Trayvon Martin case to go to grand jury, Fla. state attorney announces

[Thomkal]

Yeah was just about to post a link to Roddy White's twitter response. Gee Roddy, overreact much?

Roddy White Reacts Harshly To George Zimmerman Verdict On Twitter

I admit I did not watch any of the trial if I could help it. I knew the jury were all women, were they all white as well?

[Lathum]

5 white one Hispanic.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by TroyF

In the criminal case, only the second part counts. Im not saying anyone is forced to agree with it, but that is seriously all that matters. I do not discount what Zimmerman did to put himself in the situation. It simply has no relevance in a criminal trial unless the prosecution could prove Zimmerman wanted to kill Martin all along.

Troy, I agree the only possible verdict, given the evidence presented, was reached.

But I do ave a question based on what you said above. Can the law really ignore how someone puts themselves in a dangerous situation? I'm not sure on this and it's for sure a slippery slope, to say your actions permit you to be harmed, but since he specifically claimed self defense can you legally fear for your life IF you started a fight.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by Lathum

5 white one Hispanic.

Thanks.

[molson]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Can the law really ignore how someone puts themselves in a dangerous situation?

Should we make it illegal to follow anyone, or to report what they perceive as suspicious behavior to the appropriate authorities? Or maybe it should be illegal to follow/suspect anyone of a different race or gender to attempt to curb that potential for racism? Or should we just have a provision in self-defense statutes that you forfeit any self-defense if you do either of those two things? I think that would be tough to implement, and it would have a lot of unintended and undesirable consequences.

A simpler way I think is just to include more of a proportionality requirement into self-defense statutes. In Idaho, the jury would be asked to find whether the degree of force found was reasonable given the degree of force he's defending against. The statute is intentionally written vaguely to give the jury the discretion to weigh in on their peers on the matter of what's "reasonable." I mean surely, if Martin was punching Zimmerman, as the evidence showed, Zimmerman at least as the right to punch back. He doesn't have to just lie there because of his transgressions of reporting something and following someone. Isn't the issue just force proportionality?

[molson]

Originally Posted by TroyF

We can play this game all night. What if TM were a raptor?

If I had any computer programming skills, I'd set up that website with drop-down menus where one could simulate this encounter between any combination of race/gender/occupations. We could have a definitive answer to the question - what would have happened if Zimmerman was an elderly French pastry chef, and Martin was a jittery eskimo firefighter.

Like you, I am completely bewildered as to the relevance of any of the hypothetical race and gender reversal experiments. Is the idea that if there's any one combination of races or genders that would result in someone going to prison, than they should all go to prison? If that's the case, than I think we should definitely put hypothetical black guy or hypothetical jewish guy on trial, perhaps with a hypothetical jury, to see if they're convicted. It wouldn't seem fair to send Zimmerman to prison just based on speculation that isn't tested by a hypothetical trial.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by molson

Should we make it illegal to follow anyone, or to report what they perceive as suspicious behavior to the appropriate authorities? Or should we just have a provision in self-defense statutes that you forfeit any self-defense if you do either of those two things? I think that would be tough to implement, and it would have a lot of unintended and undesirable consequences.

A simpler way I think is just to include more of a proportionality requirement into self-defense statutes. In Idaho, the jury would be asked to find whether the degree of force found was reasonable given the degree of force he's defending against. The statute is intentionally written vaguely to give the jury the discretion to weigh in on their peers on the matter of what's "reasonable." I mean surely, if Martin was punching Zimmerman, as the evidence showed, Zimmerman at least as the right to punch back. He doesn't have to just lie there because of his transgressions of reporting something and following someone. Isn't the issue just force proportionality?

I get, and Im playing devils advocate a tad, but...

When Zimmerman got out of his car to pursue TM he put apprehending this "suspect" above his personal safety. Then when things got out of control he shot him.

I don't care what color any of them are, but answer this hypothetical for me.
( and this is for my understanding of law)

If I spit in your face, cuss your mom and do everything possible to provoke a fight, without throwing the first punch, then get my ass beat....

Can I then shoot you when I fear tat you coud kill me?

Did I not cause my own peril?
Did Zimmerman not cause his?

That said FL law allows his actions apparently.

[molson]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

When Zimmerman got out of his car to pursue TM he put apprehending this "suspect" above his personal safety. Then when things got out of control he shot him.

We really don't know if he intended to actually physically apprehend him. Obviously he called the non-emergency line and wanted the police down there.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by molson

We really don't know if he intended to actually physically apprehend him. Obviously he called the non-emergency line and wanted the police down there.

Right but if was him and I feared for my life I wwouldnt go chasing down a 6' tall black "thug" in the dark...remember he didn't know it was a 17 year old kid...

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by rowech

I think the biggest thing this shows is the need for "instigator" clauses in some of our laws.

That does seem like a weird loophole. The case is weird and complex, but it still seems bizarre that the guy chasing the minor around with a gun ends up claiming self-defense.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

That does seem like a weird loophole. The case is weird and complex, but it still seems bizarre that the guy chasing the minor around with a gun ends up claiming self-defense.

My thoughts as well.

If I were being followed by some creepy guy, I might try to lose him and then beat the snot out of him because I fear for my safety. And, suddenly, because he has a gun, he can pretty much end me whereas I'm very unlikely to kill him by my own hand alone.

This is the part I have a hard time reconciling mentally in the case: I'm trying to figure out what Martin did wrong. And, I know this is not how the world works, but it seems unfair that the person doing nothing wrong was killed without any repercussions. It would be one thing if it were an accident: but we even have charges for vehicular manslaughter or negligence.

A person died, a person doing the wrong thing killed him, yet there is no crime. Yet I realize: I don't know how to fix the situation. As the laws are written, I don't think he did a crime. And I don't think there needs to be another law written to make what happened a crime. So not only did something wrong happen but there's no real way to fix it that I can discern.

SI

[sterlingice]

Is there a belief that the prosecution botched the case or that there just isn't enough evidence period?

SI

[murrayyyyy]

When will people learn not to tweet if you do not want people to know how you feel?

http://www.ridethepine.com/photos/vi...orge-zimmerman

[rowech]

Listening to the talking heads this morning, I think one of the fundamental problems is that people are looking to courts to judge outside the law to do what is right instead of what is legal. Perhaps going so far as to say not enough people really understand the law well enough to see the why as to how this verdict happened. The emotions here blur the line between the morality of allowing Zimmerman to not receive a consequence versus whether or not he was guilty of the crimes given.

[RainMaker]

The thing that is confusing to me is how I'd react if I was being chased around my neighborhood with a weapon. At some point I would fight if flight didn't work. I get if it's an officer of the law, but it seems weird that you have to obey the commands of whoever decides to chase you around.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The thing that is confusing to me is how I'd react if I was being chased around my neighborhood with a weapon. At some point I would fight if flight didn't work. I get if it's an officer of the law, but it seems weird that you have to obey the commands of whoever decides to chase you around.

I want to see Zimmerman punished somehow. I just don't think the things that were brought against him were possible. There has to be something out there that they could have charged him with.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by rowech

I want to see Zimmerman punished somehow. I just don't think the things that were brought against him were possible. There has to be something out there that they could have charged him with.

I agree, I do think manslaughter fits that mold. Perhaps the prosecution should have based their case on that and not the Murder 2 charge.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Right but if was him and I feared for my life I wwouldnt go chasing down a 6' tall black "thug" in the dark...remember he didn't know it was a 17 year old kid...

Martin was 5'11", but it doesn't matter. He was taller than Zimmerman. The "17 year old kid" walked over a mile in the rain to get some Skittles and Iced Tea (which are part of the ingredients to Purple Drank/Lean/Sizzulrp), had a history of confrontation, and was suspended from school. He doesn't seem like someone we give a shit about one way or the other.

Originally Posted by rowech

Listening to the talking heads this morning, I think one of the fundamental problems is that people are looking to media to judge outside the law to do what is right instead of what is legal. Perhaps going so far as to say not enough people really understand the law well enough to see the why as to how this verdict happened. The media here blur the line between the morality of allowing Zimmerman to not receive a consequence versus whether or not he was guilty of the crimes given.

Fixed that for you.

When it comes down to it, this is not a racial problem. If anything, let the blacks look to themselves as to who's killing whom. The overwhelming percentage of black homicides in the United States 2007-2011 were committed by blacks.

[TroyF]

[quote=sterlingice;2841047]My thoughts as well.

If I were being followed by some creepy guy, I might try to lose him and then beat the snot out of him because I fear for my safety. And, suddenly, because he has a gun, he can pretty much end me whereas I'm very unlikely to kill him by my own hand alone.

This is the part I have a hard time reconciling mentally in the case: I'm trying to figure out what Martin did wrong. And, I know this is not how the world works, but it seems unfair that the person doing nothing wrong was killed without any repercussions. It would be one thing if it were an accident: but we even have charges for vehicular manslaughter or negligence.

A person died, a person doing the wrong thing killed him, yet there is no crime. Yet I realize: I don't know how to fix the situation. As the laws are written, I don't think he did a crime. And I don't think there needs to be another law written to make what happened a crime. So not only did something wrong happen but there's no real way to fix it that I can discern.

SI[/

I hate hypotheticals when talking about guilt, but ere is mine.

Reverse the situation. There has been a series of breakins in your community. You see someone suspicious walking around the neighborhood. You call the cops and they say tey are on their way. Do you lose sight of the guy or just let it go? What if I change break ins to rapes?

What if I beat the hell out of someone because I think tey are following me?

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by rowech

I want to see Zimmerman punished somehow. I just don't think the things that were brought against him were possible. There has to be something out there that they could have charged him with.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I agree, I do think manslaughter fits that mold. Perhaps the prosecution should have based their case on that and not the Murder 2 charge.

You two really haven't followed the case.

[Young Drachma]

On this episode of Tone Deaf Message Boards..

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The thing that is confusing to me is how I'd react if I was being chased around my neighborhood with a weapon. At some point I would fight if flight didn't work. I get if it's an officer of the law, but it seems weird that you have to obey the commands of whoever decides to chase you around.

Martin NEVER saw the weapon until the fight started. I think this is an obvious one, because if he had he would ave mentioned it to his friend.

George Zimmerman was not planning to use his gun that night. I think this is where people are missing the boat with him and letting emotion get in the way of facts. I think a vast majority of the population, if being followed, would hide, call the police themselves or even knock on a door screaming for help.

Martin initiated a violent confrontation. For all of Zimmermans mistakes, which there were many, he did not start the violence. That was the 17 year old who jumped him from behind.

What should have been do to Zimmerman? Got me. While h made some stupid mistakes, Iam struggling to come up with something he id illegal based on the facts presented.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by TroyF

Martin NEVER saw the weapon until the fight started. I think this is an obvious one, because if he had he would ave mentioned it to his friend.

George Zimmerman was not planning to use his gun that night. I think this is where people are missing the boat with him and letting emotion get in the way of facts. I think a vast majority of the population, if being followed, would hide, call the police themselves or even knock on a door screaming for help.

Martin initiated a violent confrontation. For all of Zimmermans mistakes, which there were many, he did not start the violence. That was the 17 year old who jumped him from behind.

What should have been do to Zimmerman? Got me. While h made some stupid mistakes, Iam struggling to come up with something he id illegal based on the facts presented.

If you have no intention of using a gun, you don't have it with you. It's not a crumbled up $20 bill you find in your pocket by accident.

I guess the last part is where we differ. I feel the confrontation is initiated by stalking someone in the neighborhood. I don't feel that whoever throws the first punch is always the instigator.

[jeff061]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

If you have no intention of using a gun, you don't have it with you. It's not a crumbled up $20 bill you find in your pocket by accident.

I guess the last part is where we differ. I feel the confrontation is initiated by stalking someone in the neighborhood. I don't feel that whoever throws the first punch is always the instigator.

Agreed.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

If you have no intention of using a gun, you don't have it with you. It's not a crumbled up $20 bill you find in your pocket by accident.

There are a lot of people who do not leave the house without a gun. They don't carry it intending to use it. They carry it in-case they need to use it. I know to some people that is hard to understand (and even I don't completely agree with the mindset). But it is common, and completely legal as long as they have a permit.

Also adding to that, most of those who carry a gun with them every day never use it. They don't even ever pull it out. It just comforts them for it to be there. Whether you agree with them or not, it is their right.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

Martin was 5'11", but it doesn't matter. He was taller than Zimmerman. The "17 year old kid" walked over a mile in the rain to get some Skittles and Iced Tea (which are part of the ingredients to Purple Drank/Lean/Sizzulrp), had a history of confrontation, and was suspended from school. He doesn't seem like someone we give a shit about one way or the other.

Fixed that for you.

When it comes down to it, this is not a racial problem. If anything, let the blacks look to themselves as to who's killing whom. The overwhelming percentage of black homicides in the United States 2007-2011 were committed by blacks.

Wow.

[Young Drachma]

Stay classy, FOFC.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

There are a lot of people who do not leave the house without a gun. They don't carry it intending to use it. They carry it in-case they need to use it. I know to some people that is hard to understand (and even I don't completely agree with the mindset). But it is common, and completely legal as long as they have a permit.

Also adding to that, most of those who carry a gun with them every day never use it. They don't even ever pull it out. It just comforts them for it to be there. Whether you agree with them or not, it is their right.

I'm not arguing his right to have the gun on him (although I think it is fair to argue whether Trayvon should be allowed to own a gun) or carry it with him. But we know he had intention to use it under certain circumstances because he did in fact use it. I don't think he falls under your example of someone who carries it for comfort or fashion.

[molson]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Right but if was him and I feared for my life I wwouldnt go chasing down a 6' tall black "thug" in the dark...remember he didn't know it was a 17 year old kid...

I wouldn't either, but we're also not sure what kind of chasing down occurred. His story was that he just wanted to give police info about the direction Martin was going in, and that Martin doubled back around and instigated the physical part. We can't know exactly what happened, of course. I don't THINK Zimmerman was looking for physical confrontation, because I don't think he's a wanna be tough guy in that sense, he wanted more to be the hero that spotted a burglar for the police. But the only perception of the case was clouded by the initial media narrative, which was that Zimmerman was chasing Martin down with a gun, caught him, and then got beat up, but that's all speculation that wasn't really supported by the geography of where this stuff actually happened, or any other evidence.

[Neon_Chaos]

[TroyF]

RainMaker and Jeff,

I am trying to be respectful here, but that is pure horse manure. There are over 8 million concealed carry permits in this country right now. The people who have them certainly do not plan to use their gun everyday or in every confrontation. The gun is like a cell phone or keys, it is on them at all times and it does not mean they intend to use it.

If Zimmerman had wanted to use his gun, he would have had it unholstered and ready. He would not have waited until he was attacked fom behind and o n the ground.

Have whatever opinion you want on Zimmerman, I do not care. But please, stop acting like Zimmerman wanted to murder Martin. The facts of this case have never added up to 2nd degree murder. Ever.

[molson]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

If I were being followed by some creepy guy, I might try to lose him and then beat the snot out of him because I fear for my safety.

I think that'd be a mistake to physically attack a guy who you think is following you. Both in a safety and legal sense.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Young Drachma

Stay classy, FOFC.

As far as I can see this conversation has been very civil on both sides. You can choose to offer something constructive to it instead of trying to be holier than thou because god forbid people disagree with you.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I'm not arguing his right to have the gun on him (although I think it is fair to argue whether Trayvon should be allowed to own a gun) or carry it with him. But we know he had intention to use it under certain circumstances because he did in fact use it. I don't think he falls under your example of someone who carries it for comfort or fashion.

I think anyone who carries a gun has an intention to use it "under certain circumstances." That's the point, right? Very, very few carry it looking for the intention to use it. And that is what your comment suggested. Yup, he had a gun with the intention to use it to protect himself and/or others. That is a legal use, and what almost all gun carriers have as a motivation to carry. But your response to Troy's comment of "George Zimmerman was not planning to use his gun that night," was "If you have no intention of using a gun, you don't have it with you." There is a big, big, big difference between having a gun with intention of using it to protect yourself if the need arises, and carrying a gun with the plan to use it that night. See the difference?

[molson]

Originally Posted by TroyF

RainMaker and Jeff,

I am trying to be respectful here, but that is pure horse manure. There are over 8 million concealed carry permits in this country right now. The people who have them certainly do not plan to use their gun everyday or in every confrontation. The gun is like a cell phone or keys, it is on them at all times and it does not mean they intend to use it.

If Zimmerman had wanted to use his gun, he would have had it unholstered and ready. He would not have waited until he was attacked fom behind and o n the ground.

Have whatever opinion you want on Zimmerman, I do not care. But please, stop acting like Zimmerman wanted to murder Martin. The facts of this case have never added up to 2nd degree murder. Ever.

I don't know what this part of Florida is like, but that's one big different between say, the Northeast and Idaho. So many people carry here. I couldn't put a % on it, but it's significant. One might think that's stupid, and paranoid, and it might be, but it's a stretch from there to say that all these people must have certain murderous intent. But I bet a good number of them would pull it out if they found themselves getting punched in the face. That sounded dirty. You know what I mean. It doesn't necessarily mean that they're looking for physical confrontation, just so they can kill somebody and maybe get away with it. People from all walks of life are carrying around weapons all the time.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

I wouldn't either, but we're also not sure what kind of chasing down occurred. His story was that he just wanted to give police info about the direction Martin was going in, and that Martin doubled back around and instigated the physical part. We can't know exactly what happened, of course. I don't THINK Zimmerman was looking for physical confrontation, because I don't think he's a wanna be tough guy in that sense, he wanted more to be the hero that spotted a burglar for the police. But the only perception of the case was clouded by the initial media narrative, which was that Zimmerman was chasing Martin down with a gun, caught him, and then got beat up, but that's all speculation that wasn't really supported by the geography of where this stuff actually happened, or any other evidence.

I was just going off Zimmerman's own words when he said he was following him.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

Martin was 5'11", but it doesn't matter. He was taller than Zimmerman. The "17 year old kid" walked over a mile in the rain to get some Skittles and Iced Tea (which are part of the ingredients to Purple Drank/Lean/Sizzulrp), had a history of confrontation, and was suspended from school. He doesn't seem like someone we give a shit about one way or the other.

Fixed that for you.

When it comes down to it, this is not a racial problem. If anything, let the blacks look to themselves as to who's killing whom. The overwhelming percentage of black homicides in the United States 2007-2011 were committed by blacks.

Nice knowing you. After this POS post showing what a classless douchebag you are, you're going on ignore.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I'm not arguing his right to have the gun on him (although I think it is fair to argue whether Trayvon should be allowed to own a gun) or carry it with him. But we know he had intention to use it under certain circumstances because he did in fact use it. I don't think he falls under your example of someone who carries it for comfort or fashion.

What in the hell are you talking about? The evidence shows Martin jumped him from behind and that Zimmerman fired after that occured. Had Zimmerman WANTED to use the gun, he could have used it in an offensive position that would not ave had his head slammed on the ground first.

Now if your position is it did not happen the way I just described, we can talk again. Your problem is the prosecution tried to do just that and failed laughably. Even their own experts said Zimmerman's story was the most likely one.

Good lord. . .

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I was just going off Zimmerman's own words when he said he was following him.

Difference between following, and chasing down with the intent to instigate a physical confrontation or take him into custody. His story was that he was following him, but just for the purpose of keeping him in sight for police, not actually to attack him. That story is supported by the fact that he was actually in contact with dispatch, he wanted police down there. If he just wanted to stalk and murder a black teen (per the initial media narrative), involving the police was an interesting choice.

[cartman]

One thing I don't remember hearing during the trial was where Zimmerman had his gun concealed. There are three usual places, inside the waistband on the hip, small of the back, or shoulder holster. Based on the reenactment the attorney did with the doll during the trial, any of those places would have been difficult to get access to and retrieve the gun during the fight.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by TroyF

RainMaker and Jeff,

I am trying to be respectful here, but that is pure horse manure. There are over 8 million concealed carry permits in this country right now. The people who have them certainly do not plan to use their gun everyday or in every confrontation. The gun is like a cell phone or keys, it is on them at all times and it does not mean they intend to use it.

If Zimmerman had wanted to use his gun, he would have had it unholstered and ready. He would not have waited until he was attacked fom behind and o n the ground.

Have whatever opinion you want on Zimmerman, I do not care. But please, stop acting like Zimmerman wanted to murder Martin. The facts of this case have never added up to 2nd degree murder. Ever.

I'm not saying Zimmerman wanted to murder him. I am saying if you carry a gun you have the intent to use it under certain circumstances (something you said he had no plans to do).

For instance, I have a shotgun in my own home. It is my plan to shoot someone who enters my home illegally. You don't own or carry a gun without some plans for it. You are trying to act like it was an "aw shucks I have a gun on me" moment when no one does that.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

Martin was 5'11", but it doesn't matter. He was taller than Zimmerman. The "17 year old kid" walked over a mile in the rain to get some Skittles and Iced Tea (which are part of the ingredients to Purple Drank/Lean/Sizzulrp), had a history of confrontation, and was suspended from school. He doesn't seem like someone we give a shit about one way or the other.

Fixed that for you.

When it comes down to it, this is not a racial problem. If anything, let the blacks look to themselves as to who's killing whom. The overwhelming percentage of black homicides in the United States 2007-2011 were committed by blacks.

Spoken like a true Raiders fan, stay classy.

[molson]

It wasn't even proven at trial that Zimmerman continued to follow Martin after dispatch suggested he didn't. That was one of the big initial facts that everyone wanted to hang Zimmerman on. But it's not even clear that happened. His story was that he was on his way back to his car, and that could be bullshit, but it's not disproven by any evidence.

The early media reports of this were beyond obnoxious, and you really have to look at the trial evidence and not the stuff the media made up. There were reports that Zimmerman said "fucking coons" on the call. He didn't. NBC doctored the audio to make it sound like Zimmerman volunteered "he looks black!" to the dispatcher, when actually that was a response in a question from dispatch about Martin's race. Different media organizations doctored Zimmerman's mug shot photo to make him look whiter. The NYTimes and others popularized the phrase "white Hispanic", when they were hit with the severe disappointment that Zimmerman wasn't a WASPy guy wearing a cardigan. They never used that term before this case. I get so annoyed when the media can't get death tolls right, reports people as Boston terrorism suspects when they aren't, or announce arrest warrants were filed a week before they are just in an effort to be "first", but this had bigger stakes for Zimmerman and Martin and even society, and the conduct was deplorable. They wanted to this story to be a certain way, and if the facts didn't support it, they just made up their own. And of course there was a blacklash to that in more conservative media circles that exaggerated Martin's "thugishness" or whatever. Which was also deplorable. I don't think Zimmerman was as evil as portrayed by the left media or that Martin was as evil as portrayed by the right media. Just two guys who apparently both made some errors in judgment to a tragic result that Martin didn't deserve, and Zimmerman probably didn't' deserve to go to prison forever for.

[TCY Junkie]

Originally Posted by Lathum

As far as I can see this conversation has been very civil on both sides. You can choose to offer something constructive to it instead of trying to be holier than thou because god forbid people disagree with you.

I think he was saying he was holier than army.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Nice knowing you. After this POS post showing what a classless douchebag you are, you're going on ignore.

His post was not PC, but the facts were accurate.

Iced tea and skittles are used to make various drinks. Given Martin's cell phone records thatwere not allowed in the trial (nor should they have been by the way), i think it is likely Martin knew how to make said drink.

The last comment is the sobering one and should make all of us hang our heads in shame. According to crime data, 93 percent of murdered African Americans were murderedby othe African Americans.

It is a gut wrenching statistic and one that should cause everyone in the country, white or black or green to shed a tear.

Martin was headed down the wrong path, but he was just 17. That path could have changed. We need to find a way that more African American children grow up. There are so many perspectives, inventions, works of art , novels and other things that are being taken away by this notion of "thug life" and what it is to be a man.

And that is why I can understand some outrage here. A 17 year old is gone. Its sad. But that does not mean we can make up new facts to convict someone of a crime.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I'm not saying Zimmerman wanted to murder him. I am saying if you carry a gun you have the intent to use it under certain circumstances (something you said he had no plans to do).

For instance, I have a shotgun in my own home. It is my plan to shoot someone who enters my home illegally. You don't own or carry a gun without some plans for it. You are trying to act like it was an "aw shucks I have a gun on me" moment when no one does that.

And you initially made it sound like Zimmerman planned. To use the gun that night.

Im sorry if I am not following you here, what relevance does this have on this case?

Zimmerman had a ccp.
Zimmerman did not show the gun or violate nay laws of said permit
Zimmerman took the gun out of the holster in ab altecation where he felt he might die

Those facts are pretty much agreed upon by anyone who watched the trial. None of those things constitute a crime.

[miami_fan]

Good, race is back in the conversation.

[molson]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

Good, race is back in the conversation.

It's unfortunately unavoidable, when most of our information has to come from the media, who tried to make this case seem as racially charged as possible. If we only want to talk about the straight-up evidence that actually was a part of the trial, a lot of the early factual assumptions that the media reported as fact just don't hold up anymore (or at least, they were exposed as pure speculation unsupported by evidence.)

[Solecismic]

The facts of the case presented by the prosecution and what I expected based on the media accounts were very different.

I initially thought Zimmerman had followed a 12-year-old (the pictures some of the media outlets still use), pointing out to the dispatcher that he was doing so because the kid was black, then initiated a confrontation and shot him. Second-degree murder, life in prison, done.

So for most of this story I wasn't paying close attention, because I figured no jury would let Zimmerman walk, regardless of race.

I read a little more and realized it wasn't that simple. The prosecution then began its case and seemed to prove Zimmerman's defense - the physical altercation was one-sided and Zimmerman was losing.

Therefore, who instigated physical contact seems important. I would have wanted to hear from Zimmerman himself. Just look the jury members in the eye and tell them he was just following the guy.

But I don't think a jury can convict someone when there's doubt, and the evidence supports the defense's story.

Even now, though... Even with most of the facts more-or-less out there and the media outlets more-or-less done with whatever fabrications they need to make to get ratings... it's more a racial issue than it was a month ago.

We all know that following someone is not a crime. But if you're young and black and you're just going to the damned store to buy something, you still get looks. You still get followed by clerks. And when that happens, it's painful. I think there's an emotional violence in this.

I'm not sure what can be done to fix this problem. But I think when we hear about a black kid wandering in a richer neighborhood getting followed, that's the feeling the story invokes.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by TroyF

Martin was headed down the wrong path, but he was just 17. That path could have changed. We need to find a way that more African American children grow up. There are so many perspectives, inventions, works of art , novels and other things that are being taken away by this notion of "thug life" and what it is to be a man.

I think this is fascinating because the one who shot was arrested for assaulting an officer, had an ex file a restraining order over domestic violence, and a cousin claim sexual molestation from the age of 8.

Now I think it's fair to jusge the character of the people involved. I guess I would take Martin's over Zimmerman's, even if both are not good. If we are bringing up the pot smoking and fights, lets also bring up the woman beating and slipping his 8 year old cousin a digit.