Obama: 'If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon'

[dippednbutter]

So far I see two sides arguing this story.

1) Zimmerman is already guilty.

2) Let the justice system run it's course.

I'm not seeing this imaginary #3, Trayvon is guilty like some are implying of those that are pushing #2.

....and yes I've read ALL responses in this thread.

[mudslag]

So far I see two sides arguing this story.

1) Zimmerman is already guilty.

2) Let the justice system run it's course.

I'm not seeing this imaginary #3, Trayvon is guilty like some are implying of those that are pushing #2.

....and yes I've read ALL responses in this thread.

Those views are up to each person. Im pretty sure most people want the system to do it's job. I am curious what you think Trayvon could be guilty of though?

[mudslag]

I think you miss the point of juries then. THEY are the public... and they get on the court cases and poof jail time.

Usually the goal when finding a jury is to find people that have little to no knowledge of the case at hand. They also will be privy to information that the general public still doesn't have. Many times what the public thinks is evidence isn't always the case when it reaches the actual jury. So no, this case still isnt being tried in the public opinion court. Hell look here at this thread and any other around the net, you still have two very strong polar sides to this case. So the idea that this is already over is wrong.

[dippednbutter]

Those views are up to each person. Im pretty sure most people want the system to do it's job. I am curious what you think Trayvon could be guilty of though?

I'm of the opinion, and just my opinion, that Zimm should not have pursued as directed by the police period. Thats where it should have stopped and he should be charged with something, not sure what, but something. The rest is unclear.

If Zimm in the position he is in felt Trayvon was doing something illegal and found him doing something illegal, he probably has the authority to pursue. If a fight broke out that was started by Trayvon and actually saw Tray beating Zimm, then I can see the law allowing him to shoot in self defense (I truly hate having to use guns against unarmed but you can still be murdered by the bare hand not just by being weaker but also by accident/chance).

If Zimm was stalking him and started harassing the kid, instigating a fight, then he needed to take his lickings and not use lethal force. He should be found guilty of second degree murder I'd hope. Again, currently there seems to not be enough evidence to make a case for either side. Has investigators collected evidence, dna samples, etc? I don't even know.

I'm truly up in the air right now but I don't really believe the kid had to die even though a fight broke out no matter who started it. Its just sad.

[nominak]

I'm of the opinion, and just my opinion, that Zimm should not have pursued as directed by the police period. Thats where it should have stopped and he should be charged with something, not sure what, but something. The rest is unclear.

If Zimm in the position he is in felt Trayvon was doing something illegal and found him doing something illegal, he probably has the authority to pursue. If a fight broke out that was started by Trayvon and actually saw Tray beating Zimm, then I can see the law allowing him to shoot in self defense (I truly hate having to use guns against unarmed but you can still be murdered by the bare hand not just by being weaker but also by accident/chance).

If Zimm was stalking him and started harassing the kid, instigating a fight, then he needed to take his lickings and not use lethal force. He should be found guilty of second degree murder I'd hope. Again, currently there seems to not be enough evidence to make a case for either side. Has investigators collected evidence, dna samples, etc? I don't even know.

I'm truly up in the air right now but I don't really believe the kid had to die even though a fight broke out no matter who started it. Its just sad.

And the Zimmerman defense is that he was being beaten on for over an entire minute, getting punched in the face, and having his head bashed into the concrete sidewalk, with his arms pinned by Trayvons knees.

I don't care who you are. If you're getting the face beat off you and skull smashed into concrete multiple times.. you are going to have facial bruising of some kind.

The story doesn't add up.

[dippednbutter]

And the Zimmerman defense is that he was being beaten on for over an entire minute, getting punched in the face, and having his head bashed into the concrete sidewalk, with his arms pinned by Trayvons knees.

I don't care who you are. If you're getting the face beat off you and skull smashed into concrete multiple times.. you are going to have facial bruising of some kind.

The story doesn't add up.

I've been mobbed before and felt in danger but to walk away relatively unscathed. I've also been in minor altercations to leave with larger wounds than expected. I've also been in boxing, kickboxing, muay thai matches and left feeling totally owned but to have no visible injuries. Its hard to judge a book by its cover sometimes so generally I give the benefit of the doubt until further evidence presents itself.

[Buttus]

They now have a witness that says that they saw Zimmerman on the ground getting up before the shooting.

I guess people that are in denial think he must have slipped and fell down or something?

[dippednbutter]

They now have a witness that says that they saw Zimmerman on the ground getting up before the shooting.

I guess people that are in denial think he must have slipped and fell down or something?

If this true then its more on the lines of what I've been thinking. Even if Tray was beating on Zimm, Tray found out he was armed and backed off. Then Tray pleaded for his life (which is what is heard on the phone), then Zimm finally shot him out of anger. That would be murder. Only time will tell, all else is speculation.

[shakey]

In your example the neighbor is swinging a rubber hose, which is an unwieldy weapon and not overly dangerous unless unless it had a metal nozzle on it. Now if that same neighbor were to wrap that same hose around the throat of the other neighbor then yes he would be justified in using deadly force. If Trayvon WAS holding Zimmerman down and bashing his head into the ground then he WOULD be justified in using deadly force. You're the one being thick here, because you're not thinking about context.

Ya, too bad his head wasn't bashed into the sidwalk. I've been in fights where I've bashed someones head into a wall... it shows. On cement, it really shows. But again, you can't use deadly force in a fight you start.

Also, it is illegal for Zimmerman to own a gun, and has a past of violent outburst. http://www.veteranst...fix-now-a-fact/

Trayvon had every right to fight, since Zimmerman was the aggressor and confronted him. That still doesn't give Zimmerman that right to use deadly force.

Learn the law, stop posting what you think it means. Self defense isn't an option when you start the fight. The fight was started by Zimmerman, who chased after the kid, confronted the kid, and escalated everything.

It doesn't matter what you think. The law is pretty clear in what self defense is, and how you can use a gun to defend your self.

[mudslag]

They now have a witness that says that they saw Zimmerman on the ground getting up before the shooting.

I guess people that are in denial think he must have slipped and fell down or something?

No one has argued that a fight didn't break out and it's very easy to understand how both of them ended up on the ground. That can happen pretty easy in a fight. I dont believe anyone has denied that Zimmerman was on the ground at some point.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/30/justice/florida-teen-shooting-witnesses/index.html

Anonymous witness

A witness who asked not to be identified, even by gender, told CNN's Anderson Cooper about hearing voices outside in an area where neighborhood residents often walk their dogs and wondering, "Oh, my gosh, who's out there walking their dog in the rain?"

Then the witness heard a "very loud, predominant voice" and opened the window.

"I couldn't hear the words, but it was like, OK, this is not a regular conversation. This is someone aggressively, you know, yelling at someone."

The witness recalled seeing two men on the grass, one on top of the other.

"And at that point, not looking out the window, I heard the yell for help, one yell for help, and then I heard another ... excruciating type of yell," the witness said. "It didn't almost sound like 'help.' It just sounded so painful. But I wasn't watching out the window during that. And then the next time I looked out the window, there's the same thing: two men on the grass, one on top of each other. I couldn't see a lot of movement. It was very dark, but I felt like they were scuffling. And then I heard the gunshots, which, to me, were more like pops than they were like a bang."

The witness recalled hearing more than one shot. "It definitely was more than one pop noise, so I don't know if it was an echo or anything else. But it definitely made more than one pop."

Then one of the men, who appeared to be Hispanic, started walking toward the witness' vantage point, the witness said. Zimmerman is Hispanic.

"He didn't appear hurt or anything else," the witness said.

[Amarok]

Shakey, that's your assumption. All I stated was that you're ignoring context, but now you're making assumptions as well. As other people have pointed out there are things that we do not know about what happened. You're assuming that Zimmerman instigated the whole thing. I even agreed with you that if Zimmerman did start the fight, then used deadly force when he started losing that he's a total scumbag.

And anyway, just a few months ago while I was jogging I was approached by three gentlemen (heh) intent on walking off with my belongings. One of them was on my back with his arms around my throat, another was punching me, and the third was trying to go through my pockets while all that was going on. The whole thing lasted just a minute, and thanks to a concerned (and armed) good citizen the whole thing was broken up and I walked away with nothing more than a sore throat from the guy hanging off my neck and wounded pride. One would think I would have at least been bruised, but even my neck wasn't bruised. My point being, it's not always cut and dry about what injuries will be sustained. When I was younger I fell through three layers of a glass coffee table and didn't get so much as a scratch. It happens.

My personal feelings are to just wait and see what happens with this whole thing rather than speculate because it's honestly pointless when we don't have all the information that we need to reach an accurate conclusion. It's not constructive in the least.

[Memphis]

Self defense isn't self defense when you start the situation, go in with a gun, and use agianst someone who is unarmed. Learn the law. Would be nice if people would actually go by what the law says, instead of just what they think it should be. Self defense isn't me having a gun and starting a fight, then shooting the guy who is kicking my ass. That is manslaughter at the least.

It OS not yet proven he started it. If it was proven that he did not retreat before being attacked then I agree with manslaughter. I have states this countless times yet you have failed to notice.

[DocM]

potential racist in the eyes of the law

1) in most contexts it's not illegal to be racist

2) everyone has a right to self defense, even racists.

[mudslag]

1) in most contexts it's not illegal to be racist

2) everyone has a right to self defense, even racists.

1. This context is very specific and could have a major affect on the over all case

2. So did Martin

[DocM]

The question isn't that he was carrying the gun, that's completely legal - just like carrying a pocket knife or a watch, but if when he drew it he was under a serious attack.

Even if Zimmerman had followed Trayvon for a while that too is legal - people follow other people through a subdivision every day and night. If this was a chase depends on who, if anyone, was running. If Trayvon was running and Zimmerman wasn't that's not much of a "chase."

What would be illegal is who made the first physical contact. If that was Zimmerman fine, but if it was Trayvon and he followed it up with the beat-down the witness called 911 about it was a justifiable shooting.

[ylcard]

About the him owning a gun is illegal:

According to "THE LAW", there's an exception where you CAN keep your gun, but I don't think Zimmerman fits it, it's only for cops, probation officers and prison guards or whatever they call them.

Also, it is only illegal for the duration of the restraining order, and it was filed in 2005, so that's almost 7 years now, I tried looking up for the duration of a restraining order and the maximum I found was two years.

So, is the restraining order still "active" today ? If not, then it's perfectly legal for him to own a gun, if it is (active) - it's illegal.

and basket_case you just admitted that you're basically playing on your emotions here, you have nothing to stand on other than what the media gives you, and that's not NEARLY enough to pin the blame on EITHER men, yet you're assuming A LOT of things and you're letting your imagination and personal interpretations go wild.

First of all following someone is NOT an aggressive act. Second of all, all those adjectives you're using to describe Zimmerman clearly indicate that you're biased towards Trayvon, you're not actually looking for justice, or evidence of him committing a crime - you're just running a witch hunt against someone you've already convinced convicted in your eyes.

It's not just you, nominak and others are doing exactly the same thing.

While, for example, DocM and I are reserving full judgement until everything is clear, we're merely balancing the enormous bias here by negating any irrational arguments made against Zimmerman.

Edit:

Cleared something up..

[Memphis]

About the him owning a gun is illegal:

According to "THE LAW", there's an exception where you CAN keep your gun, but I don't think Zimmerman fits it, it's only for cops, probation officers and prison guards or whatever they call them.

Also, it is only illegal for the duration of the restraining order, and it was filed in 2005, so that's almost 7 years now, I tried looking up for the duration of a restraining order and the maximum I found was two years.

So, is the restraining order still "active" today ? If not, then it's perfectly legal for him to own a gun, if not - it's illegal.

and basket_case you just admitted that you're basically playing on your emotions here, you have nothing to stand on other than what the media gives you, and that's not NEARLY enough to pin the blame on EITHER men, yet you're assuming A LOT of things and you're letting your imagination and personal interpretations go wild.

First of all following someone is NOT an aggressive act. Second of all, all those adjectives you're using to describe Zimmerman clearly indicate that you're biased towards Trayvon, you're not actually looking for justice, or evidence of him committing a crime - you're just running a witch hunt against someone you've already convinced in your eyes.

It's not just you, nominak and others are doing exactly the same thing.

While, for example, DocM and I are reserving full judgement until everything is clear, we're merely balancing the enormous bias here by negating any irrational arguments made against Zimmerman.

Very well said! Bravo!

[mudslag]

First of all following someone is NOT an aggressive act. Second of all, all those adjectives you're using to describe Zimmerman clearly indicate that you're biased towards Trayvon, you're not actually looking for justice, or evidence of him committing a crime - you're just running a witch hunt against someone you've already convinced in your eyes.

It's not just you, nominak and others are doing exactly the same thing.

Actually

Stalking is a term commonly used to refer to unwanted and obsessive attention by an individual or group to another person.

United States

The first state to criminalize stalking in the United States was California in 1990^[48] due to several high profile stalking cases in California, including the 1982 attempted murder of actress Theresa Saldana,^[49] the 1988 massacre by Richard Farley,^[50] the 1989 murder of actress Rebecca Schaeffer,^[51] and five Orange County stalking murders also in 1989.^[50][52] The first anti-stalking law in the United States, California Penal Code Section 646.9, was developed and proposed by Municipal Court Judge John Watson of Orange County. Watson with U.S. Congressman Ed Royce introduced the law in 1990.^[52][53] Also in 1990, the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) began the United States' first Threat Management Unit, founded by LAPD Captain Robert Martin.

Within three years^[52] thereafter, every state in the United States followed suit to create the crime of stalking, under different names such as criminal harassment or criminal menace. The Driver's Privacy Protection Act (DPPA) was enacted in 1994 in response to numerous cases of a driver's information being abused for criminal activity, examples such as the Saldana and Schaeffer stalking cases.^[54][55] The DPPA prohibits states from disclosing a driver's personal information without consent by State Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). As of 2011, stalking is an offense under section 120a of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).^[56] The law took effect on 1 October 2007.^[57]

Arguing that following someone is not aggressive is really a subjective view. You can be arrested and charged for doing just that. If someone feels threatened by you following them, then that act in itself can be seen as aggressive. You cant honestly tell someone they dont feel an aggressive threat by being followed. As for the pre-judging dont forget that goes both ways here. A number of people have pointed out fake pics of Trayvon as well as pointing out his own failings in an attempt to paint him in a shady light.

[ylcard]

Following someone isn't the same as stalking someone, you're right about stalking being illegal, but that's not what Zimmerman was doing.

People can feel whatever they want, but just because you "think" that guy is following you and is being "aggressive", it doesn't give you the right to attack him/her.

[mudslag]

Following someone isn't the same as stalking someone, you're right about stalking being illegal, but that's not what Zimmerman was doing.

People can feel whatever they want, but just because you "think" that guy is following you and is being "aggressive", it doesn't give you the right to attack him/her.

Who are you to say what does or doesnt feel threatening to someone? You could follow someone and that person has a legal right to file a complaint with the police against you. It's how the person being followed perceives it and according to Trayvon's girlfriend who he was on the phone with, he wasnt feeling at easy with it. If the girlfriend's story adds up, it goes to show that Zimmerman approached Trayvon and that's when the fight broke out. Given that info, it sounds more and more like Trayvon felt this guy was after him. By the definition of stalking, you cant sit here and tell others that put in the same situation that they wouldnt feel threatened. Also the stand your ground law is so deeply planted in to this case, you cant argue that Trayvon didn't have the same rights as Zimmerman. And given that no one saw that initial start of the fight, that's part is still a mystery.

[Intersect]

Following someone isn't the same as stalking someone, you're right about stalking being illegal, but that's not what Zimmerman was doing.

People can feel whatever they want, but just because you "think" that guy is following you and is being "aggressive", it doesn't give you the right to attack him/her.

nicely said

but I also think that had the person being "followed" been an adult this situation would not be gettin the attention of OMG the security guard is a stalker.

its becasue a child was involved and Race has become the card to play in this matter. what dosnt help things is the presiden of the USA saying

"if i had a son he would look like" the child involved. is the president now an orcial and can see into the future?

[ylcard]

Who are you to say what does or doesnt feel threatening to someone? You could follow someone and that person has a legal right to file a complaint with the police against you. It's how the person being followed perceives it and according to Trayvon's girlfriend who he was on the phone with, he wasnt feeling at easy with it. If the girlfriend's story adds up, it goes to show that Zimmerman approached Trayvon and that's when the fight broke out. Given that info, it sounds more and more like Trayvon felt this guy was after him. By the definition of stalking, you cant sit here and tell others that put in the same situation that they wouldnt feel threatened. Also the stand your ground law is so deeply planted in to this case, you cant argue that Trayvon didn't have the same rights as Zimmerman. And given that no one saw that initial start of the fight, that's part is still a mystery.

That's not what I said....

About the girlfriend and Trayvon, if there was a recording of their conversation then we could use it to determine what has happened, but there isn't (unless carriers record everything.. heh), so whatever her "story" is, it's less than hearsay, she has seen nothing and no one can corroborate her version.

[mudslag]

That's not what I said....

About the girlfriend and Trayvon, if there was a recording of their conversation then we could use it to determine what has happened, but there isn't (unless carriers record everything.. heh), so whatever her "story" is, it's less than hearsay, she has seen nothing and no one can corroborate her version.

You said "Following someone isn't the same as stalking someone", ok then what is the difference? Id still like an answer to my question "Who are you to say what does or doesnt feel threatening to someone?"...

As for the girlfriend, her word is as good as any others in this case, specially given that all the other witnesses are also witnesses from an ear-witness POV. All of them heard something that is still considered valuable to the case. Being an ear witness is still considered a witness.

http://www.justice.g...itnessinfo.html

Why am I a witness? I didn't see a crime occur.

Witnesses are not limited to "eye witnesses." You may have seen or heard the crime happen, or you may know something about it. You may also know something about a piece of evidence, or know something that contradicts another witness' testimony.

You may not think that what you know about the case is very significant. However, small pieces of information are often required to determine what really happened. If you wonder why you are testifying in a particular case, ask the Assistant United States Attorney handling the case.

Same thing on a Texas DA site

http://www.co.comal....information.htm

Why am I a witness? I didn't see the crime occur.

Witnesses are not limited to "eye witnesses". You may have seen or heard the crime happen or may know something about it. You may also know something about a piece of evidence, or may know something that contradicts another witness' testimony.

You may not think that what you know about the case is very significant; however, small pieces of information are often required to determine what really happened. If you wonder "why" you are testifying in a particular case, ask the Assistant Prosecutor handling it (or our Witness Coordinator); there is probably a common-sense reason.

Your presence and willingness to testify may be the deciding factor in determining what will be done in the case. Many defendants hope that you or other witnesses will not show up. Your mere presence at the Courthouse before the trial may cause the defendant to plead guilty.

[DocM]

You said "Following someone isn't the same as stalking someone", ok then what is the difference?

Following someone is a singular event.

Stalking is the repeated following, watching and/or harassing of another person over a period of time.? Ex: an ex-spouse who constantly parks across the road from the residence of or follows the victim.

Also, a short interruption in a single event does not usually turn it into two events.

The specific Florida law is?Section 784.048 (2009) -

"Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083."

Zimmerman was not stalking, so quit mis-applying the term.

[scratch42069]

The greatest part of this thread was the youtube video of the black democrat going on about how she cared when a white girl was murdered in Florida and couldn't even remember her name when asked but I bet a million dollars she knows Martin's name.