Trayvon Martin

18911131421

  Comments


  • ReynaldoReynaldo 6,054 Posts
    DOR said:
    HOLLAFAME said:
    Legally, the decision is probably correct,


    Which is bullshit. Because the facts are that GZ refused to listen to the 911 operator when they told him to stay in his car and let police handle the situation. That right there shows malice IMO. You refuse to listen to a direct order from the police and venture out with a gun. That shows malice, no?

    And I said it at the beginning of this thread back in March. The only person that should be able to claim any sort of stand your ground here is TM. He was the one that wasn't doing anything illegal going about his own business being stalked by some wannabe vigilante who refused to listen to authorities.

    The shit makes no sense. And the prosecution should have been bringing that up every step of the way.
    Ignoring the authorities in this situation wasn't unlawful. The law says then that even if Zimmerman Initially provoked the fight, he still has the right to use deadly force if he believes that he is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. I don't think that the issue of him pursuing Martin and provoking the fight out of malice had any bearing on the narrow questions that the jury had to deliberate. It's like nothing that happened prior to the first punch matters.

  • skelskel You can't cheat karma 5,033 Posts
    Maybe the jurors got the decision technically right.
    But sane people must realise that whatever law allowed this whole episode to happen and dude to walk free is utterly wrong.

    So take a step back; Zimmerman is a shill here.
    The law is shit, change it.
    Then another step back; armed neighbourhood watch dudes, block captains, main regulating mens, whatever, outlaw it.
    Then a further step back: get rid of this 'right to bear arms'.
    And one more step: maybe that's "un-American", but maybe America needs to get un-American for a while to change for the better.

    Because being un-American seems an appealing stance to take when surveying the views of some dudes up in here who seems to think that justice has been served and all is right with the world and yay for our best system in the world bollocks.

    And for the avoidance of doubt, and for the one-eyed patriot sheep amongst us, yes this could happen anywhere in the world, but we're specifically talking the Trayvon case here.

  • dayday 9,612 Posts
    skel said:
    maybe America needs to get un-American for a while to change for the better.

    Part of the problem (in this case) is that some state laws are autonomous from the federal government. Which brings up not only how shit like this can be legal in a quote-un-quote civilized society, but how archaic laws like getting a blowjob in your own home can still exist on the books. It's a convoluted situation.

    And with all that said, the very bottom line is a man disregarded the police, got out of his car, pursued and confronted a kid (who, ironically he should have been protecting), most likely got his ass beat for doing so, and murdered him.

    Fuck all the courtroom theatrics. That could be my or your son. He wasn't doing a damn thing wrong. He wasn't out breaking any laws, he went to get a drink and some candy during a basketball game in a place he had every right to be in.

    So for those either trolling or genuinely believe this was a justifiable event - regardless of what laws are on the books, tell me this; if your son was walking back to your house and a stranger was pursuing him in the dark, with a fucking gun no less, would you not want them to beat their ass to potentially save their own life?


    And a jury of your peers? The fuck outta here.

    http://www.uproxx.com/tv/2013/07/anderson-cooper-zimmerman-juror/

    There is no way to justify what happened at all. Period. And America should not sit back and take this shit any longer.


  • BrianBrian 7,618 Posts
    day said:
    Part of the problem (in this case) is that some state laws are autonomous from the federal government. Which brings up not only how shit like this can be legal in a quote-un-quote civilized society, but how archaic laws like getting a blowjob in your own home can still exist on the books. It's a convoluted situation.

    This goes both ways though, right? We've had marijuana and gay marriage legalized by individual states long before the federal government gave thought to either. You can't have individual states' rights without having individual states' rights.

    And with all that said, the very bottom line is a man disregarded the police, got out of his car, pursued and confronted a kid (who, ironically he should have been protecting), most likely got his ass beat for doing so, and murdered him.

    Fuck all the courtroom theatrics. That could be my or your son. He wasn't doing a damn thing wrong. He wasn't out breaking any laws, he went to get a drink and some candy during a basketball game in a place he had every right to be in.

    It was a police dispatcher who could not have had as much of a grasp of the situation as the person at hand.

    And seriously not trying to stir anything but how can people in this thread completely discount dude's recollection of the situation and then come up with some account of the event that has absolutely no evidence to support it?

  • sabadabadasabadabada 5,966 Posts
    Kim Kardashian Tweets #NoJustice for Trayvon, Twitterverse Quickly Reminds Her Who She Is:

    http://worldofwonder.net/kim-kardashian-tweets-nojustice-for-trayvon-twitterverse-quickly-reminds-her-who-she-is/

  • Fred_GarvinFred_Garvin The land of wind and ghosts 337 Posts
    PatrickCrazy said:
    You can't have individual states' rights without having individual states' rights.
    I would think, though, that the question here is "Should states have the right to make laws that can be interpreted in such a way that a person can commit a homicide and walk away because he said it was necessary?"

    It was a police dispatcher who could not have had as much of a grasp of the situation as the person at hand.
    Not as a much a grasp of the situation as a police officer on the scene, perhaps... but based on his actions and his police interview, it's probably fair to say that Zimmerman had a pretty poor grasp of the situation.

    One thing to remember is that a police dispatcher is not a just a phone operator. They take emergency calls all day long, and a good one has training in police procedure so they at least know what to expect and what to tell people.

    And seriously not trying to stir anything but how can people in this thread completely discount dude's recollection of the situation and then come up with some account of the event that has absolutely no evidence to support it?
    A totally fair point, but his recollection doesn't have much to support it either. All we really know for certain is that he followed someone (who was by all appearances doing nothing more than walking and talking on the phone), was armed, didn't announce himself in any way or state his purpose, and there was some type of a physical struggle, which ended with a gunshot. Everything else is conjecture, based on either hearsay, imagination, or tangential/irrelevant information.

  • Jonny_PaycheckJonny_Paycheck 17,825 Posts
    I discount Zimmerman's version of events because it is not at all believable.

  • BrianBrian 7,618 Posts
    Fred_Garvin said:
    PatrickCrazy said:
    You can't have individual states' rights without having individual states' rights.
    I would think, though, that the question here is "Should states have the right to make laws that can be interpreted in such a way that a person can commit a homicide and walk away because he said it was necessary?"

    I would think that would be up to residents of these states to decide, right? I'm all for tightening these laws to avoid situations like this in the future but I cannot support neutering these laws to the point where people are unable to protect themselves without breaking the law. Passing reactionary laws to one-off events is simply not good legislation. Unfortunately that's what many people are calling for which makes people more dependent on a system that they claim failed them in this case. I don't get it at all.

    Not as a much a grasp of the situation as a police officer on the scene, perhaps... but based on his actions and his police interview, it's probably fair to say that Zimmerman had a pretty poor grasp of the situation. One thing to remember is that a police dispatcher is not a just a phone operator. They take emergency calls all day long, and a good one has training in police procedure so they at least know what to expect and what to tell people

    Look, I'm not saying dude had the greatest judgment skills in the world but people will react differently in tense situations compared to normal ones. No one is going to be able to give a police dispatcher a total picture of a situation and if someone in a situation exercises their own judgment in a situation and it happens to be poor then they should be held accountable for it. That does not equal murder though.



    A totally fair point, but his recollection doesn't have much to support it either. All we really know for certain is that he followed someone (who was by all appearances doing nothing more than walking and talking on the phone), was armed, didn't announce himself in any way or state his purpose, and there was some type of a physical struggle, which ended with a gunshot. Everything else is conjecture, based on either hearsay, imagination, or tangential/irrelevant information.

    I think dude is full of shit on a few things and has great incentive to embellish things considering no one else is there to disagree with him. That really does not matter unless there's evidence that counters it though. That's how our justice system works. Yes, it's imperfect but we cannot impose different standards case by case or if we don't like the verdict.

  • dude if you're not just trolling (i seriously can't tell), you need to get out in the world and become a fucking human.

  • PatrickCrazy said:
    Look, I'm not saying dude had the greatest judgment skills in the world but people will react differently in tense situations compared to normal ones. No one is going to be able to give a police dispatcher a total picture of a situation and if someone in a situation exercises their own judgment in a situation and it happens to be poor then they should be held accountable for it. That does not equal murder though

    isn't that manslaughter then?

    also, i did not think for a minute that the jurors would be imposing their own biases and prejudices about race and class until i heard this interview yesterday. notice how when the juror is questioned about the friend's use of the terms "cracker", the juror responds to the effect "well, that's how these low-class, uneducated (black) people act, can't expect better from them, i pity them". i know i am putting words in her mouth and extrapolating the worst from them but i can't help but sense there was an undercurrent of both race and class that may have played a major role in the jury's assessment of zimmerman's credibility. they gave him the benefit of every doubt.




    i hope the martins cream him in a civil suit.

    sorry to rant.

  • Fred_GarvinFred_Garvin The land of wind and ghosts 337 Posts
    PatrickCrazy said:
    That does not equal murder though.
    Agreed, and I'm not sure I would have pushed a murder charge, only because it doesn't seem like he initially started following TM with the intent to kill him, which, unless I misunderstand the law, would have been required for a murder conviction.

    If I were to guess how the scenario played out in his mind beforehand, I'd say he was convinced that TM was a criminal, decided to follow him & call the cops, thinking that since he had his gun, he would easily apprehend him or hold him at bay until the cops got there... and of course he would turn out to be a burglar, and the cops would give him some kind of movie-style accolade like "Nice work, George! We could sure use a guy like you on the force!", and the good guy would win, the bad guy would go to jail, and a sigh of relief would settle over the town.

  • Jonny_PaycheckJonny_Paycheck 17,825 Posts
    This is not a one-off event

  • sabadabadasabadabada 5,966 Posts
    crabmongerfunk said:
    i know i am putting words in her mouth and extrapolating the worst from them

    It's called "projecting."

  • Jonny_PaycheckJonny_Paycheck 17,825 Posts
    the juror's condescension is obvious and requires no projection.

    Jeantel's interview w/ Piers Morgan >>> all

    FOH

  • Fred_GarvinFred_Garvin The land of wind and ghosts 337 Posts
    Jonny_Paycheck said:
    This is not a one-off event
    Yes, that too.

  • LaserWolfLaserWolf Portland Oregon 11,517 Posts
    HOLLAFAME said:

    I also gotta say that the judge's directions to the jury were just awful. Clear as mud.

    I blame the judge as much more than I blame the jury and almost as much as I blame SYG.
    I have been on a juries, and jurors take their job seriously.
    Not to say they don't bring their life experience and prejudices into the jury room, but they try hard to follow evidence and the judge's instructions.
    I have not read the judge's instructions, but something as simple as emphasizing doubt over reasonable can be huge.

    I am sure the judge did things that the defense didn't like, but the judge negated almost everything the prosecution tried to do.

    Most damning was the denial of expert witnesses who were ready to testify that the voice calling for help was Trayvon's.
    After denying expert witnesses the judge allowed non-expert witnesses to testify that the voice was George's.
    It has been said that testimony was a deciding factor for the jurors.

    The judge decided to open the court room to TV.
    I have no doubt that the prosecution's main witness was intimidated by the cameras.

    I'm sure if I had followed the trial closely I would have more examples.

  • LaserWolfLaserWolf Portland Oregon 11,517 Posts
    DOR said:
    HOLLAFAME said:
    Legally, the decision is probably correct,


    Which is bullshit. Because the facts are that GZ refused to listen to the 911 operator when they told him to stay in his car and let police handle the situation. That right there shows malice IMO. You refuse to listen to a direct order from the police and venture out with a gun. That shows malice, no?

    And I said it at the beginning of this thread back in March. The only person that should be able to claim any sort of stand your ground here is TM. He was the one that wasn't doing anything illegal going about his own business being stalked by some wannabe vigilante who refused to listen to authorities.

    The shit makes no sense. And the prosecution should have been bringing that up every step of the way.

    In Portland 911 is for reporting crimes in progress and life threatening situations.
    They should charge GZ with misuse of 911.

    And fuck all this GZ will suffer with this the rest of his life and will have to look over his shoulder, blah blah blah.
    No.
    GZ has his gun and surrounded by people who think he is hero.
    He will get job offers, write a book and sell the movie rights.
    GZ has shown zero signs of remorse and has a 'rest of his life'.

  • LaserWolfLaserWolf Portland Oregon 11,517 Posts
    skel said:
    Maybe the jurors got the decision technically right.
    But sane people must realise that whatever law allowed this whole episode to happen and dude to walk free is utterly wrong.

    So take a step back; Zimmerman is a shill here.
    The law is shit, change it.
    Then another step back; armed neighbourhood watch dudes, block captains, main regulating mens, whatever, outlaw it.
    Then a further step back: get rid of this 'right to bear arms'.
    And one more step: maybe that's "un-American", but maybe America needs to get un-American for a while to change for the better.

    Because being un-American seems an appealing stance to take when surveying the views of some dudes up in here who seems to think that justice has been served and all is right with the world and yay for our best system in the world bollocks.

    And for the avoidance of doubt, and for the one-eyed patriot sheep amongst us, yes this could happen anywhere in the world, but we're specifically talking the Trayvon case here.

    Yes.

  • LaserWolfLaserWolf Portland Oregon 11,517 Posts
    My stupid fantasy is that there is a very public movement in Florida to train minority youths in fire arms and encourage them to arm themselves and shoot whenever the feel threatened by whites.
    In my stupid fantasy Florida would quickly repeal SYG and institute gun control laws.
    More likely they will just out law guns for non-whites.

  • again, sorry to perpetuate a "political" or"legal" thread but this result is immoral. check this out, some good points are made:



    b/w

    big stacks, i really appreciate your comments on your personal experience.

  • Bon VivantBon Vivant The Eye of the Storm 2,018 Posts
    LaserWolf said:
    GZ has shown zero signs of remorse and has a 'rest of his life'.

    This can't be overstated.

  • dayday 9,612 Posts
    Bon Vivant said:
    LaserWolf said:
    GZ has shown zero signs of remorse and has a 'rest of his life'.

    This can't be overstated.


  • bassiebassie 11,710 Posts
    Song of Solomon by Toni Morrison (1977)

    Summary of Chapter 6 (set in mid-1950s)

    "Milkman confronts Guitar and asks him to reveal the reasons for his secretive behavior. Guitar tells him that he belongs to a secret society called the Seven Days. The organization, composed of seven black men each of whom is assigned a day of the week, kill white people at random every time that a black person is murdered and the assailants are left unpunished. Guitar says that Robert Smith and Henry Porter were both members. The Seven Days try to make each revenge killing similar to the original violence against the black victim. If he was hanged, for example, they hang their next victim. These revenge killings are performed on the same day of the week as the original murders of the black victims. Guitar is the only young man in the group.

    Guitar tells Milkman that his activities are driven by the firm belief that whites are ???unnatural??? people who would murder and pillage in the right circumstances. The twentieth-century German leader Adolf Hitler, Guitar argues, murdered Jews because there were no blacks around. Furthermore, he continues, blacks need to take drastic measures to avenge assaults against them. Unlike Jews who survived World War II concentration camps, they do not have recourse to legal action. Guitar concludes by saying that his actions help keep the ratio of blacks to whites balanced, ensuring that whites will not gain an upper hand by means of genocide.

    Milkman counters Guitar???s rhetoric by telling him that many whites have made real sacrifices on behalf of African-Americans. He also asks why Guitar does not change his name, like Malcom X did, in order to show that he refuses to accept his ???slave name.??? But Guitar answers that his slave name, Bains, does not bother him???only his slave status does. To no avail, Milkman begs Guitar to see him and others as human beings rather than whites or blacks. Milkman finishes his conversation with Guitar by telling him that Guitar???s murderous activities are ???crazy,??? that they have become a ???habit,??? and that since he is able to kill so callously, he might move toward killing black people, including Milkman himself.
    "

  • LaserWolfLaserWolf Portland Oregon 11,517 Posts
    day said:
    Bon Vivant said:
    LaserWolf said:
    GZ has shown zero signs of remorse and has a 'rest of his life'.

    This can't be overstated.


    This is why I don't watch tv. Makes me want to throw up.

  • covecove 1,566 Posts
    Seriously.

    And Fuck your god, buddy.

    Fuck your country's guns. If shitfuck hadn't had a gun, you know he wouldn't have followed Martin. Or, if he had, it wouldn't have ended as it did.

  • rootlesscosmorootlesscosmo 12,848 Posts
    "Do you feel that you wouldn't be here for this interview if you didn't have a gun?"

    "No, sir."

    whut?

  • covecove 1,566 Posts
    he really didn't get that. interviewer helped him along.

  • The_Hook_UpThe_Hook_Up 8,182 Posts
    good thing they are protecting the jurors' identities, a lot of vigilantes out there. You cant be too careful, there are a lot of people out there who might take the law in their own hands....and juries to protect them.

  • FrankFrank 2,370 Posts
    rootlesscosmo said:
    "Do you feel that you wouldn't be here for this interview if you didn't have a gun?"

    "No, sir."

    whut?

    Actually, that's probably the only 100% true thing this guy ever said since the killing.

    If he didn't have a gun, he would have called 911 from the safety of his SUV to inform them of a "suspicious" individual walking down the street and that would have been the end of it. No stalking, no confrontation, no killing, no trial and no interview would have ensued. Trayvon might have have been stopped by police while continuing his way home for no other reason but being black but that would have been it.
Sign In or Register to comment.