Trayvon Martin and "Stand Your Ground" in FL

[Mavric]

It absolutely matters. Has directly to do with the bolded and underline part you quoted. If he had been there one night, how could they have expected anyone to recognize him?

 

No. Just no. Your quibble was with me saying he was walking home. You went so far as to say that you were convinced I didn't know what I was talking about, or had done was much research on the topic as I wanted to make it seem. Therefore, YOU made the argument about whether or not he had the right to be walking there and if that would be considered home. Period. Now, you've been soundly shown to be incorrect in your assertions, both about me and about if Martin was walking someplace he could consider home and you want to change the question to if we could expect anyone to recognize him? Sorry, friend. That's not going to happen.

Please show me where I made this argument.

 

Here:

Zimmerman had more right to be there than Martin did as that's where he lived.

Wrong. Saying someone had more right to be somewhere is not the same as saying the other person didn't have a right to be there.

[knapplc]

By the way, this is exactly what this situation does NOT need:

 

Sharpton to lead 'Justice for Trayvon' rallies

 

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Rev. Al Sharpton announced Tuesday that he will lead a national "Justice for Trayvon" day in 100 cities this weekend to press for federal civil rights charges against George Zimmerman.

 

Zimmerman's acquittal over the weekend in the shooting death of unarmed teenager Trayvon Martin has touched off protests around the country. The Justice Department is investigating whether Zimmerman violated Martin's civil rights when he shot the 17-year-old during a February 2012 confrontation in Sanford, Fla. Zimmerman said he fired his gun in self-defense.

 

 

---

 

 

 

I think, to someone predisposed to think that Zimmerman "profiled" Martin, that it looks pretty obvious that he did. But I doubt you're going to convince a jury of that with the available evidence.

[Mavric]

I didn't make any statements that Martin shouldn't have been there.

The fact that you've gone to this length to attempt to prove that Martin shouldn't have been walking in this neighborhood is just... mind numbing.

Mind numbing indeed.

YOU said he wasn't walking home. YOU said he could have not been walking there at all. The combination of these two statements suggests that you felt he didn't belong there. Otherwise, what was the point of making them?

Are you just going to keep ignoring my repeated explanation of why I said he could have not been walking there?

[JJ Husker]

And here we touch on the problem I believe some of you are having. You are presupposing guilt.

 

And you are presupposing innocence. Knowing Zimmerman's background, his already-established pattern of doing just this kind of thing, it's no longer as simple as "presupposing innocence." It becomes a character trait, and it's not a good one in light of the fact that Martin is dead.

 

I am presupposing innocence. I thought that was the foundation of our justice system "innocent until proven guilty"? That is why I find some of this discussion disturbing. I don't know GZ from a hole in the ground and personally I have no investment in either outcome. I would be just as satisfied if the evidence had proven him guilty. I'm not going to say I'm happy or upset about his guilt either way but, I am happy that, given the lack of proof and the prosecutions case as presented, he was found not guilty. In my book, you need to bring a lot more to the table if you want to convict someone of anothers death.

 

Now, could it be all wrong? Could GZ be some out of control racist that was just itching to get his point across? Absolutely. Problem is, that needs to be proven and not guessed at, not even an educated guess. But beyond reasonable doubt. I have more than reasonable doubt.

[Mavric]

I've asked before and no one seemed to have an answer so I'll ask again. Zimmerman had a long history of investigating suspicious activity in that neighborhood. Had he ever confronted any of his suspects before? I don't know the answer to that question but it would seem to give some insight into if Zimmerman was telling the truth or not. If he had never confronted anyone else, it would seem fairly unlikely that this would be the first time. If he had a history of confronting people, it would make his story harder to believe.

 

Zimmerman has had run-ins with the law, including domestic battery accusations (in which he counterfiled against his now ex-fiancee, and charges were dropped) and another charge of “resisting officer with violence” and “battery of law enforcement officer,” which were later dropped when he went to an alcohol treatment program. Those were years before this situation, and not necessarily relevant.

 

This was the first time, according to the police investigation, that Zimmerman had confronted someone - something a police trainer had warned them not to do.

 

An FBI report shows Zimmerman had a pattern of calling authorities about criminal activities and safety issues in his neighborhood. In one of the calls to Sanford police, Zimmerman complained about children playing and running in the street. Four calls were about black men he said he witnessed in the neighborhood after break-ins, according to the report, release by the state attorney's office.

 

 

 

Assistant State Attorney Richard Mantei argued Tuesday he wants the jury to hear the calls to show that Zimmerman had a growing frustration and that in the past he had not approached people. Something changed on Feb. 26, 2012, Mantei said, and the jury should hear that Zimmerman took action in a way he never had before.

 

LINK

So he's never confronted anyone before but so many are so sure he confronted Martin this time. Even the Asst. State Attorney said he hadn't previously. Seems odd to me.

 

"Never confronted anyone before" is one way to look at it. Assaulting a police officer while resisting arrest and smacking/shoving your fiancee around aren't exactly like pursuing an unarmed teenager while armed with a handgun, so they're not entirely the same thing, but this isn't the first time Zimmerman has done something similar.

 

In August, 2005 Zimmerman's ex-fiancee accused him of "trolling her neighborhood" in his car, then confronting her in her apartment, refusing to leave, and engaging in a shoving match with her.

 

Sound familiar? Probably just a coincidence.

 

Oddly, this bit of information never made it to trial because Zimmerman's attorney had it declared inadmissible. But the fact that Martin had been expelled from school did make it into the trial.

I wasn't very specific. My "never confronted anyone before" was in the context of his neighborhood watch duties. I said that in my first post that is quoted above but I didn't repeat it.

 

In the case of the ex-girlfriend, we do have both witnesses on that incident? Did we get Zimmerman's side of the story or just hers?

[Junior]

And here we touch on the problem I believe some of you are having. You are presupposing guilt.

 

And you are presupposing innocence. Knowing Zimmerman's background, his already-established pattern of doing just this kind of thing, it's no longer as simple as "presupposing innocence." It becomes a character trait, and it's not a good one in light of the fact that Martin is dead.

 

I am presupposing innocence. I thought that was the foundation of our justice system "innocent until proven guilty"? That is why I find some of this discussion disturbing. I don't know GZ from a hole in the ground and personally I have no investment in either outcome. I would be just as satisfied if the evidence had proven him guilty. I'm not going to say I'm happy or upset about his guilt either way but, I am happy that, given the lack of proof and the prosecutions case as presented, he was found not guilty. In my book, you need to bring a lot more to the table if you want to convict someone of anothers death.

 

Now, could it be all wrong? Could GZ be some out of control racist that was just itching to get his point across? Absolutely. Problem is, that needs to be proven and not guessed at, not even an educated guess. But beyond reasonable doubt. I have more than reasonable doubt.

 

The thing is, we are not on the jury here. We have all stipulated, repeatedly, that we understand the legal verdict. What we don't understand are the people who think he is blameless (this seems to be not you, so I don't think we have an issue there). There's ample evidence to suggest his story is bunk, and that he is a morally repugnant waste of humanity. In particular, the instance where he says he regrets nothing and would do it all over again.

[knapplc]

In the case of the ex-girlfriend, we do have both witnesses on that incident? Did we get Zimmerman's side of the story or just hers?

 

I'm not sure what you're asking. Both Zimmerman and the fiancee filed against each other - she filed first and he filed after - and both presented evidence to the court in the matter. The judge ruled they should not have contact for a year. No guilt on either party was established.

[Junior]

Wrong. Saying someone had more right to be somewhere is not the same as saying the other person didn't have a right to be there.

 

I see we've resorted to semantics.

 

Fine, I'll play your game. Trayvon Martin had an equivalent right to be walking there as Zimmerman did, unless you can point me to the law that says he did not. Tell me, who is allowed to walk on a sidewalk, and who is not?

[Apathy]

LOL I get that. Ok since you said that I'm mad, then what am I mad about?

 

I'm not certain. But I do know you're all up in here.

As well as many others

[sd'sker]

LOL I get that. Ok since you said that I'm mad, then what am I mad about?

 

I'm not certain. But I do know you're all up in here.

As well as many others

i do not think anyone is mad, we just do not understand why anyone would be happy. someone is dead. this is a tragedy. the legal system did its job and zimmerman should have been acquitted, but that does not mean that what he did was right or good.

 

most people who seem angry are just confused as to why anyone would defend the actions of a vigilante like zimmerman.

[carlfense]

For the sake of learning, what is he talking about and how would he be right or wrong??

I think that this is the affidavit in question:

http://hosted.ap.org...n-affidavit.pdf

 

When he refers to violating the rules of her profession he is talking about these rules:

http://www.floridaba...&Expand=4.5#4.5

 

While he didn't specifically say, I have to assume that he is talking primarily about 4-3.8

4-3.8 talks about the special duties of a FL prosecutor and says that prosecutors shall "refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause.”

 

Probable cause is a low bar to clear when compared to reasonable doubt.

 

He would be wrong in this instance if it can’t be shown that this prosecutor violated the rules of her profession; i.e. the Florida State Bar Association.

 

(Caveat: It's possible that he was talking about disclosure prior to trial . . . but it looks from your excerpt like he is talking about the charges themselves.)

 

___________________________________________

 

Crimes are statutory. I’m unaware of a Florida criminal statute (but then again I’m unfamiliar with most Florida statutes . . .) that was even arguably violated by the prosecutor in this case.

 

He would be wrong about his criminal claim if she didn’t violate a criminal statute.

[knapplc]

I am presupposing innocence. I thought that was the foundation of our justice system "innocent until proven guilty"? That is why I find some of this discussion disturbing. I don't know GZ from a hole in the ground and personally I have no investment in either outcome. I would be just as satisfied if the evidence had proven him guilty. I'm not going to say I'm happy or upset about his guilt either way but, I am happy that, given the lack of proof and the prosecutions case as presented, he was found not guilty. In my book, you need to bring a lot more to the table if you want to convict someone of anothers death.

 

Now, could it be all wrong? Could GZ be some out of control racist that was just itching to get his point across? Absolutely. Problem is, that needs to be proven and not guessed at, not even an educated guess. But beyond reasonable doubt. I have more than reasonable doubt.

 

As is often the case, we're not that far off in opinion here, although it would appear by the way we're going back and forth that we're streets apart. Presupposed innocence is a fair point well made, and I concede the issue. I guess what concerns me is that, knowing both gentleman's backgrounds like we do, the guy who lived is walking away free. The other guy is dead. It seems wrong to me, and I can't get over the fact that, while Zimmerman's actions leading up to the altercation are legal, they are not prudent, and they resulted in Martin's death. It's been said several times but it bears repeating - those of us displeased understand the legality of the decision, we just disagree with the morality of the situation. Those are two separate issues, and that's where the disconnect on a lot of this stems from, I believe.

[carlfense]

. . . I can't get over the fact that, while Zimmerman's actions leading up to the altercation are legal, they are not prudent, and they resulted in Martin's death.

Yes.

 

Flag burning is a protected, legal, activity.

 

Protesting at a soldier's funeral is a protected, legal activity.

 

Carrying a concealed gun and following an unarmed teenager despite police warnings to the contrary is a protected, legal activity.

 

 

I wouldn't personally engage in any of the above . . . but they are legal and protected. Zimmerman chose to exercise one of those rights . . . and shortly thereafter he killed an unarmed teenager.

[JJ Husker]

Keep thinking I posted this but I did not. One other thing I'll add:

 

 

This is a race issue. Claim it isn't, but if you do you're flat out wrong.

 

The reason it is, if for no other, is that the only thing that prompted authorities to investigate this killing seriously was the national outcry.

 

Without the public backlash (centered around race), George Zimmerman never even gets arrested.

 

Why do you assume it was not investigated "seriously" to begin with? Maybe it's as simple as they didn't have enough evidence to charge or convict him (which would appear to exactly be the situation at this point in time). Where is your proof that they didn't look "seriously" into this originally? Just because they subsequently bowed to the pressure to proceed with charges does not indicate that they investigated it harder and figured out they had made a mistake. I would say the lack of any discernible case by the prosecution should be evidence of this.

 

And, given that it is now obvious they did not have a case to make, I feel it is somewhat of a travesty that GZ had to be drug through this ordeal. His life is forever changed and for what? To satisfy the media and race baiting special interests, that is why. But, I can live with that because the other young man is dead and his life was worth exhaustingly getting to the bottom of things.

 

I simply refuse to believe that my fellow man, at this point in time, would sweep a shooting death under the rug because the victim was a black youth. I refuse to go there because I would never consider doing that myself. I am perhaps amongst the most cynical of people but if I had that little confidence in my fellow man............I'm not sure how I would function on a daily basis. Maybe I would be decrying this verdict and insisting that of course GZ was guilty of something because, after all, a person is dead and, of course, it couldn't just be a situation that escalated out of control. I've said it before and I'll say it again for the last time; just because TM is dead does not have to mean GZ did anything wrong. Sometimes that bumper sticker "sh#t happens" is all there is.

 

Man do we need football season to start already. Talk about the dog days of summer.

[JJ Husker]

I am presupposing innocence. I thought that was the foundation of our justice system "innocent until proven guilty"? That is why I find some of this discussion disturbing. I don't know GZ from a hole in the ground and personally I have no investment in either outcome. I would be just as satisfied if the evidence had proven him guilty. I'm not going to say I'm happy or upset about his guilt either way but, I am happy that, given the lack of proof and the prosecutions case as presented, he was found not guilty. In my book, you need to bring a lot more to the table if you want to convict someone of anothers death.

 

Now, could it be all wrong? Could GZ be some out of control racist that was just itching to get his point across? Absolutely. Problem is, that needs to be proven and not guessed at, not even an educated guess. But beyond reasonable doubt. I have more than reasonable doubt.

 

As is often the case, we're not that far off in opinion here, although it would appear by the way we're going back and forth that we're streets apart. Presupposed innocence is a fair point well made, and I concede the issue. I guess what concerns me is that, knowing both gentleman's backgrounds like we do, the guy who lived is walking away free. The other guy is dead. It seems wrong to me, and I can't get over the fact that, while Zimmerman's actions leading up to the altercation are legal, they are not prudent, and they resulted in Martin's death. It's been said several times but it bears repeating - those of us displeased understand the legality of the decision, we just disagree with the morality of the situation. Those are two separate issues, and that's where the disconnect on a lot of this stems from, I believe.

 

I am in total agreement with this. Great post. I now feel like I can walk away from this topic. *wipes sweat from forehead*