Trayvon's avengers

[rosey]

Since the young Trayvon Martin was shot by George Zimmerman, African Americans have been getting revenge for his death... on Caucasians. Why are they beating up white people? Zimmerman is Hispanic.
They beat up this guy,

http://www2.wkrg.com/news/2012/apr/23/2 ... r-3659891/

A couple days ago some boys beat up a 19 year old white kid, "For Trayon."

And some more African American boys beat up real bad a 80 year old white man.

WHY?

[JohnPaul]

I agree with pretty much every post made here.
The thing that keeps bothering me however is the armed vs unarmed killing bit.

What's wrong with taking out the gun and either
a) threatening to shoot
b) warning shot
c) non-lethal shot
d) punch him with the gun

I KNOW the use of deadly force is allowed by law, but can we talk about the principle/ethics/morality behind that idea ?

I don't see why one should immediately take a human life in those situations, surely there are a few possible steps between getting beat and shooting a man to death ?

I don't know about you, but if I am flat on my back with a broken nose and an unknown burglary suspect is on top of me, beating on me and banging my head against the pavement, it would be a little difficult for me to calmly assess my options and consider the morality of the situation. What would you do?

If Trayvon had simply knocked Zimmerman down and then stood back to allow Zimmerman to make the next move, then Zimmerman would not have been justified in shooting Trayvon. However, I think the actions of both people were understandable in this situation. From Zimmerman's point of view, Trayvon was an unknown burglary suspect, and from Trayvon's point of view, Zimmerman was an unknown stalker.

Trayvon was not a "child," as some have called him. The old photos of Trayvon incessantly shown on TV were of him as a wimpy 12-year-old. Trayvon was old enough to be eligible for military service, four inches taller than Zimmerman, a football player with some fighting experience, and enjoyed fighting. Zimmerman was a neighborhood watch person and was rightfully concerned about a recent series of burglaries in the neighborhood.

[Goat]

I agree with pretty much every post made here.
The thing that keeps bothering me however is the armed vs unarmed killing bit.

What's wrong with taking out the gun and either
a) threatening to shoot
b) warning shot
c) non-lethal shot
d) punch him with the gun

I KNOW the use of deadly force is allowed by law, but can we talk about the principle/ethics/morality behind that idea ?

I don't see why one should immediately take a human life in those situations, surely there are a few possible steps between getting beat and shooting a man to death ?

I don't know about you, but if I am flat on my back with a broken nose and an unknown burglary suspect is on top of me, beating on me and banging my head against the pavement, it would be a little difficult for me to calmly assess my options and consider the morality of the situation. What would you do?

If Trayvon had simply knocked Zimmerman down and then stood back to allow Zimmerman to make the next move, then Zimmerman would not have been justified in shooting Trayvon. However, I think the actions of both people were understandable in this situation. From Zimmerman's point of view, Trayvon was an unknown burglary suspect, and from Trayvon's point of view, Zimmerman was an unknown stalker.

Trayvon was not a "child," as some have called him. The old photos of Trayvon incessantly shown on TV were of him as a wimpy 12-year-old. Trayvon was old enough to be eligible for military service, four inches taller than Zimmerman, a football player with some fighting experience, and enjoyed fighting. Zimmerman was a neighborhood watch person and was rightfully concerned about a recent series of burglaries in the neighborhood.

Funny thing.. a lot of those photos of Trayvon showing he was a 'thug' were not him either. The injuries to Zimmerman were called 'superficial'. Zimmerman also had martial arts training.. funny how you don't mention that

[East of Eden]

I agree with pretty much every post made here.
The thing that keeps bothering me however is the armed vs unarmed killing bit.

What's wrong with taking out the gun and either
a) threatening to shoot
b) warning shot
c) non-lethal shot
d) punch him with the gun

I KNOW the use of deadly force is allowed by law, but can we talk about the principle/ethics/morality behind that idea ?

I don't see why one should immediately take a human life in those situations, surely there are a few possible steps between getting beat and shooting a man to death ?

I don't know about you, but if I am flat on my back with a broken nose and an unknown burglary suspect is on top of me, beating on me and banging my head against the pavement, it would be a little difficult for me to calmly assess my options and consider the morality of the situation. What would you do?

If Trayvon had simply knocked Zimmerman down and then stood back to allow Zimmerman to make the next move, then Zimmerman would not have been justified in shooting Trayvon. However, I think the actions of both people were understandable in this situation. From Zimmerman's point of view, Trayvon was an unknown burglary suspect, and from Trayvon's point of view, Zimmerman was an unknown stalker.

Trayvon was not a "child," as some have called him. The old photos of Trayvon incessantly shown on TV were of him as a wimpy 12-year-old. Trayvon was old enough to be eligible for military service, four inches taller than Zimmerman, a football player with some fighting experience, and enjoyed fighting. Zimmerman was a neighborhood watch person and was rightfully concerned about a recent series of burglaries in the neighborhood.

Funny thing.. a lot of those photos of Trayvon showing he was a 'thug' were not him either. The injuries to Zimmerman were called 'superficial'. Zimmerman also had martial arts training.. funny how you don't mention that

How is a broken nose 'superficial'?

[Danmark]

I'll repeat, why do you claim there was "no evidence" when you do not claim to have reviewed all the evidence, but only have summaries of various degrees of quality from the news media. This is axiomatic. If you are so "well versed in the law" you should know you cannot claim an absence of evidence unless you have reviewed all of it. I have not insulted your intelligence, I simply see no evidence that you understand one cannot make valid statements about what evidence was presented without reviewing that evidence. Media accounts are not evidence, as anyone "well versed in the law" knows.

I never said that there was 'no evidence.' I never said that.

What I said was that there is some validity to the idea that charges should have never been brought against Zimmerman in the first place. But if you look at the very beginning of this thread, on the second page, you will notice that I clearly wrote that I am glad that this case is being brought to trial.

And let me assure you that you do not need to worry about my 'understanding' nor do you need to worry about the 'understanding' of other people who participate in this sub forum. We are all smart and informed enough to post our opinions about this trial.

What did you attempt to prove by that statement? You then state another non sequitur: 'Then go tell the media not to cover legal trials and tell the newspapers to stop writing editorials and op-eds about.' Again, why make such a suggestion? The only problem is accepting the media's accounts as if they are 100% accurate and complete.

You are here in this thread complaining about people commenting on the case without having heard or read all the evidence and testimony. Are you seriously telling the American population that they cannot have an opinion on the case even though it is occupying every single media headline and outlet? If anyone is to blame for this sensational legal circus it is the media and the race baiters who are protesting the verdict. Do you have the same amount of contempt for people like Al Sharpton or Barack Obama who are continually 'blathering' about the case?

Why do you insist on putting your words in my mouth?
I never said one could not have an opinion. You have a right to all the opinions you want, whether based on ignorance, misinformation, partial information or otherwise.

But your opinion, or anyone's, when not based on a complete review of the evidence is worthless.

Let's look at what you said:

The idea that charges shouldn't have even been brought in the first place is valid to a certain extent. If you are looking at this from a purely legal standpoint then Zimmerman did nothing wrong. Zimmerman was on the ground being beaten mixed martial arts style by Trayvon Martin and according to Florida law, since Zimmerman could not retreat, Zimmerman was justified in shooting Trayvon. Again, Zimmerman did nothing wrong according to the law.

These statements reflect ignorance of both the law and the facts. Zimmerman was not prevented from retreating according to law. He simply had no duty to retreat. You claim Zimmerman did nothing wrong, as if the jury found him innocent. They did not. The jury simply found the State had not proved it's case beyond reasonable doubt. I have no reason to dispute their judgment. I also have no reason to dispute the State's and the Court's conclusion that there was 'probable cause' to bring Zimmerman to trial.

Let me repeat, the jury's verdict was not synonymous with your statement, 'Zimmerman did nothing wrong'. They may have concluded he definitely did something wrong and in fact was 'probably' guilty of murder. But if they did conclude he was only 'probably' guilty, then they were correct to find him 'not guilty'.

Whether or not Zimmerman factually could have retreated at some point was a question for the jury, but not a dispositive one, and not one that in the final analysis mattered. The key question was whether or not the jury had a reasonable doubt about whether or not Zimmerman honestly feared he would be killed or seriously injured.
From the actual jury instructions:
....to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, George Zimmerman must have actually believed that the danger was real.
http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/news ... ions_1.pdf

Of course that instruction should not be read in isolation, but as part of the complete set of instructions as set forth above.

[Danmark]

I agree with pretty much every post made here.
The thing that keeps bothering me however is the armed vs unarmed killing bit.

What's wrong with taking out the gun and either
a) threatening to shoot
b) warning shot
c) non-lethal shot
d) punch him with the gun

I KNOW the use of deadly force is allowed by law, but can we talk about the principle/ethics/morality behind that idea ?

I don't see why one should immediately take a human life in those situations, surely there are a few possible steps between getting beat and shooting a man to death ?

I don't know about you, but if I am flat on my back with a broken nose and an unknown burglary suspect is on top of me, beating on me and banging my head against the pavement, it would be a little difficult for me to calmly assess my options and consider the morality of the situation. What would you do?

If Trayvon had simply knocked Zimmerman down and then stood back to allow Zimmerman to make the next move, then Zimmerman would not have been justified in shooting Trayvon. However, I think the actions of both people were understandable in this situation. From Zimmerman's point of view, Trayvon was an unknown burglary suspect, and from Trayvon's point of view, Zimmerman was an unknown stalker.

Trayvon was not a "child," as some have called him. The old photos of Trayvon incessantly shown on TV were of him as a wimpy 12-year-old. Trayvon was old enough to be eligible for military service, four inches taller than Zimmerman, a football player with some fighting experience, and enjoyed fighting. Zimmerman was a neighborhood watch person and was rightfully concerned about a recent series of burglaries in the neighborhood.

Funny thing.. a lot of those photos of Trayvon showing he was a 'thug' were not him either. The injuries to Zimmerman were called 'superficial'. Zimmerman also had martial arts training.. funny how you don't mention that

How is a broken nose 'superficial'?

I have the same question. A broken nose in some states is sufficient for a jury to conclude an injury is sufficient to be considered a 'second degree' felony assault. According to news reports a physician witness called the injuries 'insignificant.' If it's my nose that was broken, I wouldn't call it 'insignificant;' tho' apparently in this case the break required no treatment.

There was testimony, again according to news reports, that Zimmerman was not 'incapacitated' and suffered no lacerations; that the injuries were treated with 'band-aids' only.

[Angel]

The idea that charges shouldn't have even been brought in the first place is valid to a certain extent. If you are looking at this from a purely legal standpoint then Zimmerman did nothing wrong. Zimmerman was on the ground being beaten mixed martial arts style by Trayvon Martin and according to Florida law, since Zimmerman could not retreat, Zimmerman was justified in shooting Trayvon. Again, Zimmerman did nothing wrong according to the law.

The reason why the case was not dismissed is that we have phony civil rights leaders and race baiters, along with a bunch of clueless celebrities, injecting and fomenting racial hatred into the case. This is what happens when you have people from the outside commenting on the case, it screws up the legal process.

The fact of the matter is that this case was warped into something it was never meant to be. This case was an accidental tragedy, plain and simple. But the race baiters in this country saw it as an opportunity to deepen the racial divide and tried to make this case seem like it was a white on black hate crime. The facts obviously didn't fit with their story and they lost.

What do you mean, 'valid to a certain extent?' Either there was sufficient evidence to go forward or there was not. You fall into the same error as John Paul, allowing your obvious political bias to distract you from the facts. I'll ask you the same question: Did you listen to all the testimony? Did you observe all the evidence? Did you review all the police reports prior to the filing of the charges? Did you review the jury instructions?

I repeat, I am not second guessing the jurors, or taking sides. I am simply suggesting that those of you with either a left or right bias should not be judging this or any other case on the basis of what the media presented or on a fraction of the evidence. Apparently it is a great American sport to sit back and pontificate on what prosecutors should or should not have charged without having the same information they have. It is a great American sport to 2d guess jury verdicts without the benefit of observation of the same evidence the jurors observed. Your opinions which are obviously based on your political biases rather than the evidence are worthless.

It is obvious those opinions are based on bias instead of evidence, is because you do not have all the evidence, were not in a position to view the demeanor and all the testimony, did not review the police reports, and did not examine the jury instructions.

When someone comes forward who can claim and support his or her assertion they had all the information and legal knowledge of the prosecutors who brought the charges or the evidence the jury evaluated, then and only then can we discuss whether the State should have brought charges or evaluate the jury's verdict.

It gets exceedingly tiresome to hear people blather on about what should or should not have been done when they admit they do not have all the facts or even understand the law involved. This long distance amateurish assessment of laws and legal proceedings by people who are not aware of the law or the facts discredits those who advance such unfounded remarks.

It is not your final conclusions I object to, it is your specious methodology.

Danmark,

I share some of your concerns about how some people are showing biases, whether it be racial or political. In other places, you've mentioned that a person should really listen to the entire trial, read documents and listen to testimony pertaining to the case. And I agree with you there again that if it's for getting a whole picture of what happened then that would be a fair way to look at this case, if not the best way.

What bothered me in this thread specifically, was the one-sided points by SOME here, like only bringing up Trayvon's not-so-good past, but failing to also bring up Zimmerman's violent past. If I were to see the reason for this bias, it would only be to paint one person in a good light and the other in a bad light. The thing is the hypocrisy as well, for people to bash the media for showing 'innocent' puppy face pictures of Trayvon to make him look more victim-and innocent like, while you have some of these same people resorting to the same tactics in their own way. It's amazing how people claim to know facts and know about this and that, but I wonder of what value is that when if people don't know how to be objective or don't even try.

[Dantalion]

I agree with pretty much every post made here.
The thing that keeps bothering me however is the armed vs unarmed killing bit.

What's wrong with taking out the gun and either
a) threatening to shoot
b) warning shot
c) non-lethal shot
d) punch him with the gun

I KNOW the use of deadly force is allowed by law, but can we talk about the principle/ethics/morality behind that idea ?

I don't see why one should immediately take a human life in those situations, surely there are a few possible steps between getting beat and shooting a man to death ?

I don't know about you, but if I am flat on my back with a broken nose and an unknown burglary suspect is on top of me, beating on me and banging my head against the pavement, it would be a little difficult for me to calmly assess my options and consider the morality of the situation. What would you do?

If Trayvon had simply knocked Zimmerman down and then stood back to allow Zimmerman to make the next move, then Zimmerman would not have been justified in shooting Trayvon. However, I think the actions of both people were understandable in this situation. From Zimmerman's point of view, Trayvon was an unknown burglary suspect, and from Trayvon's point of view, Zimmerman was an unknown stalker.

Trayvon was not a "child," as some have called him. The old photos of Trayvon incessantly shown on TV were of him as a wimpy 12-year-old. Trayvon was old enough to be eligible for military service, four inches taller than Zimmerman, a football player with some fighting experience, and enjoyed fighting. Zimmerman was a neighborhood watch person and was rightfully concerned about a recent series of burglaries in the neighborhood.

Funny thing.. a lot of those photos of Trayvon showing he was a 'thug' were not him either. The injuries to Zimmerman were called 'superficial'. Zimmerman also had martial arts training.. funny how you don't mention that

How is a broken nose 'superficial'?

Pretty much the entire trial was on youtube, I've seen the physician testimony.

I would not call a broken nose superficial, but that was not the injury she was referring to.

The life threatening situation for Zimmerman was Trayvon slamming his head repeatedly against the concrete.
If this were really the case I wouldn't even been arguing here.
The PROBLEM is that what was deemed superficial were Z's head injuries, it was testified in court by an expert specialized in these cases that the wounds on Zimmerman's head did not match the wounds of somebody who's head WOULD have slammed repeatedly against the concrete.
The evidence punches a hole in Z's story.
There is nothing to suggest his head was repeatedly slammed against concrete, let alone in such a way unconsciousness or death could possibly result.

So, while it's pretty much beyond a doubt that it was Trayvon beating down on Zimmerman, there is no evidence at all to suggest Zimmerman was in a life-threatening situation.

So for me, I don't care about race or size or age or whatever, it's dude A beating dude B, please try to show me what gives dude B the right of lethal force, if there is no indication whatsoever dude A is in a life-threatening situation.

I agree it's easy for me to judge this, if I were in Z's position I'd probably fear for my life, but AFAIK, just the fear alone isn't enough to justify killing in self-defense.
There has to be some indication that your life is in actual danger, no ?

Otherwise, it would be perfectly legal in every random bar fight or street brawl to kill your opponent is he was beating you.

[Philbert]

Otherwise, it would be perfectly legal in every random bar fight or street brawl to kill your opponent is he was beating you.

As best I understand it (not that much) this is currently the state of the law here in Florida.

This would explain why the Sanford police originally declined to charge Zimmerman, a decision which turned out to be legally correct, if not politically stupid.

Please recall, the event took place in a specific jurisdiction with specific local laws which may not apply elsewhere.

The police, judges and juries have to apply the local law, not what seems right to people on the Net.

[Dantalion]

Otherwise, it would be perfectly legal in every random bar fight or street brawl to kill your opponent is he was beating you.

As best I understand it (not that much) this is currently the state of the law here in Florida.

This would explain why the Sanford police originally declined to charge Zimmerman, a decision which turned out to be legally correct, if not politically stupid.

Please recall, the event took place in a specific jurisdiction with specific local laws which may not apply elsewhere.

The police, judges and juries have to apply the local law, not what seems right to people on the Net.

I agree.
Can anybody shed more light on the actual legal situation ?

Is it okay for me to kill my opponent in a random fight if he's beating me ?
Why/ why not ?

[Danmark]

Otherwise, it would be perfectly legal in every random bar fight or street brawl to kill your opponent is he was beating you.

As best I understand it (not that much) this is currently the state of the law here in Florida.

This would explain why the Sanford police originally declined to charge Zimmerman, a decision which turned out to be legally correct, if not politically stupid.

Please recall, the event took place in a specific jurisdiction with specific local laws which may not apply elsewhere.

The police, judges and juries have to apply the local law, not what seems right to people on the Net.

I agree.
Can anybody shed more light on the actual legal situation ?

Is it okay for me to kill my opponent in a random fight if he's beating me ?
Why/ why not ?

The jury instructions, based on the Court's assessment of the applicable law, are available here:
http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/news ... ions_1.pdf
For the most part they are not much different than those in many Western states where there is no duty to retreat ["stand your ground" is an inflammatory misnomer that seems to suggest it is admirable not to avoid violence]

But some of them seem odd to me and could easily have confused the jury, particularly #2 of these:

EXCUSABLE HOMICIDE
The killing of a human being is excusable, and therefore lawful, under any one of the
three following circumstances:
1. When the killing is committed by accident and misfortune in doing any lawful act
by lawful means with usual ordinary caution and without any unlawful intent, or

2. When the killing occurs by accident and misfortune in the heat of passion, upon
any sudden and sufficient provocation, or

3. When the killing is committed by accident and misfortune resulting from a sudden
combat, if a dangerous weapon is not used and the attempted killing is not done
in a cruel and unusual manner.