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?

[Danmark]

John Paul, it is as simple as basic and pure mathematics.

You claim claim there was ZERO evidence to warrant even a charge, even an accusation, necessitating a trial.

You confess you are not acquainted with all the evidence, yet you maintain you are somehow able to divine ALL the evidence, not from what was presented to the jury, but from the news media. How can you possible ascertain there was NO evidence, when you have not reviewed it all?

Let me acquaint you with the law. If there was no evidence, which if believed, could sustain a guilty verdict, any competent defense attorney [or the judge on his own motion] would have moved for dismissal. Neither the defense nor the judge did so; therefore either both the judge and the entire defense team were grossly incompetent, or you are wrong.

Do you still contend the news folk presented you with ALL the evidence?

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.

[WinePusher]

What do you mean, 'valid to a certain extent?' Either there was sufficient evidence to go forward or there was not.

There was no evidence of second degree murder, there was some evidence for a manslaughter charge and had the prosecution done a better job they could have gotten a manslaughter conviction.

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?

You know nothing about my political biases regarding this case. You also are making yourself out to be some kind of legal expert when you clearly aren't one.

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.

That's so noble of you .

But I'm entitled to have an opinion about a story that the media pushes and covers during all hours of the news cycle.

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.

Then go tell the media not to cover legal trials and tell the newspapers to stop writing editorials and op-eds about.

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 am well versed in the law, and in the social sciences in general. I certainly participate in this specific sub forum far more than you do. So rather than insult my intelligence how about you actually address the issue in the topic. If you don't have an opinion about the verdict then you really shouldn't be posting anything in this thread.

[Danmark]

Danmark, I am well versed in the law, and in the social sciences in general. I certainly participate in this specific sub forum far more than you do. So rather than insult my intelligence how about you actually address the issue in the topic. If you don't have an opinion about the verdict then you really shouldn't be posting anything in this thread.

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.

You've tried to bolster your argument with the non sequitur that you 'participate in this specific sub forum far more than you do.'

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 wrote: "You also are making yourself out to be some kind of legal expert when you clearly aren't one. " I will pass on your assessment to the lawyers I spent 3 hours with Friday, instructing them on jury selection.

[JohnPaul]

[Replying to post 312 by WinePusher]
WinePusher wrote:

There was no evidence of second degree murder, there was some evidence for a manslaughter charge and had the prosecution done a better job they could have gotten a manslaughter conviction.

What evidence for manslaughter do you see? As I see it, Trayvon attacked Zimmerman and Zimmerman defended himself in the only way he could, with his gun. Whatever Zimmerman and Trayvon were doing which led up to the killing is pretty much irrelevant to the actual killing itself, which occurred as a direct result of Trayvon attacking Zimmerman, continuing to beat on Zimmerman, and Zimmerman defending himself. This is supported by Zimmerman's injuries from the beating, no similar injuries to Trayvon, and the witness who identified Trayvon as being on top of Zimmerman by the clothes Trayvon was wearing. Zimmerman may have used poor judgment by following Trayvon, but this did not force Trayvon to attack him.

[keithprosser3]

which occurred as a direct result of Trayvon attacking Zimmerman, continuing to beat on Zimmerman, and Zimmerman defending himself.

You missed out the first step of the chain: Z. actively followed M. I don't know how you can say the first step was M attacking Z. Logically there must have been a confrontation which escalated. We don't know who did what, except that Z shot M dead.

[WinePusher]

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?

[WinePusher]

There was no evidence of second degree murder, there was some evidence for a manslaughter charge and had the prosecution done a better job they could have gotten a manslaughter conviction.

What evidence for manslaughter do you see? As I see it, Trayvon attacked Zimmerman and Zimmerman defended himself in the only way he could, with his gun. Whatever Zimmerman and Trayvon were doing which led up to the killing is pretty much irrelevant to the actual killing itself, which occurred as a direct result of Trayvon attacking Zimmerman, continuing to beat on Zimmerman, and Zimmerman defending himself. This is supported by Zimmerman's injuries from the beating, no similar injuries to Trayvon, and the witness who identified Trayvon as being on top of Zimmerman by the clothes Trayvon was wearing. Zimmerman may have used poor judgment by following Trayvon, but this did not force Trayvon to attack him.

I agree with everything you said. But had Zimmerman not stalked Travyon Martin the entire confrontation, fight and shooting could have been avoided. This was probably the only fact that helped the prosecutions case. Zimmerman's choice to follow Travyon and refusal to listen to the police dispatcher is what ultimately set off the confrontation. Using this premise as the basis of their argument, they could have gotten a manslaughter conviction. But like you said, I do agree that there are many other factors that would offset this.

[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 ?

[keithprosser3]

I would have thought that having a concealed weapon gave Z more confidence in confronting M that would have been the case otherwise. We know Z was prepared to use deadly force in 'self defence'. What we don't know - and never will - is whether he wanted that to happen.

Z confronts M in a threatening manner, M defends himself, Z shoots M dead 'in self defence'. Z might have had to kill M to avoid losing a fight he himself started. The plea of self-defence is surely a lot weaker in such a case, morally if not legally.

[Philbert]

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?

Once a gun is added to the equation, it becomes a life and death struggle.

If you'll forgive a quick derail, it's similar to the point I've been trying to make in the science threads. When humans have limited power, we can afford to make many mistakes. As our power multiplies, we move in to an environment where a single wrong move can end everything.

Subtract the gun, and Z and M can do most any stupid thing they want to, and the consequences will probably be manageable.

Introduce the gun, it only takes one stupid move to bring upon a disaster that nobody can fix.