"If I had a son He'd look like Trayvon"

[Ikeo74]

Last night on the news I saw "Jesse Jackson" marching with a group of other blacks carrying a sign that said, Justice for Trayvon.

Why don't blacks believe in the justice system doing the right thing? He already knows Zimmerman will be acquitted and he is stirring the pot to get blacks to riot. He is a trouble maker and a glory hound.

[Glock23]

Re: "If I had a son He'd look like Trayvon"

If the just finds Zimmerman not guilty of second degree murder they have to find him not guilty of the lesser charge. Both charges carry the same burden of proof which is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If there is reason to doubt that he is not guilty of murder then there is also a reasonable doubt that he is not guilty of manslaughter. If the jury follows the law Zimmerman should be acquitted.

Not true. Every guilty verdict, regardless of the crime (various levels of a crime) require guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The difference is in the level of crime and what its distinctions are.

Murder/homicide/manslaughter... no one is denying that Zimmerman killed Trayvon, so that part of the burden of proof is already taken care of. What's left is the mens rea (state of mind) and malice aforethought (intent, if any).

1st degree murder (not applicable to this trial) requires premeditation or planning.

2nd degree murder requires ill will, or the intent to do harm. Z followed T out of suspicion, not with the intent to do him harm... at least as far as the prosecution has shown, and most would probably agree to that.

Manslaughter (of the voluntary kind... i.e. intentionally shooting someone) is basically defined as a crime of passion. There is a sudden provocation, and you kill in response to the passion (fear, anger, etc.... emotional arousal). This fits the scenario that happened, according to the reported events.

The key as to whether or not he is actually guilty of manslaughter lies in how the jury view's the entire situation with regards to the legal claim of self defense.

If they believe he was not following T, that he really was just on his way back to his truck when T confronted him, then they should find him not guilty.

If they believe that Z WAS following T, then they should recognize that the law defines him as the aggressor, which nullifies justifiable use of deadly force in self defense, in which case they should find him guilty.

For the record... when asked by the dispatcher if he was following Z, he said that he was. However, trial testimony regarding his deposition and official statement has him claiming that he was not following T... but that he got out of his truck to find a street sign to tell the dispatcher a more accurate location. A more accurate location within a small neighborhood with all of 3 or 4 streets... which Z had lived in for several years. The police even brought up the fact (one which I questioned here before) that he had more than enough time to return to his truck, which he claims to have been doing.

If I'm on the jury, he's guilty of manslaughter.

[dkmatthews]

Glock23 -- I like your explanation, right up until you veered off and claim that merely following someone would make the defendant an aggressor.

The last time I checked, there is no law against following someone. If there is no law against it, it's legal.

[Glock23]

I've said it several times, and I'll say it again. Following someone is not breaking the law.

However....

In the initial "confrontation," Z was sitting in his truck watching T... and T was standing in the rain watching Z. Neither knows who the other is, or what the other's intentions are.

For whatever reason, T takes off running. Z even tells the dispatcher that T took off running.

Z then gets out of his truck and starts following him. Right then, in the eyes of the law, Z became the aggressor. Bottom line, end of story, no ifs, ands or buts. Intent or no intent, he's the aggressor.

[FLBri]

I've said it several times, and I'll say it again. Following someone is not breaking the law.

However....

In the initial "confrontation," Z was sitting in his truck watching T... and T was standing in the rain watching Z. Neither knows who the other is, or what the other's intentions are.

For whatever reason, T takes off running. Z even tells the dispatcher that T took off running.

Z then gets out of his truck and starts following him. Right then, in the eyes of the law, Z became the aggressor. Bottom line, end of story, no ifs, ands or buts. Intent or no intent, he's the aggressor.

It's also not against the law to be an "aggressor".
I would, also want to "aggressively" investigate what appeared to be trouble brewing, if it happened in my home, neighborhood, place of business, grocery store parking lot, etc.
If in the process of being "aggressive" T confronts him in return and puts Z in a position of defending himself, Zimmerman's "aggression" is irrelevant to the crime. He was NOT the aggressor in the fight.

The aggression of concern is trumped by the aggression of battery. One is legal ... one is not.

[Glock23]

Re: "If I had a son He'd look like Trayvon"

It's also not against the law to be an "aggressor".

True. But being the LEGAL aggressor DOES remove your LEGAL right to defend yourself with deadly force.

If in the process of being "aggressive" T confronts him in return and puts Z in a position of defending himself, Zimmerman's "aggression" is irrelevant to the crime. He was NOT the aggressor in the fight.

Z's aggression at this point may be morally irrelevant, as any sane person would defend themselves... but his initial aggression is not LEGALLY irrelevant.

I'm not trying to be argumentative here, but so many of you are choosing to completely ignore the fact that LEGALLY, Z was the initial aggressor, choosing instead to focus only on the fact that he shot someone who attacked him.

I'm not making this up. I was taught this by people with much higher legal degrees than I have... it has been mentioned in numerous articles and interviews. Why do you think they did not move forward with the "stand your ground" hearing? Because it does not apply if you are the aggressor.

We all know that juries have a tendency to vote their hearts, not the letter of the law, but that doesn't make uninformed, incorrect arguments any more valid if they acquit Z.

[getsome]

I hope Z gets off and has learned a lesson about how fast something you intended to be a good thing can go real bad real fast....It has absolutely made me rethink the CCW thing and the conditions under which I would bring my weapon into play....

What I think we should be watching here is Obama, Just as a magician gets their audience to pay close attention to the hand where the coin isn't so they can manipulate the coin with their unwatched hand for the illusion to appear as magic....Obama and the DOJ could be using all the attention his puppet media is focusing on this trial and the possible riots breaking out if Z is acquitted to do something behind our backs like possibly trying out just how far they can go with martial law...

It's pretty obvious the DOJ is using all their power to influence this case for some reason like forcing the Police Chief to resign to be replaced by a Black Chief and likely whispering in the ear of Judge Debra Nelson that a juicy Federal position might be waiting in the wings is she will manipulate justice and get Z the max jail time she can....

Couple question come to mind....Why is Obowel getting involved in what should be a local court case???...Why is the Judge so obviously on the Prosecution's side???....Why is Eric Holder involved in this case and why does he still have a job in the first place and why isn't he the one on trial headed to prison for perjury ???

[Bawanna]

True. But being the LEGAL aggressor DOES remove your LEGAL right to defend yourself with deadly force.


Z's aggression at this point may be morally irrelevant, as any sane person would defend themselves... but his initial aggression is not LEGALLY irrelevant.

I'm not trying to be argumentative here, but so many of you are choosing to completely ignore the fact that LEGALLY, Z was the initial aggressor, choosing instead to focus only on the fact that he shot someone who attacked him.

I'm not making this up. I was taught this by people with much higher legal degrees than I have... it has been mentioned in numerous articles and interviews. Why do you think they did not move forward with the "stand your ground" hearing? Because it does not apply if you are the aggressor.

We all know that juries have a tendency to vote their hearts, not the letter of the law, but that doesn't make uninformed, incorrect arguments any more valid if they acquit Z.

This is why so many lawyers on one planet help completely destroy logic and common sense, that which is left that is.

Your stating that I see a person I suspect is up to something and I choose to follow to try and determine what that might be, so I am the aggressor.
Now the person I'm following decides he doesn't like me following so he's gonna open a can of whoop arse on me. An action I really want no part of and I'd be happy if he'd just leave, but because I was following him and I'm the aggressor I shouldn't defend myself because since I was the aggressor I can't claim self defense and/or stand your ground.

Common sense and logic dictates that when Obummers son decided to approach Z, the tides were turned. Now Obummers son is the aggressor and Z is the aggressy. This is of course assuming the scenario played out the way everyone seems to think it did.

What this creates is a mind set whereby the general rule of thumb is as a few here have already mentioned. Look the other way, don't defend anyone but yourself or your own, just let the crime happen, let the gang banger to what gang bangers do.

I to this day still feel the local law men had it right, no crime, move along, nothing to see here.

[Glock23]

Re: "If I had a son He'd look like Trayvon"

Your stating that I see a person I suspect is up to something and I choose to follow to try and determine what that might be, so I am the aggressor.

Yes, because it was only your suspicions that he was up to something... you saw him do nothing wrong.

He didn't see Z and think, "****, he saw me" and ran off like he was busted peeping in windows. He saw Z, watched him... came closer... watched him... then split.

For all we know, he was worried that some strange white guy was watching him... so he ran. The point is, he was not visibly doing anything wrong, so Z had no reason to try and follow him.

What this creates is a mind set whereby the general rule of thumb is as a few here have already mentioned. Look the other way, don't defend anyone but yourself or your own, just let the crime happen,

By all means, defend yourself and others... against crimes actually directed at yourself and others.

let the gang banger to what gang bangers do.

And this part here, without making it personal, is the main problem with a lot of people.

Regardless of what information comes out after the fact about the victim, waaaaayyyyy too many people see that a black kid wearing a hoodie, walking in the rain, at night, in a predominantly "non-black" neighborhood, must certainly have been up to no good. Black guy in that situation must be a gang banger, right? Z even said he looked like he was on drugs or something, and he's the neighborhood watch captain, so he must know, right?

Take out the part about Z following him without cause, and it's a justified shooting. But that's not how it happened.

[dkmatthews]

I still don't get how on God's green earth following someone equals assault and is justification for getting jumped.

Glock23 can follow me all damn day but as long as he doesn't touch me or my property, I don't see that I can do anything about it.

[Bawanna]

Yes, because it was only your suspicions that he was up to something... you saw him do nothing wrong.

He didn't see Z and think, "****, he saw me" and ran off like he was busted peeping in windows. He saw Z, watched him... came closer... watched him... then split.

For all we know, he was worried that some strange white guy was watching him... so he ran. The point is, he was not visibly doing anything wrong, so Z had no reason to try and follow him.


By all means, defend yourself and others... against crimes actually directed at yourself and others.


And this part here, without making it personal, is the main problem with a lot of people.

Regardless of what information comes out after the fact about the victim, waaaaayyyyy too many people see that a black kid wearing a hoodie, walking in the rain, at night, in a predominantly "non-black" neighborhood, must certainly have been up to no good. Black guy in that situation must be a gang banger, right? Z even said he looked like he was on drugs or something, and he's the neighborhood watch captain, so he must know, right?

Take out the part about Z following him without cause, and it's a justified shooting. But that's not how it happened.

Important to note, you bring up "black kid, hoodie, and predominantly non-black neighborhood" your words and thoughts, not mine and may or may not have been Z's thoughts either. Testimony indicates he was unclear of T's nationality which is a moot point. There is a mountain of white anglo gang bangers too. They wear hoodies too. I where a hoodie sometimes too. Usually when it's cold or raining, not to disquise myself while I'm up to no good.

[Glock23]

Re: "If I had a son He'd look like Trayvon"

Important to note, you bring up "black kid, hoodie, and predominantly non-black neighborhood" your words and thoughts, not mine and may or may not have been Z's thoughts either. Testimony indicates he was unclear of T's nationality which is a moot point. There is a mountain of white anglo gang bangers too. They wear hoodies too. I where a hoodie sometimes too. Usually when it's cold or raining, not to disquise myself while I'm up to no good.

Just applying words to the current situation, as that's what's being discussed. And Z said on the 911 call that "he looks black."

And for the record, as far as my words and thoughts, if it hasn't been made painfully obvious by this point, I'm cheering for the side of that black hoodie-wearing kid... especially since they've added manslaughter as an option and the law vs situation can actually fit a conviction, should the jury vote that way.

[tv_racin_fan]

For the record... when asked by the dispatcher if he was following Z, he said that he was. However, trial testimony regarding his deposition and official statement has him claiming that he was not following T... but that he got out of his truck to find a street sign to tell the dispatcher a more accurate location. A more accurate location within a small neighborhood with all of 3 or 4 streets... which Z had lived in for several years. The police even brought up the fact (one which I questioned here before) that he had more than enough time to return to his truck, which he claims to have been doing.

If I'm on the jury, he's guilty of manslaughter.

Actually according to the audio tape at the time Mr Zimmerman was attacked by Mr Martin Mr Zimmerman was not following him. Go listen to that tape again.

I'll paraphrase it a bit.

Mr Zimmerman tells the dispatcher that Mr Martin is running. Dispatcher asks which way. Mr Zimmerman answers the dispatcher and is getting out of his truck to see where Mr Martin actually went to since he ran around a corner. Dispatcher hears heavy breathing wind noises and asks Mr Zimmerman ius he following Mr Martin. Mr Zimmeran says yeah and the dispatcher tells him we do not need you to do that. Mr Zimmerman says ok and the heavy breathing/wind noises go away.

THIS is where Mr Zimmerman claims that he went on beyond that corner thru the intersection of sidewalk on out to the street to get an address. Then Mr Zimmerman claims that he was on his way back to his truck passing thru that intersection and actually beyond when Mr Martin confronted him.

I didn't watch the full trial so it is entirely possible that I missed something.

BUT from what I did see and from the audio of the phone conversation and the video of Mr Zimmerman explaining to the police what transpired I have to say that Mr Zimmerman is guilty of self defense.

I lived in a neighborhood of three streets for nearly 20 years and I can not recall the name of that third street even tho I passed right by it every time I went out of the neighborhood. I had no reason to know the name of that street in order to tell anyone how to get to my home it was simply a street I passed. My current neighborhood is a single street, I know the name of that street...but I still have to confirm the number now and again.

[Bawanna]

Good thing we're not on the jury, we'd be dead locked forever.

[Glock23]

Re: "If I had a son He'd look like Trayvon"

Actually according to the audio tape at the time Mr Zimmerman was attacked by Mr Martin Mr Zimmerman was not following him. Go listen to that tape again.

Honestly, it does not matter whether Z was following T at the time of the attack, or if he really was on his way back to the truck.

The ONLY thing that matters, with regards to establishing who is the initial aggressor of the situation, is the fact that Z got out and followed as soon as T took off running.

That aside, if he really was looking for a street sign, why not drive to it? Why get out in the rain and eventually run between apartment complexes into what is essentially a shared back yard with a walking path down the middle, with almost no lighting?