Unnarmed 17 year old shot dead "in self defence"

[Spike88]

This shows how far out of the loop I am, I just heard of this story today.

After reading up on it, I was convinced Zimmerman should be charged. But after finding out Trayvon has been suspended 3 times, and was once found with stolen paraphernalia in his back pack, I'm not so sure that he's entirely innocent. As I wasn't there when it happened, I honestly cant say what happened, and at this point it's all "He said She Said".

What I can say is that Zimmerman should definitely be banned from Neighbor Hood watch as he did go against their rules. On top of that, I think if this does go to trial, at this point you honestly would have a hard time finding an impartial jury. I just hope no one lays hands(save for the police) on Zimmerman, as that would just spiral this out of control.

I don't know the law, but wouldn't a polygraph help clear some things up?

Also, the Media seems to be doing what they do best, and sensationalizing this. If this situation had been between two white people, or two black people, I doubt it would get this much media attention.


Either way, I hope justice is served, if Zimmerman is guilty he deserves the time. Also, I wish the best to the Martin family, and I hope Trayvon is resting in peace.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Spike88

But after finding out Trayvon has been suspended 3 times, and was once found with stolen paraphernalia in his back pack, I'm not so sure that he's entirely innocent.

Why do you think any of this is applicable to the shooting incident?

In any case, since Zimmerman had no knowledge of any of Trayvon's past, are they really relevant?

[Spike88]

Originally Posted by Platapus

Why do you think any of this is applicable to the shooting incident?

In any case, since Zimmerman had no knowledge of any of Trayvon's past, are they really relevant?

All I'm saying is that he's not an entirely "good" kid. His parent's and his lawyer are trying to to peg him as a "good" kid who has not done anything wrong in the past, and when they found out that Zimmerman had a previous record, the father "reportedly" said my kid doesn't have a record.

I don't believe for the slightest that Trayvon deserved death, but I think the fact he has a tainted record could mean he is not entirely innocent in this case. The same is true for Zimmerman, the fact he has previous run in's with the law(which have been expunged) means that he could also be not innocent.

If one of them had a clean record and the other did not, I would take the side of whoever had a clean record. As neither of them have a clean record, I stand by my "I wasn't there, so I don't know" point of view, and just hope that justice is served.

[Stealhead]

Well actually one has a clean record where it counts which is legal record one person has a past here another does not.Just because some kid has gotten into trouble in school does not mean very much how many of us where truly 100% good kids in school not that many some people just get caught others do not not(many are sly foxes).Martin was not going to one of those "basically this a jail for kids who are not in jail at this given moment" schools (sorry but there must be 1000 names for these type schools for the really bad kids.)

Also basing guilt on ones past leads to folly easily a person that justly enforces the law should know that anyone can do something they should not regardless of past history and a past history is not a sure sign of guilt unless you catch them red handed.

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by Stealhead

Well actually one has a clean record where it counts which is legal record one person has a past here another does not.Just because some kid has gotten into trouble in school does not mean very much how many of us where truly 100% good kids in school not that many some people just get caught others do not not(many are sly foxes).Martin was not going to one of those "basically this a jail for kids who are not in jail at this given moment" schools (sorry but there must be 1000 names for these type schools for the really bad kids.)

Also basing guilt on ones past leads to folly easily a person that justly enforces the law should know that anyone can do something they should not regardless of past history and a past history is not a sure sign of guilt unless you catch them red handed.

Zimmerman has never been convicted of a crime. Here in the US we operate on the premise of innocent until proven guilty. At least, we are supposed to. Seems an awful lot of people want to ignore that point.

Funny you want to talk about Zimmerman's "record" in which there have been accusations but no convictions, yet want to claim the DISCIPLINARY actions (thus verified wrong behaviors) regarding Martin are irrelevant...

Double standard much?

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Zimmerman has never been convicted of a crime.

Does his father's position play into that? And what about the restraining order against him back in 2005? Furthermore, what's a person who had a restraining order against him doing with a GUN anyways? I thought that was illegal?

Funny you want to talk about Zimmerman's "record" in which there have been accusations but no convictions, yet want to claim the DISCIPLINARY actions (thus verified wrong behaviors) regarding Martin are irrelevant...

Double standard much?

How is being suspended from school even remotely equivalent with being arrested by the police for domestic assault and assault on a cop?

[August]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Does his father's position play into that? And what about the restraining order against him back in 2005? Furthermore, what's a person who had a restraining order against him doing with a GUN anyways? I thought that was illegal?

Just because a person has had a restraining order issued against them that is no justification for denying them their constitutional rights forever.

[RickC Sniper]

Regardless of how this turns out as far as the authorities and their investigation, I see a civil suit in the making, and a person's history or a pattern of violence can become relevant there if I'm not mistaken.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by August

Just because a person has had a restraining order issued against them that is no justification for denying them their constitutional rights forever.

Maybe I'm mistaken, but I thought it was illegal for someone with a restraining order against them to have a CHL. Maybe the one against Z was already expired? Who knows.

[August]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Maybe I'm mistaken, but I thought it was illegal for someone with a restraining order against them to have a CHL. Maybe the one against Z was already expired? Who knows.

Me either but I think if it were still in effect the fact would be trumpeted far and wide however we've heard practically nothing about it.

[gimpy117]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Maybe I'm mistaken, but I thought it was illegal for someone with a restraining order against them to have a CHL. Maybe the one against Z was already expired? Who knows.

may i remind you this is Florida we are talking about....

[August]

Originally Posted by gimpy117

may i remind you this is Florida we are talking about....

I wouldn't go there Bud.

In spite of having far more restrictive gun control laws on the books Michigan's murder rate has been consistently higher than Florida's.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

My concern has really gone away from the "who did what to who"'s in this case and has shifted towards this "stand your ground" law. It just seems to be poorly thought out, poorly enforced and rests on a shaky premise, as this case illustrates. I think more people should be concerned with revising or throwing out this law instead of getting into the "Zimmerman's a bad guy/good guy" debate

As I said before, I agree with you that the law itself is the more interesting issue. However, I don't think its premise is shaky.

The issue at the heart of the law is whether or not a person under attack has the moral authority to not capitulate to an aggressor, and I agree with that whole-heartedly. I think that the issue with the law is a lack of strict verbage that spells out something to the effect of what Zimmerman did, and how his right to defend himself changes.

Yet, even that would be unsatisfactory I think. I suspect this case would be totally different if it were a 250lb, 30 year old white male that was killed.

Ultimately, I'm not certain that the law is the failure here. If was Zimmerman said was true and he was indeed attacked, despite having followed Martin, he was within his bounds to defend himself. I would agree with that if it were a large, 30 year old male so I must agree with it when it comes to a smaller, 17 year old male.

Now, if he antagonized him in any way, he should lose that right. Following someone is not nor should not be legally considered antagonistic. He had has much right to watch Martin move through his neighborhood as Martin had to be there.

Herein lies the problem with any self-defense law: it comes down to whether or not we believe the survivor. What worries me about this case is that it seems there are many people with a vested interest in NOT believing Zimmerman, the facts of the case be damned.

Now I'm not saying that Zimmerman was right, or wrong, here. I AM saying that I just don't know, and I'm unwilling to take a side of someone merely because they were a black teenager.

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

And what about the restraining order against him back in 2005?

We don't know the circumstances. Was it a 3 day order, a year long order, etc? In most jurisdictions a woman can file for an emergency order and get it ok'd by a judge temporarily without the other party ever getting an opportunity to refute the claim. In those cases, a hearing is set for 30 days, and a long term, "permanent" (which lasts a year) order is either allowed or the existing order is dismissed. So a person can have a restraining order put against them without any misdoing or even a chance to defend themselves. Your going to judge him guilty of a murder on that?

Furthermore, what's a person who had a restraining order against him doing with a GUN anyways? I thought that was illegal?

That depends on the order. Even if his right to carry was suspended under the terms of the restraining order, once that order lapsed (max one year from its inception date), his right to carry would be reinstated.

How is being suspended from school even remotely equivalent with being arrested by the police for domestic assault and assault on a cop?

Its actually worse. You see - being suspended from school means not only was young Martin accused of wrongdoing, when the matter was brought before the authority of the school, he was found "guilty" and punished from breaking "school law". He has his opportunity to assert a defense, and it was found lacking. His "oh so caring" mother or father could have raised a ruckus and fought for their son if he had been innocent of the accusations leveled against him. There is no indication they did so. As a parent - I can tell you I sure as hell would go to bat for one of my kids!

On the other hand, you have Zimmerman - who has been accused of things in his past. However, the matters were either dropped before it even went to court - or he was exonerated. Given that he was accused of assualt on a cop, I can safely say its unlikely such a charge was simply dropped - DA's and cops don't let that just slide. Yet in the end - he was never found to have been guilty of anything.

Bottom line - in the world each lived in - Martin in the world of teen age school authority and Zimmerman in the much harsher world of criminal justice, Martin was "found guilty" and Zimmerman was not.

Regardless of Martin's past, its a tragedy he was killed. Regardless of Zimmerman's past (or lack thereof), he is not pure as the driven snow in this. But to want to drag up accusations against Zimmerman that were never turned into convictions - while ignoring the past actions of Martin that were deemed punishable - really stinks. It does nothing more than use the tactics of personal destruction that some (and no - not you mookie) have always tried.....

*The seriousness of the accusations outweigh the truth of the matter*

That isn't how our justice system works. Thankfully.

I have custody of my young son because of the fact that the truth matters more than the accusations. I have had untold numbers of baseless, vile accusations made against me. When it all came out in the wash, the truth was plain - and I was blessed to be granted the opportunity to give my son something he sorely needed: A stable and loving home.

If you wanted to go by mere accusation, then I should be locked up in jail while my son would be living with and learning from his mother how to defraud welfare, from his oldest brother how to live on house arrest for conspiracy to commit armed robbery, how to be ok with probation for B&E, and from his sister how to get popped for selling meth.....

If you wanted to go with truth, then I am what I am - a Father with a young man who is being successful in developing his social skills, his education, and his mental and emotional growth. No behavioral problems. He is a success - he simply needed the right environment.

Yea - I will err on the side of truth - not mere accusation.

Trayvon being dead is a tragedy - and we will never fully know what happened in detail. But it is reasonable to say that given his past, he contributed to the circumstances that got him killed. Just as Zimmerman did as well.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Its actually worse.

I stopped reading there. I cannot have a discussion with someone who actually believes and will try to argue that being suspended from school is actually worse than being arrested. Hoo boy.