Trayvon Martin discussion

[SoldMySoul]

I don't lock threads unless they're clearly overboard or I receive a few legitimate complaints.

I think you are exercising great judgment in this case/ topic. There are many members quick to point out the guilt of Zimmerman, while down playing that a kid was murdered in cold blood. From what I have read about Zimmerman, he was a pretty decent guy. Helped minorities being one himself and no track record of being a $hithead.

The media keeps showing Travoyn as still a kid. 17 in a lot of states will land your rear end in jail...which means you are old enough/ accountable for your actions. Not to mention, 6 foot 3 is tall and if he would be a hand full for authorities to get a hold of he were "showing out."

I saw yesterday there was a neighbor that wants to remain anonymous backing up Zimmerman's side of the story.

Furthermore, Travoyn had been suspended from school several times; found w/ marijuana in is possession; possessed burglary tools at one point in his life w/ I think 12 rings. This says far from innocent in my opinion. It appeared he was on track to be a real dredge on society.

As a law abiding citizen...are you not allowed to defend yourself? Sure Zimmerman was heavier...but he did not seem to have the weight of fighter/ weightlifter. There are people, young and old that will hurt you. From all ostensible appearances it seems only thing Zimmerman did wrong which has caused this tragic event was be overly concerned about goings on in his hood.

From LE point of view... You see teenagers about Travoyn's age walking around a place of business, apt complex or anywhere at odd hours, you use your common sense and say, "these kids are up to no good." It was not late when this incident went down, but I am merely making a point. Zimmerman seemed to only want to keep his hood safe.

This is a racial issue for a lot of people. I just so happen to remove that element and try viewing in a partial manner. Take your feelings out of it and replace it with logic.

Now what the city of Sanford and possibly elsewhere are faced with is extreme problems exacerbated by the news media!!!! Let the evidence speak and use care in how you react from it.

This was just NOT a kid... regardless of right or wrong. Zimmerman is being convicted before a trial. It would be wrong to convict him only because "the community wanted it" and in fact was innocent.

 

[don't]

I think that graffitists should suffer a broken hand, and paint can variants should be shot on site. Who the hell do they think they ARE, defacing other's property, anyway?

 

[Rubato]

If it can be proven that Zimmerman did anything he did for racial reasons, then he will be convicted of a hate crime or civil rights violation.

A hate crime is the most ridiculous concept to ever emerge from modern law. What violent crime ISN'T committed because of an underlying motive of evil hatred? Do you think people commit first degree murder because of love?

The concept of a "hate crime" is very disturbing to me because its implication is that certain predeterminations make a crime worse than it otherwise would have been. It also presupposes that whoever or whatever is charged with determining whether a hate crime in fact occurred is somehow able to enter the psyche of the suspected criminal and determine if he or she did commit the crime out of a motivation of hate. The government cannot read minds.

Murder is wrong. It is not worse if the killer was of one race and the victim was of another. What in the world sort of precedent does the government create when it adjudicates like that? That the value of a minority's or a woman's or homosexual's life or well being is somehow higher than that of someone who doesn't meet the group criterion the government sets for hate crime? And what sort of message does that send to to people similar to the person the hate crime was committed against? Why do they need stronger legal "protection" or whatever word you want to call it?

It's one of the most disturbing concepts I've seen people accept en masse

 

[don't]

yep, it's racist on the face of it, actually. Like the idea that blacks NEED to have preferential hiring, school acceptance, etc.

 

[Jaylan]

Dude,

Lose the chip. I am making a point about holding the community accountable, and punishing a teenager for vandalism, I am not defaming him in relation to the case. Half of this thread is not about the case. Again, you are too emotionally involved in this thread to have proper objectivity.

Your judgement on the guilt of Zimmerman is evidence of that.

What chip? I am looking at this through an objective lense. You arent. What matters is a history of violent behavior...like I said...Martin has none...Zimmerman has a history. The twos past arent really comparable.

How do you know the kid wasnt being punished by his parents for the suspension? Its not the communities job to hold him accountable and its very possible he was already being punished. Just because he was allowed to go to the store doesnt mean he wasnt being punished by his folks. You are the one who doesnt seem to be able to be objective if you cannot notice the difference in the past of Martin and Zimmerman.

And again, remove race from this and study the facts of the case if you want to talk about whos objective or not. The "community" and who it holds accountable in other crimes has nothing to do with this case. Stick to the facts of THIS case.

I agree in regards to the case. In regards to consequences for the community, I highly disagree.

You think being grounded for a ten day suspension is "super punished"?

Honestly, how many people here would have been allowed to watch a game and go out to the store immediately following a ten day suspension from school for graffiti?

How many here would let their children do the same?

As for Shaprton and Jackson, I have never seen much from them regarding black on black crime. Hell, even the former NAACP leader is calling them out on their race-baiting.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/26/f...ton-and-jackson-of-exploiting-trayvon-martin/

If Sharpton and Jackson are holding the community responsible, then where was the apology for the Duke Rape case? Where was the admonishment of the accuser, Crystal Magnum? Or what of Sharpton and Tawana Brawley? He didn't even pay his share of the defamation lawsuit he lost regarding her lies, even though he was clearly wrong.

Despite your assertations, evidence and history do not paint a pretty picture for the good-will of Sharpton and his ability to hold the community accountable. Shparton is out for number one, himself.

Im saying many parents arent going to punish their kids the way you think they should for a ten day suspension. Its possible he was already punished. You cannot say he was or wasnt. Ive known many kids whove gotten in trouble and were allowed to watch tv with their family but not allowed to hang out with their friends. He was watching the yearly all star game with his bro. Its possible his dad let him watch the game since its once a year and hes doing it with his kid brother. If my kid got in trouble at school but was supposed to do something together with his/her younger sibling, Im not going to punish the younger sibling as well by not letting them watch something they planned to watch together. Especially if its a once a year event. So next topic please.

On Jesse and Al....like I said...YOU would never see anything they say about black on black crime, because YOU arent apart of the black community. And your media doesnt report every single thing these guys talk about. The media only picks up on what they want to pick up. My dad has heard Al speak live and in person at his church and all did talk about black on black crime. You arent in our community so of course youd be ignorant of this and only know what the media tells you. I never said the dude never made mistakes, but hes often been the catalyst for some people who need justice. With his good does come some bad. I acknowledge both sides.

Also, many public figures have a made goofs to go along with their success. Sharpton was instrumental is bringing attention to the Martin case, the Amadou Diallo case, the Sean Bell case, and back int he 90s with the LAPD scandals. This doesnt absolve him of his errors, but a media figure like him is needed when the system tries to sweep their own errors under the rug. Understand the point I am making.

And again....stop deflecting the issues of the case. This isnt about Al, Jesse, or black on black crime. This is about the killing of a 17 yr old kid who was walking home, minding his own business. The other stuff you bring up is simply smoke to turn our vision away from the facts of this case.

 

[Jaylan]

yep, it's racist on the face of it, actually. Like the idea that blacks NEED to have preferential hiring, school acceptance, etc.

The purpose of rights laws for minority groups, (be they blacks, latinos, women, gays, muslims, etc) is to provide opportunities to those who might not otherwise have them thanks to the good ole boy system.

Read this: http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-575685.html

Without rights laws, this would worsen. Hell, I have Asian friends who said their callbacks increased when they made their first name more anglicized on their resume. Also, Kal Penn...the actor from Harold & Kumar, Van Wilder, and House...his real name is Kalpen Modi. Once he changed his name on his portfolio to Kal Penn...he received an instant jump in call backs.

So its not a figment of minority imagination that discrimination happens.

 

[Bible_Belt]

A hate crime is the most ridiculous concept to ever emerge from modern law. What violent crime ISN'T committed because of an underlying motive of evil hatred? Do you think people commit first degree murder because of love?

The concept of a "hate crime" is very disturbing to me because its implication is that certain predeterminations make a crime worse than it otherwise would have been. It also presupposes that whoever or whatever is charged with determining whether a hate crime in fact occurred is somehow able to enter the psyche of the suspected criminal and determine if he or she did commit the crime out of a motivation of hate. The government cannot read minds.

Murder is wrong. It is not worse if the killer was of one race and the victim was of another. What in the world sort of precedent does the government create when it adjudicates like that? That the value of a minority's or a woman's or homosexual's life or well being is somehow higher than that of someone who doesn't meet the group criterion the government sets for hate crime? And what sort of message does that send to to people similar to the person the hate crime was committed against? Why do they need stronger legal "protection" or whatever word you want to call it?

It's one of the most disturbing concepts I've seen people accept en masse

I do not disagree at all.

 

[Jaylan]

P.S. - And to those saying 17 is not a kid...imagine if it was your younger brother who got killed. Youd be calling him a kid, especially if he was going on about his business committing no crime. Teenagers are kids...esp under 18. They arent adults and are still minors. Those trying to say Martin was on a path to a bad life are clearly stupidly biased.

The kid was an honor roll athlete....and theres no reason to think he was gonna end up a violent criminal or a low life. He got in trouble for a few stupid things like MANY teenagers do. Many people act stupid in their teen years and grow up to be fine adults. I dont think an honor roll athlete is going to stray to far down the wrong path, especially when he was no prior violent behavior. Zimmerman on the other hand does have prior violent behavior AS AN ADULT. Yet some people want to ignore that he hits women and law enforcement. If you want to compare both of their past behaviors, do so accurately. Neither Martin, nor Zimmerman were saints, but Martin was not violent...Zimmerman has shown he can be.

They want to demonize the kid with no past of violent behavior and assume hed be a dredge of society? Gtfo with that silly logic. What is Zimmerman then? He assaults women, police officers, and now kills a young person when the situation could have been avoided had he not made so many stupid decisions. Yet people want to take Zims word for it that Martin attacked him even given all the circumstantial evidence we have presently against Zimmerman...with more evidence to come Im sure. The only one who can corroborate Zimmermans claims is Zimmerman himself...and lets be realistic here...we know suspects will lie to stay out of prison...so everything Zimmerman says must be taken with a grain of salt.

Remember...two eyewitnesses exist who say the scuffle. One says they saw Martin on top. The other says they saw Zimmerman on top and that there wasnt much movement. However, neither of them saw who started the confrontation, and thats what Zimmerman needs to back up his story. Grand jury hearing is this week. I cant wait.

 

[Who Dares Win]

P.S. - And to those saying 17 is not a kid...imagine if it was your younger brother who got killed.

No, imagining things is not the way for a correct reasoning, even less taking things personal and being emotionally invested.
Those fallacy usually come out of middle aged women who talk with their emotions instead of cold brain, no different than an old teacher who decide whos the bad kid according to who got kicked the most instead of who started the aggression.

Youd be calling him a kid, especially if he was going on about his business committing no crime. Teenagers are kids...esp under 18. They arent adults and are still minors. Those trying to say Martin was on a path to a bad life are clearly stupidly biased.

Its not them to be stupid biased.

The kid was an honor roll athlete....and theres no reason to think he was gonna end up a violent criminal or a low life. He got in trouble for a few stupid things like MANY teenagers do. Many people act stupid in their teen years and grow up to be fine adults. I dont think an honor roll athlete is going to stray to far down the wrong path, especially when he was no prior violent behavior.

We are not fortune tellers and most of all thats not relevant.

Zimmerman on the other hand does have prior violent behavior AS AN ADULT. Yet some people want to ignore that he hits women and law enforcement. If you want to compare both of their past behaviors, do so accurately. Neither Martin, nor Zimmerman were saints, but Martin was not violent...Zimmerman has shown he can be.

Previous facts prove nothing about a following one, otherwise his charity actions would have a weight as well.

They want to demonize the kid with no past of violent behavior and assume hed be a dredge of society? Gtfo with that silly logic. What is Zimmerman then? He assaults women, police officers, and now kills a young person when the situation could have been avoided had he not made so many stupid decisions. Yet people want to take Zims word for it that Martin attacked him even given all the circumstantial evidence we have presently against Zimmerman...with more evidence to come Im sure. The only one who can corroborate Zimmermans claims is Zimmerman himself...and lets be realistic here...we know suspects will lie to stay out of prison...so everything Zimmerman says must be taken with a grain of salt.

Remember...two eyewitnesses exist who say the scuffle. One says they saw Martin on top. The other says they saw Zimmerman on top and that there wasnt much movement. However, neither of them saw who started the confrontation, and thats what Zimmerman needs to back up his story. Grand jury hearing is this week. I cant wait.

You already shown how emotionally involved you are in this case and this last line gives an other demonstration, thats not the way to analyze a situation, even worse is condemn someone with a street trial based on emotions.
You should feel that way before the world cup final or the pilot episode of a tv series not before a trial who establish if a man is guilty or not, otherwise you are too emotionally involved, thing you are.

 

[Jaylan]

If previous actions mean nothing... then lets simply argue the facts of the case. People keep bringing up Martins past while ignoring Zimmermans. They both had good and bad in their past. However only one had a history of violent behavior. And this incident was a violent crime.

The fact remains the DA has a case for manslaughter and the lead detective felt so from day one.

No one can corroborate Zimmermans account of the events except Zimmerman, so its time for a trial. The reason I said I cant wait for the grand jury hearing is because Im a big criminal justice fan. My father is a lawyer and I watch cop and lawyer shows whenever I can. So save the remarks about "being emotional" for someone else. How about you objectively argue why the DA would not have a case.

Based on the facts I have seen, its clear a jury could very possibly convict Zimmerman for manslaughter. Citizens are free to have their own opinions before a trial. To demonize someone for having an opinion is to simply dismiss them without arguing the relevant facts of the case.

So please argue the points Ive made as it regards to the case. Everything I have brought up will be presented by the DA in the trial. Past violent behavior is definitely something the jury would scrutinize.

So do you want to argue the facts of the case? Or will you pull the same nonsense comebacks a lot of guys here do by making character attacks and comparing others to women?

 

[Who Dares Win]

Jaylan you have the right to have any opinion you want as long as is based on observation and not feelings, otherwise dont complain if other users point your fallacies (what you call non sense).

 

[Jaylan]

Again I ask you to point out which of my observations would not be presented by the DA in a trial.

Instead of simply seeking to discredit me based on your opinion of perceived emotion, maybe you could answer the question and stick to the facts of the case.

Those who are backing Zimmerman are the ones who brought in the material that you deemed irrelevant. My countering that certain material would be relevant in trial and work against Zimmerman does not make me emotional. I am presenting a case the way the DA would.

Part of what the DA does is tug on the emotions of jurors. Thats what happens in most cases. Why do you think they show photos of victims? And why do you think they bring up the past of suspects? All 12 jurors are not completely objective. This is why people try to make juries culturally diverse depending on the case.

 

[Who Dares Win]

Again I ask you to point out which of my observations would not be presented by the DA in a trial.

Instead of simply seeking to discredit me based on your opinion of perceived emotion, maybe you could answer the question and stick to the facts of the case.

Those who are backing Zimmerman are the ones who brought in the material that you deemed irrelevant. My countering that certain material would be relevant in trial and work against Zimmerman does not make me emotional. I am presented a case the way the DA would.

Part of the DA's job is to tug on the emotions of jurors. Thats what happens in most cases. All 12 jurors are not completely objective. This is why people try to make juries culturally diverse depending on the case.

Im not discrediting you, you are doing it yourself in all the thread by being over emotional and considering non sense those said from other users (no offence), I dont care what other people who back Zimmerman brough, if something is not relevant it keep being no relevant no matter who bring it.

We all know the role of emotions of jurors but that doesnt make it less wrong, the fact is that if the two were both the same color there wouldnt be so much manipulation from media and emotion involvment from the population, you wouldnt be probably give a damn yourself.
Those two factors are actually responsible of all the mess and the potential mistake in the trial (any direction).

 

[Jaylan]

The fact of the matter is you have not, and apparently cannot argue my points as they pertain to this case and what will be presented in court. Instead you use the tired ole tactic of labeling someone emotional in an attempt to deflect attention away your inability to present counterpoints. I ask you to reread my last post and answer the questions.

Everything I brought up will be relevant to the case because those things are topics the DA will easily touch upon in trial. Explain to me how this is otherwise and then you will finally have made a valid point. Until then you are simply going in circles.

Jurors are emotional, and thats the nature of human beings. You cannot remove emotional bias from trials involving a killing. Its practically impossible. The best you can do is get a diverse jury so the opinions dont sway is only one direction.

And if these two men were of the same color, there would still be outrage from the public. People are sick and tired of the system goofing up. I dont care if it was 2 asian people, or 2 white people...someone being wrongfully profiled as a criminal, then followed, and killed when they were walking home and minded their own business, is just not right. Its even more messed up when the killer is set free without any sort of legal action.

People are outraged because along with all of that, its possible the race of the people involved played into how the case was handled. That still happens in America today so people shouldnt deny it. So this needs to go to court so justice can be served whether the suspect is found guilty or not guilty,

 

[Who Dares Win]

The fact of the matter is you have not, and apparently cannot argue my points as they pertain to this case and what will be presented in court. Instead you use the tired ole tactic of labeling someone emotional in an attempt to deflect attention away your inability to present counterpoints. I ask you to reread my last post and answer the questions.

Everything I brought up will be relevant to the case because those things are topics the DA will easily touch upon in trial. Explain to me how this is otherwise and then you will finally have made a valid point. Until then you are simply going in circles.

Jurors are emotional, and thats the nature of human beings. You cannot remove emotional bias from trials involving a killing. Its practically impossible. The best you can do is get a diverse jury so the opinions dont sway is only one direction.

And if these two men were of the same color, there would still be outrage from the public. People are sick and tired of the system goofing up. I dont care if it was 2 asian people, or 2 white people...someone being wrongfully profiled as a criminal, then followed, and killed when they were walking home and minded their own business, is just not right. Its even more messed up when the killer is set free without any sort of legal action.

People are outraged because along with all of that, its possible the race of the people involved played into how the case was handled. That still happens in America today so people shouldnt deny it. So this needs to go to court so justice can be served whether the suspect is found guilty or not guilty,

I have no desire to counteract your points after many user well informed in the law field already did just to be seized as "non sense" from you.

Keep any opinion you have, you have the right to, living us in the free world(not the one that make a man guilt pre-trial simply because a minority has been hurt) just dont get pissed off when people make you notice how emotionally involved you are,you keep saying you're not and its fine I believe you, just know that you give that impression wheter you are or not.

Anyway no hard feelings, people dont have to agree in everything.

 

[Jaylan]

Hes not legally guilty as of yet because no trial has been conducted. However, people are allowed to have their own opinions before hand. Thats just how it works. People have opinions. It has nothing to do with Martin being a minority. To the many who think Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter, the facts of the case cause them to think hes guilty, not Martin's blackness. If Martin was arab, asian, white, or female, people would still feel the same way. Its just that in this case a racial component possibly exists....but with or without that component many people would still feel Zimmerman was guilty on negligent manslaughter.

And who said I was pissed? Without emoticons theres no way for you to accurately gauge my tone or demeanor at the present time. I simply call out "played out" tactics when I see it. And calling someone emotional in an online debate, especially on this forum, is as old as a tactic gets. Instead of the points being argued, the accuser simply goes the character attack route in an attempt to discredit someone.

You said you have no desire to counteract my points. Fine, so be it. I, on the other hand, perceive that as your inability to do so.

But as you said, agree to disagree. Fine by me.

 

[Jaylan]

The only reason I ever insulted your reading comprehension is because you insulted my critical thinking skills first. Again...quit talking about what the black community does. This discussion is about the Martin case and that alone...bringing up other things is simply smoke to distract from the topic at hand.

Moving on, who cares about his suspension punishment. That has NOTHING to do with this case. Its possible he was being punished but just was allowed to watch the game with his little bro. You dont know whats going on inside Martins family so stop making assumptions that are baseless. Who said he was being punished for one day? Again you know nothing about his family so drop it.

And Al's speeches are not only about black on black crime. They touch on many things. How about you get involved with the black community yourself. Find out where he preaches his sermons and go take a listen. The onus is upon you to actually get out there and listen. The onus is on you to stop relying on American media avenues to bring you news.

Sharpton should own his mistakes, but again, hes not the main topic of this whole Martin case. He was simply a media figure who helped this case get the publicity it needed to justice could be served. Again, this case is about Zimmerman and Martin, and youre making it about other things. I care about this boys parents getting justice, not whether or not some people love or hate Al Sharpton. Stick to the case. This is the last time I address this.

P.S. - Im sure many of us heard about the Muslim woman killed in a possible hate crime in California right? Now if that had, or does end up becoming a national story...how silly would it sound if instead of arguing the the facts of the case in court, a lawyer started talking about "well the muslim community does this and that, and says this and that"? If I wasnt Muslim how could I have first hand accounts of anything that goes on in their community? And how would any of that have any direct relevancy to the case?

All I would know is what the media shows me...and criticizing their community when the topic is not even about what their community does would simply be a tactic to shift negative focus onto a whole community by using blanket statements, instead of having the focus remain on a serious killing, where it belongs. Think about that.

 

[Who Dares Win]

And who said I was pissed?

You're showing it with your butthurt responces and indirect light insults to any user who disagree with you or highlight your fallacies

 

[Jaylan]

You're showing it with your butthurt responces and indirect light insults to any user who disagree with you or highlight your fallacies

riiiight whatever you say boss. 3 of the most widely used tactics on this site when in a debate.

1. Calling the opponent emotional

2. Claiming to be able to accurately perceive emotion from non profane text.

3. Claiming that anyone who stands behind their opinions and provides rebuttals to counterpoints, must be emotional.

Of course it couldnt possibly be that a person simply stands firmly behind their viewpoints and will back them up. Of course it couldnt be that. So of course when they dont back down, in comes people using 1 through 3 to try and prove some off topic point.

PS - In response to the post under mine...since ive gone over my 10 post limit.

Rubato brought up the race and crime topic which is why I responded. I didnt bring it up. Again, your post had nothing to do with the facts of this case. Get it through your head. At least Rubutos points touched on just why Zimmerman not being charged would happen in this country.

The problem is points have already been addressed and readdressed and instead of then going back to the facts of the case, YOU want to stay on other topics that dont have much bearing on this case. And Trayvon didnt go out to watch anything. He was at home watching tv. Get the facts straight. The problem is your response does not have anything directly to do with the facts of this case.

Him being punished or not would not change what happened that night. Its possible he was punished. You dont know that. Its possible he was punished but was allowed to at least go to the store and watch a game with his little brother. Again we dont know all the facts, but why punish the little brother as well if he more than likely wanted to watch a basketball game with big brother.

 

[Quiksilver]

"Criminally negligent manslaughter occurs where there is an omission to act when there is a duty to do so, or a failure to perform a duty owed, which leads to a death. The existence of the duty is essential because the law does not impose criminal liability for a failure to act unless a specific duty is owed to the victim. It is most common in the case of professionals who are grossly negligent in the course of their employment.

An example is where a doctor fails to notice a patient's oxygen supply has disconnected and the patient dies (R v Adomako)."

_____

How exactly could they charge (and expect to convict) Zimmerman of criminally negligent manslaughter?




Who touched who first: Did Zimmerman lay a hand on/draw his firearm before Martin was a threat to his safety, or did Martin touch Zimmerman first?



If you read through my past posts, I haven't mentioned race, past history or context at all.

The only question that matters in a public-area self-defense case is the bolded question above. It is a simple-form question, but before giving your opinion on the "facts" you should answer the question above given your knowledge of the facts.