Fixed that for you.Me, myself and I - am personally confidant that Zimmerman did not initiate the attack- based on again me, myself and I and my life experiences with the "color" of person Martin is
Fixed that for you.Me, myself and I - am personally confidant that Zimmerman did not initiate the attack- based on again me, myself and I and my life experiences with the "color" of person Martin is
I can't argue with you because you only use logic and reason. Of course, you're right that nothing about Zimmerman's behavior that I described is technically illegal. Unless it can be proven that Zimmerman instigated the fight (which almost certainly won't happen), he will get away with being a racist prick who's actions resulted in the death of an innocent young man, which again isn't technically illegal. I suppose I let this fact rile me up and the justice-seeker in me wants to see him go to jail. Heck, him not going to jail would basically send the message that it's OK to get into a fight with someone for any reason, then shoot and kill them, and as long as nobody saw the fight you can claim self-defense and get away with it. I don't want to see this happen, but it looks like that's the direction we're heading.See, these are fair points. I'd note though that the adversarial system kind of has a built in counter-balance to this, which is that the prosecutor should be attempting to make the Juror's see what you see. That's why both sides are presented. If the defense tries to trip her up by essentially using her lack of education to make her look completely unreliable--then the prosecutor should have either realized she was a weak witness and not called her, or he should be there to counter this line of questioning.
There's not much "good" about our court system right now...BUT when a trial actually has this publicity and has resources behind it? The adversarial system tends to work these things out. Our courts typically fail because they bypass this system in the need for expediency.
Is the defense attorney a shit bag? Sure. A lot of lawyers are. But that's because the system is set up to bring all the mud out and have 12 angry men see who is clean afterwords. The thing is though, I don't find the line of reasoning that Zimmerman, even if he was an asshole (And I agree, he was), was "at fault" for an ass kicking. Nothing Zimmerman did should condone assault--it's really that simple. Was Zimmerman a douche-Rambo? Sure. Can you go around kicking douche-Rambo's ass? Nope. If Zimmerman started the altercation, physically, do I hope he goes to jail? Absolutely. But in order to see if he deserves that, the trial needs to be ugly, I need to see both the character and substance of the people leveling charges.
I'm not fond of how this is likely to turn out either. Regardless of what can be proven, I think it's quite likely that Zimmerman badgered Martin until the kid did what any kid would do, get pissed off and confront the crazy guy who'd been following him around for no good reason. He just happened to do this with a Charles Bronson wanna-be who drew down as soon as he realized he'd bitten off more than he could chew.Heck, him not going to jail would basically send the message that it's OK to get into a fight with someone for any reason, then shoot and kill them, and as long as nobody saw the fight you can claim self-defense and get away with it. I don't want to see this happen, but it looks like that's the direction we're heading.
Has this ever not been the case? You need physical evidence. It is stacked for the defendant. But it's the way it should be. I'd rather let a guilty man go than prosecute an innocent man.send the message that it's OK to get into a fight with someone for any reason, then shoot and kill them, and as long as nobody saw the fight you can claim self-defense and get away with it. I don't want to see this happen, but it looks like that's the direction we're heading.
Good intelligent from the heart post.I can't argue with you because you only use logic and reason. Of course, you're right that nothing about Zimmerman's behavior that I described is technically illegal. Unless it can be proven that Zimmerman instigated the fight (which almost certainly won't happen), he will get away with being a racist prick who's actions resulted in the death of an innocent young man, which again isn't technically illegal. I suppose I let this fact rile me up and the justice-seeker in me wants to see him go to jail. Heck, him not going to jail would basically send the message that it's OK to get into a fight with someone for any reason, then shoot and kill them, and as long as nobody saw the fight you can claim self-defense and get away with it. I don't want to see this happen, but it looks like that's the direction we're heading.
It is a very uncomfortable situation, no doubt. But as BoldW says, this situation has come up before--but it's usually domestic. A wife claims she killed her husband due to abuse (Middle of a fight, he's beating on her, she pulls a gun and pop), and gets off because it's self defense. Now, that situation is not totally the same because the wife usually has physical evidence of abuse (Previous injuries, hospital records ect)...But that's what this court case is trying to establish. Things like...Did Zimmerman have a history of (physically) antagonizing people? Has he been violent/aggressive with others? What do the wounds on him and Trayvon say? Was there reliable evidence leading up to his death that build a picture? ect, ect. All these things are meant to paint a picture--the same way, say, hospital records can paint a picture of an abusive marriage which exonerates the one being abused.Heck, him not going to jail would basically send the message that it's OK to get into a fight with someone for any reason, then shoot and kill them, and as long as nobody saw the fight you can claim self-defense and get away with it. I don't want to see this happen, but it looks like that's the direction we're heading.
Self-defense? Tanoomba says hire a hitman and kill the husband, and hopefully no one ever finds out.It is a very uncomfortable situation, no doubt. But as BoldW says, this situation has come up before--but it's usually domestic. A wife claims abuse, killed her husband, and gets off because it's self defense. Now, that situation is not totally the same because the wife usually has physical evidence of abuse (Previous injuries, hospital records ect)...But that's what this court case is trying to establish.
Yep a violent, drug using, wannabe thug fucked with the wrong bull and got the horns.Oh, come on. Let's put aside what can and cannot be proven, for a moment.
Do you really think that, given what we know about his history, that Zimmerman was just blithely following Martin and did absolutely nothing to escalate the situation? Yes, Martin's history is relevant too, and it's also probable that he felt disrespected or whatever and that he got aggro. But this narrative people are trying to generate that Zimmerman was just some innocent guy who got victimized by an angry young black man is ridiculous.
He was trying to play cop, it backfired on him, and he panicked and shot the kid in the ensuing scuffle. Regardless of what can be proven to the standard of guilt in a court of law, c'mon now. We all know exactly what happened here.
We don't know "exactly what happened here". If we did it would be alot easier. What we do know is that at some point Trayvon Martin was banging Zimmerman's head against the sidewalk, at which point Zimmerman pulled out a gun and shot him.Do you really think that, given what we know about his history, that Zimmerman was just blithely following Martin and did absolutely nothing to escalate the situation? Yes, Martin's history is relevant too, and it's also probable that he felt disrespected or whatever and that he got aggro. But this narrative people are trying to generate that Zimmerman was just some innocent guy who got victimized by an angry young black man is ridiculous.
He was trying to play cop, it backfired on him, and he panicked and shot the kid in the ensuing scuffle. Regardless of what can be proven to the standard of guilt in a court of law, c'mon now. We all know exactly what happened here.
amen brotherYep a violent, drug using, wannabe thug fucked with the wrong bull and got the horns.
Either that, or Zimmerman started questioning Martin. "What're you doin in this neighborhood, boah?"I've just got this feeling that Zimmerman grabbed the kid on the arm/attempted to grab at the kid or was otherwise the initiator of physical contact and the second that creep ass cracker laid a hand on Treyvon a fight started.
Which, in your world, is punishable by death.Also, if Zimmerman was a "wannabe cop" then Trayvon was a "wannabe thug".
The evidence actually seems to point to Zimmerman backing off and Trayvon following Zimmerman to confront him.Anyone who thinks that Zimmerman was "just following" Martin is an inbred hillbilly idiot.
No, that was when he started banging someone's head against the sidewalk.Which, in your world, is punishable by death.