when you are attacked by a criminal. The Second Amendment guarantees the right of law-abiding people to defend themselves. And laws like Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground have restored that right in states where it had been eroded, not to take innocent life, but instead to preserve it.
Click to expand...
👍👍👍
 
Dawnia said:
Killed because you’re a witness to another crime is one thing, being killed because your a witness to being killed makes absolutely no sense. 🤷 How is someone killed twice?
Click to expand...
Victim of assault (for example) once KILLED, can give no report on events.
 
gilliam said:
CNS News provides more insight on why Stand Your Ground is irrelevant in this case, courtesy of Ken Blackwell and Ken Klukowski of Liberty University School of Law:
Under any version of the facts, Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law did not apply in the Trayvon Martin incident. If Zimmerman pursued a confrontation with Martin, then Zimmerman was an attacker and cannot claim SYG. If Zimmerman’s account is true that he was on the ground and Martin was on top of him, then retreat was impossible, so there would be no duty to retreat anyway. A victim in such a situation can use deadly force, but only if he reasonably believes he is being attacked with deadly force.

To our knowledge, that is the law in all fifty states. It was the law before SYG statutes were ever passed, and SYG did nothing to change it.
So why is this not common knowledge after all the reporting on the Martin shooting? Tragically, some anti-gun activists are misinforming the public. They are aided by media commentators who failed the public trust by not researching and understanding the SYG issue before presuming to editorialize on it.

The police are usually not at hand when you are attacked by a criminal. The Second Amendment guarantees the right of law-abiding people to defend themselves. And laws like Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground have restored that right in states where it had been eroded, not to take innocent life, but instead to preserve it.
Click to expand...

Thanks gilliam! I doubt Ken Blackwell is making this stuff up about self-defense laws in all 50 states. That’s how I believed them to work, too.
 
catharina said:
Thank you.
I found it
and see that
Zimmerman is
under arrest.

Reports are this:
he turned himself in.
Click to expand...
I’m not surprised he turned himself in. He’ll hopefully be safer in custody, rather than hiding from those who put a bounty out on him.
 
maryjk said:
In the United States, the accused enjoy the presumption of innocence. The prosecutor must “prove beyond a reasonable doubt” his guilt.
Click to expand...
Absolutely.

OTOH, I’m going to “go there”-----------

Would you have said the same thing had TM shot and killed GZ the neighborhood patrol guy?

And HE was on trial for his life?

I’m speaking more in the sense of “authority figure” vs. “young guy who happens to be a minority,” to be clear.
 
estesbob said:
Charged with murder in the second degree.
Click to expand...
She must truly know something happened here that we do not know. OTOH----who knows?

They had a defense lawyer who’s been opposite her in over 27 years and he was confident she would go for 2nd degree murder. She always tends to go for the stiffest penalties.

Yep.
 
OrdinaryMelkite said:
To me, IMO, Corey does not look like a DA who is pressured by ANYONE to charge anyone.

She is known as an extremely tough, aggressive prosecutor who not too long ago was criticized for charging (and convicting) a 12-year old as an adult.

Let me ask you this-----since we are into the strict idea of “evidence”-----what evidence is there that Corey was pressured into this?

Maybe she wants to be the next legal star for personal (maybe political) reasons?

Are you saying then there is NO legitimate evidence and reason to charge Zimmerman?
Click to expand...
No I’m not saying that. I am saying that I don’t want public pressure to be a reason for a charge. If there is sufficient evidence then, by all means, prosecute!

I sincerely hope that career advancement is not even on the table when talking about a dead man and potential jail time for another man.
 
iamrefreshed said:
No I’m not saying that. I am saying that I don’t want public pressure to be a reason for a charge. If there is sufficient evidence then, by all means, prosecute!

I sincerely hope that career advancement is not even on the table when talking about a dead man and potential jail time for another man.
Click to expand...
Most people in the media are saying she is confident she can get a conviction on 2nd degree murder. That she truly does not believe GZ’s story.

Like she just said, she came to this after careful consideration.
 
OrdinaryMelkite said:
Most people in the media are saying she is confident she can get a conviction on 2nd degree murder. That she truly does not believe GZ’s story.

Like she just said, she came to this after careful consideration.
Click to expand...
After this circus I don’t know that I’ll ever believe the media again.

I guess I’ll have to get a stack of FOIA forms together.🤷
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top