I am not by any stretch of anyone's imagination petitioning for the deification of Trayvon Martin...... but how does any of that have to do with the events of February 26th? Unless it's proven that he was in the process of acting on his "street thuggery" when he was shot and killed, I fail to see a cognitive connection...though I have little doubt such things will be discussed during the trial.
One of the first arguments used by Zimmerman was that Martin was behind the Club house, and looked like he was up to no good. Martin being a thug everywhere else is relevant to him acting like a thug on this particular night.
The "Pro Martin" side of this discussion has tried to paint Martin to be a saint of sorts.
One cannot logically say that he was a thug 5 days a week, but on Saturday and Sunday became a saint.
Brad
[This message has been edited by twofatguys (edited 04-15-2012).]
One of the first arguments used by Zimmerman was that Martin was behind the Club house, and looked like he was up to no good.
Is he still using that particular argument?
Is there any proof of Martins "thuggary" or just rumours from sites like "stormfront" and the like.
Even if Martin was a complete thug and was out to "case" houses and such is the ANY evidence that he was up to ANYTHING besides walking to the store to buy candy and a drink that particular evening?
Originally posted by twofatguys: One of the first arguments used by Zimmerman was that Martin was behind the Club house, and looked like he was up to no good. Martin being a thug everywhere else is relevant to him acting like a thug on this particular night.
The "Pro Martin" side of this discussion has tried to paint Martin to be a saint of sorts.
One cannot logically say that he was a thug 5 days a week, but on Saturday and Sunday became a saint.
Yes...a lot of that is certainly true.
The problem, however, is unless there's an independent witness that can attest to Martin's behavior that night, a simple statement by the man accused of shooting him that he "looked like he was up to no good" probably won't carry much weight in a trial. Obviously, the other party in the incident isn't available for questioning. It's extremely subjective at best without a supporting statement from another source and could readily be dismissed as a "self-serving" statement from Zimmerman.
Anyway, I'd give it a run it myself were I in his shoes. Nothing beats a failure but a try.
[This message has been edited by Doni Hagan (edited 04-15-2012).]
Is there any proof of Martins "thuggary" or just rumours from sites like "stormfront" and the like.
Even if Martin was a complete thug and was out to "case" houses and such is the ANY evidence that he was up to ANYTHING besides walking to the store to buy candy and a drink that particular evening?
It's going to trial - so maybe you'll find out? Just my guess, but from what we've heard Martin was walking home in the rain after buying Skittles and an Arizona Iced Tea. He was wearing the hoodie because it was raining. (no info on if it was a downpour or drizzle, or anywhere in between).
That said, if Martin was cutting through property to take a short cut home in the rain, that's not so unusual. However, wandering around aimlessly in the rain is. Zimmerman said early in the police tape that Martin was wandering around and looked like he might be on drugs. That would suggest (and it's up to the defense to show) that he wasn't just walking home but wandering around the clubhouse area. In that case and in light of recent burglaries, Zimmerman thought he might be up to no good. Was he going to break into the club house? Was he casing it? Was he just wandering around looking for a crime of opportunity? Zimmerman's defense will likely need to show Martin wasn't just going home and that his actions could have looked suspicious to a reasonable person.
Anyone wandering around a closed clubhouse at night in the rain would appear suspicious to me. If they're taking a short cut, that means they're trying to save time and would be going directly to their destination - not wandering around.
The problem, however, is unless there's an independent witness that can attest to Martin's behavior that night, a simple statement by the man accused of shooting him that he "looked like he was up to no good" probably won't carry much weight in a trial. Obviously, the other party in the incident isn't available for questioning. It's extremely subjective at best without a supporting statement from another source and could readily be dismissed as a "self-serving" statement from Zimmerman.
Why is that a problem? Martin's behavior before the altercation isn't likely to be a big part of the case. Zimmerman thought he was up to no good. Zimmerman may have been mistaken, but that was his reason to start following Martin. What Martin was actually doing is irrelevant, I would think. What matters is the events after Zimmerman started following him.
Even if there's an eye witness that can verify that The Blessed Trayvonâ„¢ was only stopping for a moment to pray for an injured squirrel, that doesn't affect whether Martin or Zimmerman took the first hostile action. If The Blessed Trayvonâ„¢ attacked Zimmerman before Zimmerman did anything other than follow him, I would think the self-defense argument will prevail. They'll need to show Zimmerman attacked Martin first for Zimmerman to be guilty.
Zimmerman's defense will likely need to show Martin wasn't just going home and that his actions could have looked suspicious to a reasonable person.
No, Zimmerman's defense will likely have to PROVE that Martin was up to no good. His opinion alone could easily be countered by the prosecution saying that Martin's walking by the clubhouse and looking at it (or even looking IN it) doesn't mean unequivocally that he was intending to burglarize it.
No, Zimmerman's defense will likely have to PROVE that Martin was up to no good. His opinion alone could easily be countered by the prosecution saying that Martin's walking by the clubhouse and looking at it (or even looking IN it) doesn't mean unequivocally that he was intending to burglarize it.
That doesn't make any sense to me.
So a person can be doing things that 99.99% of the world considers "odd behavior", but that doesn't make them a suspicious person?
Why is that a problem? Martin's behavior before the altercation isn't likely to be a big part of the case. Zimmerman thought he was up to no good. Zimmerman may have been mistaken, but that was his reason to start following Martin. What Martin was actually doing is irrelevant, I would think. What matters is the events after Zimmerman started following him.
Even if there's an eye witness that can verify that The Blessed Trayvonâ„¢ was only stopping for a moment to pray for an injured squirrel, that doesn't affect whether Martin or Zimmerman took the first hostile action. If The Blessed Trayvonâ„¢ attacked Zimmerman before Zimmerman did anything other than follow him, I would think the self-defense argument will prevail. They'll need to show Zimmerman attacked Martin first for Zimmerman to be guilty.
Why do you think I have a problem with it?
Sarcasm about "The Blessed Trayvonâ„¢" notwithstanding, you aren't saying anything I haven't already agreed to. Indeed, what matters are the events after Zimmerman started following him, not before. And, yes, if "The Blessed Trayvonâ„¢ initiated the confrontation there's a very good chance the self-defense claim will hold.
The defense should have to PROVE it, though.....not simply SAY it.
So a person can be doing things that 99.99% of the world considers "odd behavior", but that doesn't make them a suspicious person?
Brad
I'm not trying to be a smartass here but if you know any attorneys, simply ask one of them if they would let an unsupported declaration of that nature in a trial like this one's sure to be go unchallenged.
I'll be surprised if many of them say "Yes I'd let that one slide."
What is it with you and others reading into something that isn't there? I never said you had a problem with anything. YOUR quote said:
quote
Originally posted by Doni Hagan: The problem, however, is unless there's an independent witness ...
That's the "problem" I'm referring to - the problem you were discussing. I was asking why that's a problem. That's why I said, "Why is that a problem?"
quote
Originally posted by Doni Hagan: The defense should have to PROVE it, though.....not simply SAY it.
No, the burden of proof is on the prosecution in a U.S. court, last time I checked.
No, the burden of proof is on the prosecution in a U.S. court, last time I checked.
Indeed....I stand corrected. The prosecution should have to disprove the statement...which leads me to wonder whether they have already considered that possibility. If they haven't anticipated that very simple statement, the whole "Murder 2" charge seems to be an exercise in futility
I'm not trying to be a smartass here but if you know any attorneys, simply ask one of them if they would let an unsupported declaration of that nature in a trial like this one's sure to be go unchallenged.
I'll be surprised if many of them say "Yes I'd let that one slide."
So if it could be supported, such as by past behavior then it would be fine?
Indeed....I stand corrected. The prosecution should have to disprove the statement...which leads me to wonder whether they have already considered that possibility. If they haven't anticipated that very simple statement, the whole "Murder 2" charge seems to be an exercise in futility
And that isn't part of the whole game plan?
Trayvon's parents and activists scream for an arrest or there will be civil unrest.
The state puts on the show of an investigation. Politically, they know they need to charge and arrest Zimmerman to calm the public.
They decide on Murder 2. And speak of pursuing a conviction on this charge. (Really they know it'll be difficult at best. But, the public is happy they acted.)
So the game goes on. The State can say they gave it their all, but just couldn't the conviction to stick. Zimmerman get a Not Guilty verdict and all are appeased.
So if it could be supported, such as by past behavior then it would be fine?
Brad
I would think so......IF the past behavior was specifically relevant to this incident. Say a documented history of B&E or something of that nature that could be applied to the night in question.
But being an occasional PITA teenager at school? I wouldn't go that far, no.
Originally posted by aceman: And that isn't part of the whole game plan?
Trayvon's parents and activists scream for an arrest or there will be civil unrest.
The state puts on the show of an investigation. Politically, they know they need to charge and arrest Zimmerman to calm the public.
They decide on Murder 2. And speak of pursuing a conviction on this charge. (Really they know it'll be difficult at best. But, the public is happy they acted.)
So the game goes on. The State can say they gave it their all, but just couldn't the conviction to stick. Zimmerman get a Not Guilty verdict and all are appeased.
It's a possibility.
Cynical as all Hell....but a possibility nonetheless.
I won't go into all of it again but in an earlier post, I too had a question about the possible reasoning behind the "Murder 2" charge that was answered for me by someone in the Illinois State Attorney's office.
Indeed....I stand corrected. The prosecution should have to disprove the statement...which leads me to wonder whether they have already considered that possibility. If they haven't anticipated that very simple statement, the whole "Murder 2" charge seems to be an exercise in futility
Unless there's evidence I've not heard of (very likely), I think the whole trial will prove to be an exercise in futility. I think it would take something like an eyewitness account to prove Martin didn't act in self-defense. The Murder 2 charge could simply be a prosecutor trying to play hard ball to placate the "Justice for The Blessed Trayvonâ„¢" crowd even if the prosecutor knows there's not enough evidence to convict. It also gives them a better chance to plea down a deal even if Zimmerman is innocent, if they convince him he's likely to be convicted on the Murder 2 charge. If so, it would be in his best interest to plea to a lesser charge of Manslaughter, etc. (I believe that's close to your previously posted assessment as well)
Unknown evidence could make this trial go in any direction, but those are my hunches based on what I've heard. I recognize that's sketchy at best, but that's all we have to go on, and it's certainly been enough for Zimmerman's conviction in the court of public opinion.
As for sarcasm over The Blessed Trayvonâ„¢, it's no worse than the media using a picture of Martin when he was 12 years old and going out of it's way to portray Martin as an innocent little child who was ruthlessly gunned down by a WHITE predator who had it in for any blacks he could find.
I wonder how many people will be murdered, black, white, Asian, Arab, Jew, etc. during this trail and nobody - NOBODY - will give a damn about it because it wasn't something they could call racism (whether accurate or not). Is it only a tragedy when a black man is killed if he dies at the hands of someone of a certain skin color? (no, that's not a question for you - it's a rhetorical question concerning the attention around this case in general) It's an insult to everyone else out there who's had their life cut short that it didn't happen to be in a manner that fits the current outrage.
[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 04-15-2012).]
Apparently you did, The only thing we have from Zimmerman at this point is the initial Police report, and the call to the Police.
Obviously there has been nothing else said by Zimmerman. Nada, zip, zero, zilch. So your statement
quote
Is he still using that particular argument?
Was severely misguided at the very least. He hasn't changed anything this entire time. The recorded call to the Police is the only instance where we can hear him argue that Martin was behind the Club House.
Since I can already see where this is going. I should have used the word "statement" instead of "argument", but it still fits as I understand it.
quote
ar·gue/ˈärgyo͞o/ Verb:
Give reasons or cite evidence in support of an idea, action, or theory, typically with the aim of persuading others to share one's view. Persuade someone to do or not to do (something) by giving reasons: "I tried to argue him out of it".
fair enough, a lot of statements and arguments have been put forward by the Zimmerman "side"(lawyers, father...etc) but you are right, we only have the police report and phone call that speak for Z directly. We shall see what his defense is in the trial and what other evidence about either side will come to light.
Unless there's evidence I've not heard of (very likely), I think the whole trial will prove to be an exercise in futility. I think it would take something like an eyewitness account to prove Martin didn't act in self-defense. The Murder 2 charge could simply be a prosecutor trying to play hard ball to placate the "Justice for The Blessed Trayvonâ„¢" crowd even if the prosecutor knows there's not enough evidence to convict. It also gives them a better chance to plea down a deal even if Zimmerman is innocent, if they convince him he's likely to be convicted on the Murder 2 charge. If so, it would be in his best interest to plea to a lesser charge of Manslaughter, etc. (I believe that's close to your previously posted assessment as well)
Unknown evidence could make this trial go in any direction, but those are my hunches based on what I've heard. I recognize that's sketchy at best, but that's all we have to go on, and it's certainly been enough for Zimmerman's conviction in the court of public opinion.
As for sarcasm over The Blessed Trayvonâ„¢, it's no worse than the media using a picture of Martin when he was 12 years old and going out of it's way to portray Martin as an innocent little child who was ruthlessly gunned down by a WHITE predator who had it in for any blacks he could find.
I wonder how many people will be murdered, black, white, Asian, Arab, Jew, etc. during this trail and nobody - NOBODY - will give a damn about it because it wasn't something they could call racism (whether accurate or not). Is it only a tragedy when a black man is killed if he dies at the hands of someone of a certain skin color? (no, that's not a question for you - it's a rhetorical question concerning the attention around this case in general) It's an insult to everyone else out there who's had their life cut short that it didn't happen to be in a manner that fits the current outrage.
I had a friend when I was in my late teens, he left work at 2am in his little Mazda RX7. He was driving down a country road, came over a hill and there was a guy in black standing in the middle of his lane. I believe he got him around 50 MPH.
The guy he hit, it ended up was drunk, way past legally, and nobody knew why he was in the middle of nowhere walking down the road.
My friend got a years probation, and a bunch of other stuff including a record because he didn't anticipate the guy being in the road. (basically what was said). He was arrested initially, and charged with Vehicular manslaughter. Friends of the guy he hit sent him death threats constantly, it was really a messed up deal.
It's a screwed up world, and there is no telling what will happen to any one of us next.
Sarcasm about "The Blessed Trayvonâ„¢" notwithstanding
About that little TM
quote
Sybrina Fulton is seeking to trademark the phrases "Justice for Trayvon" and "I Am Trayvon." The family attorney, Natalie Jackson, told RadarOnline.com exclusively: "I want to set the record straight, the trademarks were applied for so that no one can profit from or promote their own agendas using Trayvon Martin. Trayvon's parents will never seek to financially profit from these trademarks, period. I can't emphasize that point enough. They haven't even been able to mourn his death because they are seeking justice for his death.
I had a friend when I was in my late teens, he left work at 2am in his little Mazda RX7. He was driving down a country road, came over a hill and there was a guy in black standing in the middle of his lane. I believe he got him around 50 MPH.
The guy he hit, it ended up was drunk, way past legally, and nobody knew why he was in the middle of nowhere walking down the road.
My friend got a years probation, and a bunch of other stuff including a record because he didn't anticipate the guy being in the road. (basically what was said). He was arrested initially, and charged with Vehicular manslaughter. Friends of the guy he hit sent him death threats constantly, it was really a messed up deal.
It's a screwed up world, and there is no telling what will happen to any one of us next.
Brad
Wow, that's just wrong. About 20 years ago I had a 12 year old kid run out in front of my car. Nothing I could do. Luckily he recovered fine and there were witnesses who vouched that there was no way I could stop in time and wasn't speeding, etc. I guess without that, I could have been arrested for C&R or something. (even with the witnesses, for that matter)
The purpose of the Stand Your Ground laws is if someone is attacked, say by a mugger, car jacker, etc., you aren't legally required to try and flee before defending yourself, and also that the assumption is you acted in self defense unless there's evidence to the contrary. It's supposed to keep victims of attacks from having to be arrested and go to court to prove their innocence just for being attacked and defending themselves.
Like any law, I'm sure it can be misused and misinterpreted, but that was the original purpose.
I had an episode when I was Manager of some gas Stations in the UK. One night a nightshift didn't turn in, and it was my duty to cover the shift. During the night, two people entered the office with a gun and a knife. They started to steal whatever they wanted. The one with the gun stood to my side (I was seated, and told to remain so), with the gun pointed at my head, about 3 ft away. When the other guy picked up some of my personal property and stuck it into his bag, I finally lost it. One of the 'D' keys we used for lifting manhole covers to fill the tanks was lying really close to me. In one very fast move, I grabbed it, and swung it at the guy with the gun. Smashed his cheek in, broke his jaw, removed quite a few teeth, and he was out before he hit the ground. The other guy screamed, dropped everything...and ran. I called the Police, and they caught the runner within minutes. They called an ambulance for the guy who was still out on the floor...and arrested me for ABH, GBH, and assault with a 'deadly weapon'. I was speechless!! But the CID Officer who was in charge, as he put me in cuffs and into the Police car, explained that it was his DUTY to arrest me, and the Station Chief would deal with it at the Station. End of it all was: the guy with the smashed-in face spent 4 weeks in Prison Hospital and went on to serve 6 years for attempted armed robbery. The accomplice was also charged with the same crime, and also spent 6 years in Jail. I was released after the Station Manager interviewed the 'escapee', who sang like a bird...but I still had my 'arrest' on record for 5 years, although I was given a complete discharge by the Polkice Chief, and released without charges
I was given another set of gas stations to run several miles away by my Boss, because the robbers' families had vowed to 'get me'. I was held up at gunpoint 4 times in 5 years. I won every time .
[This message has been edited by fierofetish (edited 04-16-2012).]
I had an episode when I was Manager of some gas Stations in the UK. One night a nightshift didn't turn in, and it was my duty to cover the shift. During the night, two people entered the office with a gun and a knife. They started to steal whatever they wanted. The one with the gun stood to my side (I was seated, and told to remain so), with the gun pointed at my head, about 3 ft away. When the other guy picked up some of my personal property and stuck it into his bag, I finally lost it. One of the 'D' keys we used for lifting manhole covers to fill the tanks was lying really close to me. In one very fast move, I grabbed it, and swung it at the guy with the gun. Smashed his cheek in, broke his jaw, removed quite a few teeth, and he was out before he hit the ground. The other guy screamed, dropped everything...and ran. I called the Police, and they caught the runner within minutes. They called an ambulance for the guy who was still out on the floor...and arrested me for ABH, GBH, and assault with a 'deadly weapon'. I was speechless!! But the CID Officer who was in charge, as he put me in cuffs and into the Police car, explained that it was his DUTY to arrest me, and the Station Chief would deal with it at the Station. End of it all was: the guy with the smashed-in face spent 4 weeks in Prison Hospital and went on to serve 6 years for attempted armed robbery. The accomplice was also charged with the same crime, and also spent 6 years in Jail. I was released after the Station Manager interviewed the 'escapee', who sang like a bird...but I still had my 'arrest' on record for 5 years, although I was given a complete discharge by the Polkice Chief, and released without charges
I was given another set of gas stations to run several miles away by my Boss, because the robbers' families had vowed to 'get me'. I was held up at gunpoint 4 times in 5 years. I won every time .
And this has what to do with this case? Has it been too long since we paid attention to what a crazy loco badass Chuck Norris you are? Ok. You are a bad bad motha****er.
Glad to give you an opportunity to vent your bile again Enjoy. Actually...'what makes you think I want to hold a conversation with you?'
To the others wondering why I posted that In the UK, you are automatically arrested , whether your actions were justified or not. The Chief of Police at the relevant Station will decide whether you need to be charged or not. You are NOT free to go at the scene, or before due consideration of the event.
[This message has been edited by fierofetish (edited 04-16-2012).]
Originally posted by twofatguys: So if it could be supported, such as by past behavior then it would be fine? Brad
quote
Originally posted by Doni Hagan: I would think so......IF the past behavior was specifically relevant to this incident. Say a documented history of B&E or something of that nature that could be applied to the night in question.
I have stayed out of this thread. Just checking the last page to see what all the hub bub is. Past behavior is irrelevant specifically to this incident. I say this for two reasons. One, Zimmerman was not even a rent-a-cop (security guard) and he don't have access to suspect records. Zimmerman certainly did not. Secondly, in fair trials afforded here in America, past conduct can not be used in evidence trials, only in the punishment phase.
And this has what to do with this case? Has it been too long since we paid attention to what a crazy loco badass Chuck Norris you are? Ok. You are a bad bad motha****er.
Ohhh Jessica..you're such a mean girl
[This message has been edited by fierofetish (edited 04-16-2012).]
..Here is the listing of programs I recieved my information from american adversaries- 640am = 5 to 6 pm right wing bud hedinger - 540am 6 to 9 am moderate the philips phile - 104.1 FM 3 to 7PM far left just short of marx,xm satelite channel 152 the local news reports provided the meat & the local shows added color & factsnot given on short news reports there was a vast difference between local coverage & what you heard on the national new,s there was none of the "Travon was guned down" ""young man with skittles murdered" on the local news the national news seem to be talking about a completely different crime.. the photos of Travon looking like a child & armed with skittles started the national rage,,even the photo of travon in a hoodie was softened,,travon was a bad looking dude,look at the original photos of him in a hoodie,,the more I see the more I know travon was a bad dude jesse jackson & al sharpton were not allowed to speak in local churches ,they had to preach thier racist hate from the next county Orange where Orlando is,Sharpton called for justice or War from the pulpit
you now know the national media tried to spin this ,but the truth came out !! the national media tried to make Zimmerman look like an assasin only because of mob vigilante pressure is zimmerman charged with 2nd degree murder. Travon was a thief,not a good kid he was on supension again when he was killed
[This message has been edited by uhlanstan (edited 04-16-2012).]
Glad to give you an opportunity to vent your bile again Enjoy. Actually...'what makes you think I want to hold a conversation with you?'
To the others wondering why I posted that In the UK, you are automatically arrested , whether your actions were justified or not. The Chief of Police at the relevant Station will decide whether you need to be charged or not. You are NOT free to go at the scene, or before due consideration of the event.
And that's actually what happened in the Zimmerman/Martin case. Zimmerman was brought in for questioning, and then released without charges. I don't think that was a formal "arrest" though. The DA said there wasn't enough evidence to charge him and let him go.
In an American court, defense dont have to prove anything. They dont even have to offer a witness or statement. Just and opening and closing. We dont know whether Martin was a good or bad kid. We know hes been expelled from school. We know he was caught with 'burgling tools'. And we know hes been caught in possession of womens jewelry. Every single time a criminal is accused of anything, no matter who you are or where you are, acquaintances and family ALWAYS jumps forward to say how good and kind and sweet they were. Even happened with Ted Bundy who was executed for cold bloodily murdering over 100 women.
Originally posted by twofatguys: That doesn't make any sense to me. So a person can be doing things that 99.99% of the world considers "odd behavior", but that doesn't make them a suspicious person? Brad
Walking down the street on late nights has been enough to get me stopped by the local PD a few times and even put in handcuffs once since it was late and "odd for people to be out at this time"
initiated the confrontation there's a very good chance the self-defense claim will hold.
, although I was given a complete discharge by the Polkice Chief, and released without charges
.
that is funny 
