Trayvon Martin

[Guest]

--No one in this country should have to "prove" their innocence in the courts...

I just want to repeat this one in bold.... The statement stands without the rest of the words in the original sentence.

[Vort]

The things we can agree on(I hope):

If Zimmerman is found guilty it is a good thing people protested because justice would not have served.

Bull crap.

If Zimmerman is found guilty the justice system is not broken.

Bull crap logic.

A superior race s complete nonsense and only an unintelligent person would believe that.

Politically correct claptrap. I know of no way to determine "a superior race", but to declare that the very idea "is complete nonsense" is itself complete nonsense.

[Tyler90AZ]

--Legally speaking, the burden falls on the State and Martin's supporters to show that Martin was not a thug, that he was not the sort of person who would instigate a physical fight against Zimmerman, and that he was not behaving suspiciously that night.

That is what I don't get about how the court laws(?) work. Why is it ok to question the victims character, but not the defendants? You said previously it did not matter that Zimmerman has a record, that only good things could be said. I also read up on it a bit, in the link you sent.

Maybe you could clarify for me

[prisonchaplain]

Tyler, the burden falls upon Zimmerman's accusers to prove that he intentionally, maliciously murdered Martin. That's a tall order. Martin cannot testify against Zimmerman. You say it's not fair. You seem to want a 50/50 standard, where both sides are on equal ground.

You cannot have that. Thankfully, our courts put the burden on the accusers. The defendant is presumed innocent, and need only cast reasonable doubt on their theories.

I understand that Martin, his family, and many many African-Americans want vengeance. They say they want justice. However, will they be appeased if Zimmerman is found not guilty? Will they simply think, "Hmm...okay...guess there's not enough evidence against Zimmerman?"

Sadly, I fear that some in the media have stirred up a blood lust. It's as if Zimmerman's head would some how ease every racial slight, and give folks who still feel oppressed the hope that they are moving towards equality and acceptance.

Zimmerman cannot provide all that. It's not his job to do so. Hopefully the court and jury can ignore the sociological pressures and simply rendor a verdict concerning the case at hand, given the available facts.

[Tyler90AZ]

Tyler, the burden falls upon Zimmerman's accusers to prove that he intentionally, maliciously murdered Martin. That's a tall order. Martin cannot testify against Zimmerman. You say it's not fair. You seem to want a 50/50 standard, where both sides are on equal ground.

You cannot have that. Thankfully, our courts put the burden on the accusers. The defendant is presumed innocent, and need only cast reasonable doubt on their theories.

I understand that Martin, his family, and many many African-Americans want vengeance. They say they want justice. However, will they be appeased if Zimmerman is found not guilty? Will they simply think, "Hmm...okay...guess there's not enough evidence against Zimmerman?"

Sadly, I fear that some in the media have stirred up a blood lust. It's as if Zimmerman's head would some how ease every racial slight, and give folks who still feel oppressed the hope that they are moving towards equality and acceptance.

Zimmerman cannot provide all that. It's not his job to do so. Hopefully the court and jury can ignore the sociological pressures and simply rendor a verdict concerning the case at hand, given the available facts.

If they can prove Zimmerman followed after he was told to desist, he was not acting in self defense. Then it would be that Martin defended himself. Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought it was already established that Zimmerman did chase down Martin. The scene of the crime was very close to Martin's home, from my understanding.

[prisonchaplain]

If they can prove Zimmerman followed after he was told to desist, he was not acting in self defense. Then it would be that Martin defended himself. Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought it was already established that Zimmerman did chase down Martin. The scene of the crime was very close to Martin's home, from my understanding.

First, I disagree with the premise. Even if Zimmerman followed Martin, after the dispatcher told him he did not need to follow (i.e. you surely don't have to...I don't recommend that you do so), it still could have ended up self-defense. A probable defense argument in that case is that Zimmerman, believing Martin was likely one of those burglarizing the neighborhood, followed him, to be sure the police got him--that he did not get away. Martin catches him be surprise, is enraged that he's been profiled (maybe Martin believed it was racial), and proceeds to beating Zimmerman. Zimmerman fears for his life, and shoots Martin.

The dispatcher's statement that Zimmerman did not need to follow Martin was not a law enforcement order. It was a statement and counsel. The dispatcher did not have authority to tell Zimmerman that he was legally prohibited from trailing Martin.

Also, I have not followed the details enough to know if Zimmerman followed Martin, or, as some reports have it, that he was headed back to his vehicle when Martin confronted him.

[beefche]

Despite the many details we do have, the public does NOT have all the facts of the case. We just don't. Everyone is assuming the media reports are factual details--and we've seen how they manipulated a couple of the "facts." So, when this goes to trial and if Zimmerman is found not guilty, I think the media and public will go crazy because they all knew the "facts" and the system "failed."

[Vort]

Here's a little more unhelpfulness:

?Justice for Trayvon?: Alabama Man in Critical Condition After Mob Beating - Yahoo! News

[Vort]

That is what I don't get about how the court laws(?) work. Why is it ok to question the victims character, but not the defendants?

Because the victim is not charged with a crime. And in this case, the victim is dead, and therefore unable to be slandered.

If they can prove Zimmerman followed after he was told to desist, he was not acting in self defense.

Tyler, where do you get your understanding of basic law? I'm no lawyer, not by any stretch, but what you say is so obviously wrong that I, and I daresay most of us, can see it's wrong a mile away.

Even if Zimmerman was instructed by police dispatch to stop following Martin and even if he disobeyed that counsel, that does not mean he has forfeited his right to defend himself. If he was attacked, he had a right to defend himself.

The most basic principles of our legal system demand that Zimmerman be considered innocent of any crime until PROVEN guilty beyond reasonable doubt. If there is any real evidence that Trayvon Martin attacked George Zimmerman, Zimmerman will walk (assuming our legal system has integrity in this case). There is no other just course.

That you are unable to see this basic truth is a cause of some concern. That significant numbers of others are equally unable to see it is a cause of very great concern.

[Just_A_Guy]

That is what I don't get about how the court laws(?) work. Why is it ok to question the victims character, but not the defendants? You said previously it did not matter that Zimmerman has a record, that only good things could be said. I also read up on it a bit, in the link you sent.

Maybe you could clarify for me

"Fair" and "just" aren't necessarily the same thing. Remember, our criminal justice system is inherently stacked in the defendant's favor. It's been that way since the republic was founded, because the founders made a judgment call that it was better for the guilty to go free than for the innocent to be punished. So our system isn't fair, but it is just if your standard of justice is avoiding sending an innocent person to prison.

The situations where these presumptions in favor of the defendant become most problematic (and controversial), are in violent confrontations like the one at play here, and in rape cases (because we basically have to presume the woman wanted to have sex with the perpetrator unless she can prove otherwise). Be that as it may: as the survivor of the altercation and the accused in the subsequent criminal case, Zimmerman is going to get some major advantages in this legal exercise in Monday-morning quarterbacking. Had Martin survived and Zimmerman died, Martin (assuming he were charged at all) would be enjoying the same prerogatives--and could call Zimmerman's character into question as part of his defense.

One of the major concerns about so-called "character evidence" against the accused, is that if someone's on trial for--say--murder, we want to make sure that he's convicted for having actually murdered someone rather than because he's generally a dirtbag. IMHO, that was one of the big problems in Warren Jeffs' first trial in Utah--the prosecution was trying to make the case that Jeffs was a creep who should be locked up, without regard as to whether he actually helped Allan Steed rape Elissa Wall (which, aside from his other faults, he probably didn't as a matter of law). And the jury fell for it.

So generally speaking, we could let prior bad acts in as evidence of--say--a unique modus operandi (for example, a defendant has a prior history of killing people and removing their thumbs, and is now on trial in a case where the victim's thumb had also been removed). But we don't get to say "well, he's a felon, and obviously felons kill people, end of story"--the link to the actual crime is just too tenuous. However--if Zimmerman brings up his own character as part of his defense (e.g. "I'm a good guy and would never do anything like this, would never disobey police orders," etc) - then he has "opened the door", in legal parlance, and the prosecution can bring in whatever they want about his character.

Edited April 25, 2012 by Just_A_Guy

[prisonchaplain]

JAG may answer this better than most, but today it was suggested that the prosecutor might have succeeded with a manslaughter conviction. Her choice to go for murder 2 baffled many, as it is so much harder to prove. Also, once that charge is made, there's no going back. And, alas, would the public now even settle for manslaughter?

[MorningStar]

Tyler, according to the age in your profile, you were about 1 when the LA Riots happened. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson know this could happen again and it is irresponsible of them to fan the flames, jumping to conclusions that Zimmerman is a racist who wanted to kill a black boy. They know that unreasonable people won't change their minds even when presented with facts that shed more light on the situation. There are people itching for an excuse to riot again and assault others just because of the color of their skin.

This article talks about it and the video is just a small sampling of the horrible things that happened over days. Rodney King LA Riots Told Through Shocking Videos, 20 Years Later (VIDEOS)

[Tyler90AZ]

Because the victim is not charged with a crime. And in this case, the victim is dead, and therefore unable to be slandered.

Tyler, where do you get your understanding of basic law? I'm no lawyer, not by any stretch, but what you say is so obviously wrong that I, and I daresay most of us, can see it's wrong a mile away.

Even if Zimmerman was instructed by police dispatch to stop following Martin and even if he disobeyed that counsel, that does not mean he has forfeited his right to defend himself. If he was attacked, he had a right to defend himself.

The most basic principles of our legal system demand that Zimmerman be considered innocent of any crime until PROVEN guilty beyond reasonable doubt. If there is any real evidence that Trayvon Martin attacked George Zimmerman, Zimmerman will walk (assuming our legal system has integrity in this case). There is no other just course.

That you are unable to see this basic truth is a cause of some concern. That significant numbers of others are equally unable to see it is a cause of very great concern.

The key word is following. If Zimmerman was following Martin, then Martin would have a right to defend himself. How was Martin suppose to know he wasn't trying to kill him? I mean in this guy, Martin had the right hunch(if he did attack first) the guy had a gun and would kill him. We will have to see the remaining evidence, but if Martin was close to home, then Zimmerman did indeed follow Martin. If that is not enough proof to convict Zimmerman of man slaughter, then anybody can kill and just claim self defense.

Your misunderstanding what I am saying, I agree innocent until proven guilty. That does not negate me or anyone from giving their opinion though. The majority of people are not saying hang Zimmerman without trial. That would be somebody else who does not understand innocent until proven guilty.

[Tyler90AZ]

Tyler, according to the age in your profile, you were about 1 when the LA Riots happened. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson know this could happen again and it is irresponsible of them to fan the flames, jumping to conclusions that Zimmerman is a racist who wanted to kill a black boy. They know that unreasonable people won't change their minds even when presented with facts that shed more light on the situation. There are people itching for an excuse to riot again and assault others just because of the color of their skin.

This article talks about it and the video is just a small sampling of the horrible things that happened over days. Rodney King LA Riots Told Through Shocking Videos, 20 Years Later (VIDEOS)

The guy was hit 50 times and the cops got acquitted for that crime. That is not a black issue, that is a human issue. Just because somebody is a criminal doesn't mean you can beat them.

The people who rioted were obviously mistaken for making it a black issue.

Edited April 25, 2012 by Tyler90AZ

[Just_A_Guy]

The guy was hit 50 times and the cops got acquitted for that crime. That is not a black issue, that is a human issue. Just because somebody is a criminal doesn't mean you can beat them.

The people who rioted were obviously mistaken for making it a black issue.

IIRC, King repeatedly lunged at the police officers--a fact that was edited out of the video excerpts that the networks chose to air. The beating was excessive, to be sure; but - again - it was publicly inflated to the point where when a jury was able to finally get down to the crux of the matter, certain core constituencies were unwilling to believe things could have happened in any way other than what the press had told them to be the "truth".

Biased press coverage + acquittal based on prosecutorial overreaching + racial overtones = riots. Sound familiar?

Edited April 25, 2012 by Just_A_Guy

[Tyler90AZ]

IIRC, King repeatedly lunged at the police officers--a fact that was edited out of the video excerpts that the networks chose to air.

Biased press coverage + acquittal based on prosecutorial overreaching + racial overtones = riots. Sound familiar?

Those riots were obviously done by uneducated criminals. I watched the video and looting was not only done by black people. Which proves the points that given the opportunity people will cause damage for no reason. I doubt it is anybody's intention involved in the Martin case to cause a huge riot. I am not familiar with Jackson or sharpton, so that is possible. Although that does not remove the fact that Martin was killed.

[MorningStar]

The guy was hit 50 times and the cops got acquitted for that crime. That is not a black issue, that is a human issue. Just because somebody is a criminal doesn't mean you can beat them.

The people who rioted were obviously mistaken for making it a black issue.

Are you kidding me? Tyler, you didn't see all of the coverage of white people being dragged out of their cars and beaten by black people who considered the Rodney King beating to be a race issue. You hear people yelling stuff like, "No justice for blacks today!"

[MorningStar]

Those riots were obviously done by uneducated criminals. I watched the video and looting was not only done by black people. Which proves the points that given the opportunity people will cause damage for no reason. I doubt it is anybody's intention involved in the Martin case to cause a huge riot. I am not familiar with Jackson or sharpton, so that is possible. Although that does not remove the fact that Martin was killed.

And uneducated criminals get riled up by Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.

[Just_A_Guy]

Those riots were obviously done by uneducated criminals.

Unfortunately, we enjoy a surfeit of those today as well.

I watched the video and looting was not only done by black people. Which proves the points that given the opportunity people will cause damage for no reason [emphasis added].

Perhaps, but there's a difference between reason and excuse.

I doubt it is anybody's intention involved in the Martin case to cause a huge riot.

I wish I could share your faith in human nature.

[bytor2112]

Great story on who Zimmerman is and the lead up to the shooting.....worth the read.

[Tyler90AZ]

I will give it to you all, you changed my mind as far as beyond a reasonable doubt. Common sense would tell me he should be at least convicted of manslaughter. But that is not what the law tells me. I agree with how our legal system is set up, as far as beyond a reasonable doubt. Much rather see guilty people go free, then have one innocent person in prison.

[Tyler90AZ]

Are you kidding me? Tyler, you didn't see all of the coverage of white people being dragged out of their cars and beaten by black people who considered the Rodney King beating to be a race issue. You hear people yelling stuff like, "No justice for blacks today!"

If you have not noticed I am a bit of a contrarian. I like to debate all sides of arguments, feel I learn the best that way.

\

In this case I was referring that it should be a human issue that a man got beat that horribly.

Edited April 26, 2012 by Tyler90AZ

[john doe]

The key word is following. If Zimmerman was following Martin, then Martin would have a right to defend himself. How was Martin suppose to know he wasn't trying to kill him? I mean in this guy, Martin had the right hunch(if he did attack first) the guy had a gun and would kill him. We will have to see the remaining evidence, but if Martin was close to home, then Zimmerman did indeed follow Martin. If that is not enough proof to convict Zimmerman of man slaughter, then anybody can kill and just claim self defense.

Your misunderstanding what I am saying, I agree innocent until proven guilty. That does not negate me or anyone from giving their opinion though. The majority of people are not saying hang Zimmerman without trial. That would be somebody else who does not understand innocent until proven guilty.

No, the key word is not following. The key word may be attacking or possibly even threatening. You do not get a free pass to beat on somebody just because they are following you. There is no defense needed for someone who is merely following you and reporting your movements and location to police, because there is no threat to you.

The important questions in my mind are who initiated the physical contact, and was Zimmerman fearful for his life or safety at the time he shot Martin? If Martin initiated the fight, and if Zimmerman was reasonably in fear for his life or safety at the time he shot Martin, then in my mind he was justified in taking whatever means he could in saving his own life. If Zimmerman threatened or attacked Martin, then it obviously puts a different light in the situation. But so far I have seen no evidence come out that paints Zimmerman as the aggressor who threatened or attacked Martin.

[john doe]

I will give it to you all, you changed my mind as far as beyond a reasonable doubt. Common sense would tell me he should be at least convicted of manslaughter. But that is not what the law tells me. I agree with how our legal system is set up, as far as beyond a reasonable doubt. Much rather see guilty people go free, then have one innocent person in prison.

Why? Because he shot a man that he claims attacked him? Why would defending yourself make you guilty of any crime? Is it because there was a gun involved?

[prisonchaplain]

Great story on who Zimmerman is and the lead up to the shooting.....worth the read.

It was especially interesting to discover that Zimmerman has some African ancestry...I believe his grandmother was African-Peruvian. I wonder if NBC will start calling him Black-Hispanic?