TRAYVON Martin??

[Woodduck82]

Originally Posted by BatteriesNotIncluded

Innocent until proven guilty. Proven not guilty implies - by induction - innocent. Logic, people. I know nothing of the details of this case but know that looting and rioting will not solve it. I DO respect the peaceful protesters that shut down 288 for 15 mins or so. They allowed an ambulance to proceed but not normal civie cars.

I live near there. Absolutely insane blocking a highway like that. Guess the cattle guard on my truck would have made good use if i had run into that. That's not peaceful protesting, in fact they were breaking a law when they did that. They should all be arrested for impeding traffic.

[Randall Creed]

I've noticed that no one ever 'likes' Wakeup's comments.

Even yahoos that speak in the same dialog of ridiculousness don't give them a like. Just something I noticed as a read along. No big deal.

Getting back on topic, the FACTS remain that Zimmerman, THE KILLER, killed Trayvon Martin. The KILLER shot Martin. Martin is a MINOR. That means he's a kid, basically. Couldn't vote, couldn't drink, couldn't do all the cool shit that adults can do. He falls under the UNDERAGED category. He was followed around by a grown ass man. Imagine yourself at 17, and 'some joker' is following you. It's raining, getting dark, probably chilly. You're just ready to get home.

Here he is, followed by some yahoo, who has NOT established who he is or what he's doing. A grown man, with A CRIMINAL RECORD, to include resisting arrest (forceful resistance, btw), stalking a minor.

Why is it being ignored that he and his actions led to the death of a minor? At the core essence of this situation, this dude KILLED A KID.

Why is there NO ACCOUNTABILITY for this? Is he even getting probation? He took the life of somebody and is walking free, in a situation that he initiated. Trayvon never sought Zimmerman out. Zimmerman was told [advised] not to follow the kid. He ignored that. Why is not in trouble for THAT?

If I went outside right now and followed around a 16-year old white girl, at a minimum, I'd be arrested for stalking and possibly communicating a threat, and endangerment of a minor. It wouldn't matter where she was going. The fact I am 'in pursuit' of her would be considered a criminal act on my part. If I'm on the phone with a 911 operator, explaining this to them, they're probably going to ask me, FIRST OF ALL, why am I following her? If I was to say something like, "She looks like she's up to no good". They would PROBABLY tell me that IT'S NOT A CRIME. She hasn't 'done anything' yet. I would probably have to see her actually BEGIN some act that implies criminal activity.

What also would MOST LIKLEY happen is that someone else would call the police ON ME for what I was doing. What WOULD NOT help my case would be that I'm black. Further worsening my case would be that she's white. FURTHER worsening it is that she's a female. FURTHER YET would be that she's underaged.

Let's say she actually broke into a house, but before she did, she wandered through the neighborhood. I was following her a good portion of that neighborhood trek. ODDS ARE that they would STILL CHARGE ME for stalking an underage person. Though she would be detained if the police got there in time to catch her, I would also be detained for following a minor.

I bit long winded there (my bad). The point I was trying to illustrate is that, AT A MINIMUM, Zimmerman should've been charged for HIS ACTIONS that led to the death of a minor. The fact that nothing he did warranted criminal charges aside from the fact is appalling.

[Randall Creed]

Originally Posted by Wakeuр

You people seem to conveniently forget that he was innocent all along...even throughout the trial...by finding him not guilty, they confirmed his innocence...

You'll continue to cling to any possible hope you have to think of him as guilty...HE'S NOT...get the fuck over it...

How is he 'innocent' when he admittedly killed someone that he STALKED, INITIATED CONTACT WITH, and used a firearm against?

Even as a register gun toter, is it legal to walk around with a loaded weapon (unless you're a cop)?

[coolaid]

Originally Posted by Rambro Creed

How is he 'innocent' when he admittedly killed someone that he STALKED, INITIATED CONTACT WITH, and used a firearm against?

Even as a register gun toter, is it legal to walk around with a loaded weapon (unless you're a cop)?

He "STALKED" somebody who was walking through people's yards and private property. That was GZ's job! He was the neighborhood security watch guy, he's supposed to stalk somebody who looks suspicious.

How do you know he "initiated contact" with tm? From what I understand gz followed him, then lost him, then returned to his vehicle. It was when he was returning to his vehicle that tm came out of nowhere and hit gz from the back and proceeded to beat the crap out of him.

That is the scenario that was presented to the jury. There was no evidence that showed otherwise. How do you know something other than that took place? Were you there rc?

[Wakeup]

Originally Posted by Rambro Creed

Even as a register gun toter, is it legal to walk around with a loaded weapon (unless you're a cop)?

Um...yeah...I do it every day...everywhere I go...

:facepalm:

Face it...it's not a crime to kill a black kid who is trying to kill you...

[BatteriesNotIncluded]

I was a fucked up white kid in the distant past. There were more than a few times my ass could've been shot. Don't play the race card, it had no mileage. If anything it gets more legal gun owners up in arms and ready to take control of a situation the govt has list control of.

[zme]

Originally Posted by BatteriesNotIncluded

Which, in turn means innocent. Since the basis of American law is INNOCENT until proven guilty!

Strictly speaking that is not correct. You are assuming that there are only two states of knowledge - definitely guilty and definitely innocent. In reality there are three - guilty, innocent and we don't know for sure.

A legal system of innocent until proven guilty means that when we are not sure we treat the person as innocent. We are not saying that he is innocent of the crime, we are saying that if we can't prove one way or the other we will assume innocence for legal purposes. If the system was guilty until proven innocent then in a situation where we are not sure we would consider an accused guilty in a situation where we were not sure. A defendant does not need to prove they are innocent. They just need to show that the prosecution cannot prove them guilty. That is why they plead "not guilty" rather than pleading "innocent". Innocence does not need to be proved.

This is also why (as the judge said) Zimmerman did not need to prove anything. The burden is on the prosecution to prove Zimmerman is guilty. That is because in the absence of specific proof to that effect Zimmerman would be assumed innocent. Zimmerman did not need to prove that Travyon was a criminal or that he was attacked. It was more of a burden on the prosecution to prove that Zimmerman attacked Travyon. If the situation was reversed and Travyon killed Zimmerman you can be pretty certain that Travyon would have walked free. Because it would be the burden of the state to prove that Travyon attacked Zimmerman first and there is not evidence beyond reasonable doubt that he did that.

The reality is that all witness evidence was inconclusive and it boiled down to Zimmermans word against Travyon. In a situation like that the benefit of doubt goes to the defendant, no matter whether it was Zimmerman or Travyon. Either of them could easily have made the argument that they were in fear of losing their life. Zimmerman just happened to be the lucky one to survive.

IMO both of them acted a irresponsibly but only one got killed. Though it does seem clear that the first stupid move was Zimmerman getting out of his vehicle. It is a tragedy all around with no real moral winners.

A lot of people seem to be wrapping this up in discussions about race, gun law and lots of other stuff. To me it just a great tragedy involving one person who was way more caught up in his pseudo-law enforcement role than he needed to be and an unarmed kid who was being way more macho than he needed to be. If there was a way to hit the rewind button I don't think either of them would have acted they way they did.

[BatteriesNotIncluded]

Ergo there are only two states. Guilty or innocent. Don't cloud this with uncertainty. If there is insufficient evidence to prove guilty... Innocent until proven guilty. It is very simple.

[TheJudge69]

Originally Posted by Rambro Creed

I've noticed that no one ever 'likes' Wakeup's comments.

Even yahoos that speak in the same dialog of ridiculousness don't give them a like. Just something I noticed as a read along. No big deal.

Getting back on topic, the FACTS remain that Zimmerman, THE KILLER, killed Trayvon Martin. The KILLER shot Martin. Martin is a MINOR. That means he's a kid, basically. Couldn't vote, couldn't drink, couldn't do all the cool shit that adults can do. He falls under the UNDERAGED category. He was followed around by a grown ass man. Imagine yourself at 17, and 'some joker' is following you. It's raining, getting dark, probably chilly. You're just ready to get home.

Here he is, followed by some yahoo, who has NOT established who he is or what he's doing. A grown man, with A CRIMINAL RECORD, to include resisting arrest (forceful resistance, btw), stalking a minor.

Why is it being ignored that he and his actions led to the death of a minor? At the core essence of this situation, this dude KILLED A KID.

Why is there NO ACCOUNTABILITY for this? Is he even getting probation? He took the life of somebody and is walking free, in a situation that he initiated. Trayvon never sought Zimmerman out. Zimmerman was told [advised] not to follow the kid. He ignored that. Why is not in trouble for THAT?

If I went outside right now and followed around a 16-year old white girl, at a minimum, I'd be arrested for stalking and possibly communicating a threat, and endangerment of a minor. It wouldn't matter where she was going. The fact I am 'in pursuit' of her would be considered a criminal act on my part. If I'm on the phone with a 911 operator, explaining this to them, they're probably going to ask me, FIRST OF ALL, why am I following her? If I was to say something like, "She looks like she's up to no good". They would PROBABLY tell me that IT'S NOT A CRIME. She hasn't 'done anything' yet. I would probably have to see her actually BEGIN some act that implies criminal activity.

What also would MOST LIKLEY happen is that someone else would call the police ON ME for what I was doing. What WOULD NOT help my case would be that I'm black. Further worsening my case would be that she's white. FURTHER worsening it is that she's a female. FURTHER YET would be that she's underaged.

Let's say she actually broke into a house, but before she did, she wandered through the neighborhood. I was following her a good portion of that neighborhood trek. ODDS ARE that they would STILL CHARGE ME for stalking an underage person. Though she would be detained if the police got there in time to catch her, I would also be detained for following a minor.

I bit long winded there (my bad). The point I was trying to illustrate is that, AT A MINIMUM, Zimmerman should've been charged for HIS ACTIONS that led to the death of a minor. The fact that nothing he did warranted criminal charges aside from the fact is appalling.

First, at 17, Martin could be tried as an adult. Second, Martin broke Zimmerman's nose and smashed Zimmerman's head against the concrete before Zimmerman shot him in self defense.

WHAT ABOUT MARTIN'S ACTIONS? HE IS ALSO CULPABLE!

You punch me in the nose, smash my head and I will pull my gun and shoot you too no matter what your race is. I will not discriminate.

[DEAR_JOHN]

Originally Posted by TheJudge69

You punch me in the nose, smash my head and I will pull my gun and shoot you too no matter what your race is. I will not discriminate.

Just be sure and call time out while he's kicking your ass. You will need an ID check before defending yourself.

[Woodduck82]

Originally Posted by Rambro Creed

Even as a register gun toter, is it legal to walk around with a loaded weapon (unless you're a cop)?

What good would a chl be if you were carrying a concealed weapon around unloaded? Kind of defeats the purpose....

The media has this so messed up and so does that one juror. This entire idea of stand your ground deal they are bringing up has zero relevance. Before stand your ground or "the castle doctrine" he would have (by all accounts that we know of and why he was found not guilty) deadly force was authorized. Kind of hard to disagree when there is only one side of the story and no evidence to say otherwise. The majority of people who are bickering or disagreeing with this verdict are thinking and acting emotionally rather than going by the rule and letter of the law. Zimmerman would have been no billed in Texas and should have never been brought up on charges. 17 is considered an adult in the majority of states btw. IE you can be sentenced to death at 17 for murder etc. etc.

[lostincypress]

Yes, it is legal to carry a loaded weapon. It would be pointless to carry an unloaded weapon. The point made about private property leaves me confused......years ago my parents lived in a Townhouse in Memorial.....there was no private property outside of your home. All property other than the interior of the home was considered common areas..... even the roof was common property.

[lostincypress]

When Do You Become An Adult In Florida? In Florida, for most purposes, you become a legal adult on your 18th birthday. See generally § 1.01(13), Fla. Stat. This is often referred to as the age of majority. (For exceptions, please see “Drinking Laws.”).

In the United States as of 1995, minor is legally defined as a person under the age of 18, although 21 with the context of alcohol; people under the age of 21 may be referred to as "minors".[citation needed] However, not all minors are considered "juveniles" in terms of criminal responsibility. As is frequently the case in the United States, the laws vary widely by state.
In four states, New York, North Carolina, New Hampshire,[9] and Texas, "juvenile" refers to a person under 17.[10] In most states a juvenile is legally defined as a person under 18

[richardblackman]

Whether you feel justice was served or not is irrelevant. The fact remains, one young life has needlessly come to an end and another one's might as well be. There aren't any winners in this situation and unfortunately race relations in this country take yet another hit. Although I do get a kick out of all the internet cowboys and keyboard tough guys on social media.

[Wakeup]

"Needlessly"??? As far as Zimmerman is concerned, he "needed" to kill him, to save his own life...that was the entire point of the trial...and the jury agreed...

Nothing needless about the black kid dying...