Trayvon Martin

[ElanJo]

I shouldn't need to note it as I never called him innocent, I said he was acquitted.

Nice try though.

*sigh* I pointed it out for clarity. Quit being overly sensitive.

But my point still stands to josh. He inferred trusting the verdict is tantamount to racism.

I speak only as a devils advocate as haven't followed the case as closely as everyone else it seems.

I wouldn't be so sure about that.

 

[mcmanus]

Been following this for a while as I watch TYT on YouTube daily. Said it before and I'll say it again, the United States is a seriously fucked up country.

I struggle with the off side law and LBW never mind when Yanks are allowed to kill one another.

 

[MCFC1993]

So many ignorant comments its unbelievable. I fully believe Zimmerman should have been found guilty however I can kind of understand the lack of evidence point. Although if this was over here in Britain a 17 year old lads body would be more than enough to charge a man of murder/2nd degree murder.

For a start I keep seeing that it was self defense/ a 50/50 scrap, for a start bringing a gun on an unarmed man is not a 50/50 self-defense case. The fact that Zimmerman didn't even warn him to stop "if he was beating him up" or he would pull a gun on him also shows what sort of character Zimmerman is. No one in the right mind would shoot an unarmed person if they didn't have a motive. To me its a blatant case of Zimmerman trying to take the law into his own hands, his neighbourhood watch role made him believe he was able to serve his own justice. Obviously the evidence was not sufficient but I think common sense would tell us all what went on.

For me though its manslaughter minimum even with the evidence they had. A grown man killing a child in any other state or country would have seen much harsher punishments.

 

[taconinja]

Could the prosecution not called him regardless?

nah, 5th amendment i believe.

Did not know that. Thanks. So if he did take the stand its fair to say he is likely to have damaged his defence?

First question would have been why did he feel compelled to follow and then chase down Mr. Martin. His previous statements are rather all over the place and boil down to he chased him because he looked suspicious. When asked why Mr. Martin looked suspicious, his response was because he was Black.

Then the opposing lawyer would ask him why he started a fight with someone simply walking down the street. He would try to lie of course, but whenever interviewed he's come across poorly.

Because he's a racist. Let's keep that in mind.

So yes, he would have slit his own wrists by testifying. Constitutionally, he can't be compelled to incriminate himself.

This is why a potential civil suit is intriguing. He would be compelled to testify twice. First when he attempts to invoke Stand Your Ground, he must testify to a judge. If he goofs that up, and as he is a habitual loser, so that's very likely, Stand Your Ground is denied. Then he goes to civil trial, which unlike a criminal trial does not need a unanimous decision. They also aren't restricted to reasonable doubt. All the jury has to do is decide what they think happened and act accordingly.

And since he's a racist, he'll probably get destroyed on the stand and lose.

 

[hilts]

So many ignorant comments its unbelievable. I fully believe Zimmerman should have been found guilty however I can kind of understand the lack of evidence point. Although if this was over here in Britain a 17 year old lads body would be more than enough to charge a man of murder/2nd degree murder.

For a start I keep seeing that it was self defense/ a 50/50 scrap, for a start bringing a gun on an unarmed man is not a 50/50 self-defense case. The fact that Zimmerman didn't even warn him to stop "if he was beating him up" or he would pull a gun on him also shows what sort of character Zimmerman is. No one in the right mind would shoot an unarmed person if they didn't have a motive. To me its a blatant case of Zimmerman trying to take the law into his own hands, his neighbourhood watch role made him believe he was able to serve his own justice. Obviously the evidence was not sufficient but I think common sense would tell us all what went on.

For me though its manslaughter minimum even with the evidence they had. A grown man killing a child in any other state or country would have seen much harsher punishments.

The problem with the case is the lack of third party evidence, those who claim they saw or heard something contradict each other, even analysis of the 911 tape can't tell who was calling for help

The only facts known for sure are that the area was blighted by crime

Zimmerman called police to report martin hanging around houses

the police said they didn't need him to follow martin

a fight broke out

Zimmerman had a fractured nose and gashes on the back of his head

martin had no injuries other than the gunshot wound

Zimmerman killed martin at close quarters with one shot

Zimmerman's account matches the facts and cannot be disproved so if the jury are told that martin was having his head bashed against concrete and martin went for his gun so Zimmerman grabbed the gun first and shot him they have to find him not guilty

Zimmerman's story could be bullshit or partially true but unless it can be proved to be false the verdict seems logical

 

[Skashion]

I think there's a good chance of a civil case being brought, and, even in America, there's got to be a reasonable chance of success.

 

[ElanJo]

nah, 5th amendment i believe.

Did not know that. Thanks. So if he did take the stand its fair to say he is likely to have damaged his defence?

First question would have been why did he feel compelled to follow and then chase down Mr. Martin. His previous statements are rather all over the place and boil down to he chased him because he looked suspicious. When asked why Mr. Martin looked suspicious, his response was because he was Black.

Then the opposing lawyer would ask him why he started a fight with someone simply walking down the street. He would try to lie of course, but whenever interviewed he's come across poorly.

Because he's a racist. Let's keep that in mind.

So yes, he would have slit his own wrists by testifying. Constitutionally, he can't be compelled to incriminate himself.

This is why a potential civil suit is intriguing. He would be compelled to testify twice. First when he attempts to invoke Stand Your Ground, he must testify to a judge. If he goofs that up, and as he is a habitual loser, so that's very likely, Stand Your Ground is denied. Then he goes to civil trial, which unlike a criminal trial does not need a unanimous decision. They also aren't restricted to reasonable doubt. All the jury has to do is decide what they think happened and act accordingly.

And since he's a racist, he'll probably get destroyed on the stand and lose.

Words fail...

 

[mcmanus]

nah, 5th amendment i believe.

Did not know that. Thanks. So if he did take the stand its fair to say he is likely to have damaged his defence?

First question would have been why did he feel compelled to follow and then chase down Mr. Martin. His previous statements are rather all over the place and boil down to he chased him because he looked suspicious. When asked why Mr. Martin looked suspicious, his response was because he was Black.

Then the opposing lawyer would ask him why he started a fight with someone simply walking down the street. He would try to lie of course, but whenever interviewed he's come across poorly.

Because he's a racist. Let's keep that in mind.

So yes, he would have slit his own wrists by testifying. Constitutionally, he can't be compelled to incriminate himself.

This is why a potential civil suit is intriguing. He would be compelled to testify twice. First when he attempts to invoke Stand Your Ground, he must testify to a judge. If he goofs that up, and as he is a habitual loser, so that's very likely, Stand Your Ground is denied. Then he goes to civil trial, which unlike a criminal trial does not need a unanimous decision. They also aren't restricted to reasonable doubt. All the jury has to do is decide what they think happened and act accordingly.

And since he's a racist, he'll probably get destroyed on the stand and lose.

How can he be a racist the lad's a spic.

 

[Bigga]

So many ignorant comments its unbelievable. I fully believe Zimmerman should have been found guilty however I can kind of understand the lack of evidence point. Although if this was over here in Britain a 17 year old lads body would be more than enough to charge a man of murder/2nd degree murder.

For a start I keep seeing that it was self defense/ a 50/50 scrap, for a start bringing a gun on an unarmed man is not a 50/50 self-defense case. The fact that Zimmerman didn't even warn him to stop "if he was beating him up" or he would pull a gun on him also shows what sort of character Zimmerman is. No one in the right mind would shoot an unarmed person if they didn't have a motive. To me its a blatant case of Zimmerman trying to take the law into his own hands, his neighbourhood watch role made him believe he was able to serve his own justice. Obviously the evidence was not sufficient but I think common sense would tell us all what went on.

For me though its manslaughter minimum even with the evidence they had. A grown man killing a child in any other state or country would have seen much harsher punishments.

A point lost amongst idiots using the race issue. A point I have been saying for the most part.

In conclusion to the few of us that have more than a brain cell, one could argue a degree of 'premeditation' in the crime. The intention to confront after following the victim, surely when knowing you are armed against a (unarmed) teenager, then you MUST be willing to use your weapon or why would you carry it? Never warning the teen that he was armed, in order to move the kid off quickly from the premises, but somehow not disorientated enough to find his weapon and discharge it.

This is a man whose head was being violently smashed off CONCRETE(have you seen the effect of straddled fighters to the faces of opponents on canvas??!)! Even if Martin was on top of Zimmerman, I think a single punch might have been enough to cause the alleged nose damage and the cuts to the back of the head, at most and just a mere scuffle at least.

This makes it a fight, as some kids will do, and not 'life endangerment' cos anything more severe for head trauma and Zimmerman was not reaching for the concealed weapon.

It makes not one drop of sense.

 

[rick773]

Did not know that. Thanks. So if he did take the stand its fair to say he is likely to have damaged his defence?

First question would have been why did he feel compelled to follow and then chase down Mr. Martin. His previous statements are rather all over the place and boil down to he chased him because he looked suspicious. When asked why Mr. Martin looked suspicious, his response was because he was Black.

Then the opposing lawyer would ask him why he started a fight with someone simply walking down the street. He would try to lie of course, but whenever interviewed he's come across poorly.

Because he's a racist. Let's keep that in mind.

So yes, he would have slit his own wrists by testifying. Constitutionally, he can't be compelled to incriminate himself.

This is why a potential civil suit is intriguing. He would be compelled to testify twice. First when he attempts to invoke Stand Your Ground, he must testify to a judge. If he goofs that up, and as he is a habitual loser, so that's very likely, Stand Your Ground is denied. Then he goes to civil trial, which unlike a criminal trial does not need a unanimous decision. They also aren't restricted to reasonable doubt. All the jury has to do is decide what they think happened and act accordingly.

And since he's a racist, he'll probably get destroyed on the stand and lose.

How can he be a racist the lad's a spic.

He's half white, and half Peruvian , don't think he needs to worry about the Klan lighting a cross in his front yard. If his name was Jesus Sanchez he'd be on his way to prison I'm sure. And Despite whichever brain surgeon said it earlier mixed race Latinos aren't as discriminated against as blacks in America.

 

[Josh Blue]

Did not know that. Thanks. So if he did take the stand its fair to say he is likely to have damaged his defence?

First question would have been why did he feel compelled to follow and then chase down Mr. Martin. His previous statements are rather all over the place and boil down to he chased him because he looked suspicious. When asked why Mr. Martin looked suspicious, his response was because he was Black.

Then the opposing lawyer would ask him why he started a fight with someone simply walking down the street. He would try to lie of course, but whenever interviewed he's come across poorly.

Because he's a racist. Let's keep that in mind.

So yes, he would have slit his own wrists by testifying. Constitutionally, he can't be compelled to incriminate himself.

This is why a potential civil suit is intriguing. He would be compelled to testify twice. First when he attempts to invoke Stand Your Ground, he must testify to a judge. If he goofs that up, and as he is a habitual loser, so that's very likely, Stand Your Ground is denied. Then he goes to civil trial, which unlike a criminal trial does not need a unanimous decision. They also aren't restricted to reasonable doubt. All the jury has to do is decide what they think happened and act accordingly.

And since he's a racist, he'll probably get destroyed on the stand and lose.

How can he be a racist the lad's a spic.

omg

 

[Bigga]

First question would have been why did he feel compelled to follow and then chase down Mr. Martin. His previous statements are rather all over the place and boil down to he chased him because he looked suspicious. When asked why Mr. Martin looked suspicious, his response was because he was Black.

Then the opposing lawyer would ask him why he started a fight with someone simply walking down the street. He would try to lie of course, but whenever interviewed he's come across poorly.

Because he's a racist. Let's keep that in mind.

So yes, he would have slit his own wrists by testifying. Constitutionally, he can't be compelled to incriminate himself.

This is why a potential civil suit is intriguing. He would be compelled to testify twice. First when he attempts to invoke Stand Your Ground, he must testify to a judge. If he goofs that up, and as he is a habitual loser, so that's very likely, Stand Your Ground is denied. Then he goes to civil trial, which unlike a criminal trial does not need a unanimous decision. They also aren't restricted to reasonable doubt. All the jury has to do is decide what they think happened and act accordingly.

And since he's a racist, he'll probably get destroyed on the stand and lose.

How can he be a racist the lad's a spic.

omg

The man is fishing.

 

[SWP's back]

First question would have been why did he feel compelled to follow and then chase down Mr. Martin. His previous statements are rather all over the place and boil down to he chased him because he looked suspicious. When asked why Mr. Martin looked suspicious, his response was because he was Black.

Then the opposing lawyer would ask him why he started a fight with someone simply walking down the street. He would try to lie of course, but whenever interviewed he's come across poorly.

Because he's a racist. Let's keep that in mind.

So yes, he would have slit his own wrists by testifying. Constitutionally, he can't be compelled to incriminate himself.

This is why a potential civil suit is intriguing. He would be compelled to testify twice. First when he attempts to invoke Stand Your Ground, he must testify to a judge. If he goofs that up, and as he is a habitual loser, so that's very likely, Stand Your Ground is denied. Then he goes to civil trial, which unlike a criminal trial does not need a unanimous decision. They also aren't restricted to reasonable doubt. All the jury has to do is decide what they think happened and act accordingly.

And since he's a racist, he'll probably get destroyed on the stand and lose.

How can he be a racist the lad's a spic.

omg

 

[Josh Blue]

How can he be a racist the lad's a spic.

omg

no

 

[mrcunny]

Did not know that. Thanks. So if he did take the stand its fair to say he is likely to have damaged his defence?

First question would have been why did he feel compelled to follow and then chase down Mr. Martin. His previous statements are rather all over the place and boil down to he chased him because he looked suspicious. When asked why Mr. Martin looked suspicious, his response was because he was Black.

Then the opposing lawyer would ask him why he started a fight with someone simply walking down the street. He would try to lie of course, but whenever interviewed he's come across poorly.

Because he's a racist. Let's keep that in mind.

So yes, he would have slit his own wrists by testifying. Constitutionally, he can't be compelled to incriminate himself.

This is why a potential civil suit is intriguing. He would be compelled to testify twice. First when he attempts to invoke Stand Your Ground, he must testify to a judge. If he goofs that up, and as he is a habitual loser, so that's very likely, Stand Your Ground is denied. Then he goes to civil trial, which unlike a criminal trial does not need a unanimous decision. They also aren't restricted to reasonable doubt. All the jury has to do is decide what they think happened and act accordingly.

And since he's a racist, he'll probably get destroyed on the stand and lose.

How can he be a racist the lad's a spic.

haha nice one..

 

[AntiUnited]

This shit is going to escalate into race riots again -_-

 

[Lucky13]

This shit is going to escalate into race riots again -_-

" I have a dream , of a new plasma tv"

 

[AntiUnited]

This shit is going to escalate into race riots again -_-

" I have a dream , of a new plasma tv"

Not that funny tbh. The last race riots we had destroyed half of LA...

 

[Lucky13]

This shit is going to escalate into race riots again -_-

" I have a dream , of a new plasma tv"

Not that funny tbh. The last race riots we had destroyed half of LA...

It's not a race riot , it's any excuse to loot, no wonder its called the Land of the Free.

 

[AntiUnited]

" I have a dream , of a new plasma tv"

Not that funny tbh. The last race riots we had destroyed half of LA...

It's not a race riot , it's any excuse to loot, no wonder its called the Land of the Free.

kinda like the ''London Riots'' then ?