R.I.P Trayvon

[oidreez]

They really need to do away with this stand your ground nonsense immediately. Leaves waaaay too much open to interpretation.

It really doesnt. If somebody is APPROACHING you, you have the right to Stand Your Ground. Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman, thus not having the ability to leave. Jordan Davis never approached Dunn.

And that Dunn idiot didn't claim SYG until he hired a lawyer.

Of course, that's what defense attorney do. What do you want him to do, just come out and say "Hey, my client is guilty"?



BTW, that map is inaccurate per Zimmerman reenactment and the Prosecution's theory.

Why didn't trayvon have the right to stand his ground then if George approaced him? And once again we only have george's side to say Trayvon was on top of him. How do we know George wasn't on top at one point?

 

[thepointgod]

The prosecution would've done better going for a the manslaughter charge to begin with as oppose to 2nd degree murder.

THIS. There is no way based on past jurisprudence that they could possibly nail him for 2nd degree murder. How on earth could the prosecution believe that GZ's actions were of "depraved mind"? Maybe they were hoping for a plea bargain down the manslaughter? There's literally no other reason why I can think of that these prosecutors would try for murder 2-- the evidence wasn't there.

 

[celticsfan9783]

Is it a "slippery slope" when they ask your race on drivers licenses and voter registration form?

It's a slippery slope because you're allowing irrelevant personal information into a trial. Lawyers would have a field day with that. It's non-essential.

I ask again, why should his race be admitted in this case?

 

[lyonbc1]

And that Dunn idiot didn't claim SYG until he hired a lawyer.

Of course, that's what defense attorney do. What do you want him to do, just come out and say "Hey, my client is guilty"?

 

Brah, what the **** are you talking about? When did I ever say that? I was adding to the fact that the Dunn case will be open and shut and is nowhere near the same as the GZ case.

Y'all can't say ANYTHING is open and shut man. Seriously. Oscar Grants murder had witnesses and cell phone video of the incident. The cop said he thought he had a taser not his pistol, and got 11 months.

There have been countless cases where you'd think that it would be open and shut. Look up Aaron Campbell, Amadou Diallo, Raheim Brown, Patrick Dorismond, Tarika Wilson, Kendra James, Robbie Tolan, Victor Steen. And countless others. I'm not taking anything for granted.

 

[hand2handking]

its open season on us now hunting season fellas

your mere presence is now a threat

 

[lyonbc1]

They really need to do away with this stand your ground nonsense immediately. Leaves waaaay too much open to interpretation.

It really doesnt. If somebody is APPROACHING you, you have the right to Stand Your Ground. Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman, thus not having the ability to leave. Jordan Davis never approached Dunn.

And that Dunn idiot didn't claim SYG until he hired a lawyer.

Of course, that's what defense attorney do. What do you want him to do, just come out and say "Hey, my client is guilty"?



BTW, that map is inaccurate per Zimmerman reenactment and the Prosecution's theory.

Why didn't trayvon have the right to stand his ground then if George approaced him? And once again we only have george's side to say Trayvon was on top of him. How do we know George wasn't on top at one point?

Exactly, it was a dynamic event...people taking GZ story as the gospel, when there were no witnesses who saw the entire altercation. Nobody is denying Trayvon was on top at some point, we know they were rolling around and everything. Fact is, and this is undeniable, if George doesn't get out of the car this doesn't happen. Period. Never seen anyone who is scared or in fear of someone go out and try and find them, when they did NOTHING to deserve that "fear". Aside from being a young black male, sadly.

And this law is total bull, I can see how if someone is intruding on your home or car, or endangering a loved one with a direct threat. But when it's ambiguous as to who was following whom, and when you don't do ANYTHING to diffuse a situation in fact you start the whole thing by exiting your vehicle instead of yelling or asking "hey I'm neighborhood watch, do you need help?" Or hell "Asking are you lost, do you live around here" Like an actual concerned human being would do, but nahhh let's bypass common sense and try and take action into our own hands, that's incredibly dangerous. Especially when you are armed. He could've even called the police if he didn't believe his responses, then they would've showed up and questioned him, then two people's lives wouldn't be either messed up or totally take away too soon as a young person.

 

[mister friendly]

Is it a "slippery slope" when they ask your race on drivers licenses and voter registration form?

It's a slippery slope because you're allowing irrelevant personal information into a trial. Lawyers would have a field day with that. It's non-essential.

I ask again, why should his race be admitted in this case?

They can't have a field day with it

Your race is just an identifying characteristic akin to if you are man or woman, young or old, tall or short

 

[knowledgebones72]

There's no point in talking about this anymore.

America has spoken.

Seriously. All conversation about what could have or should have happened is overwhelmingly useless.

How about we talk about what's next. The riots that everyone threatened but nobody participated in. The possibility of more shootings being committed under the circumstances of this shooting. There have got to be a lot of people in florida who are going "hmmm....so if I can catch him alone....and there's no one around...all I have to do is this this and this and i can get away Scott free in FL"

Lets keep this conversation in the present and future. We all know the verdict now. We all saw the trial. Lets have a new conversation.

 

[celticsfan9783]

They can't have a field day with it

Your race is just an identifying characteristic akin to if you are man or woman, young or old, tall or short

I ask again, why should his race be admitted in this case?

 

[celticsfan9783]

Lets keep this conversation in the present and future. We all know the verdict now. We all saw the trial. Lets have a new conversation.

Too bad the ****** Bulger trial isn't being broadcast. Need something to listen to at work?

 

[gllahone84]

Loving Your Enemies.
by Martin Luther King, Jr.
The following sermon was delivered at the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church in Montgomery, Alabama, at Christmas, 1957. Martin Luther King wrote it whi1e in jail far committing nonviolent civil disobedience during the Montgomery bus boycott. Let us be practical and ask the question. How do we love our enemies?

First, we must develop and maintain the capacity to forgive. He who is devoid of the power to forgive is devoid of the power to love. It is impossible even to begin the act of loving one's enemies without the prior acceptance of the necessity, over and over again, of forgiving those who inflict evil and injury upon us. It is also necessary to realize that the forgiving act must always be initiated by the person who has been wronged, the victim of some great hurt, the recipient of some tortuous injustice, the absorber of some terrible act of oppression. The wrongdoer may request forgiveness. He may come to himself, and, like the prodigal son, move up some dusty road, his heart palpitating with the desire for forgiveness. But only the injured neighbor, the loving father back home, can really pour out the warm waters of forgiveness.

Forgiveness does not mean ignoring what has been done or putting a false label on an evil act. It means, rather, that the evil act no longer remains as a barrier to the relationship. Forgiveness is a catalyst creating the atmosphere necessary for a fresh start and a new beginning. It is the lifting of a burden or the canceling of a debt. The words "I will forgive you, but I'll never forget what you've done" never explain the real nature of forgiveness. Certainly one can never forget, if that means erasing it totally from his mind. But when we forgive, we forget in the sense that the evil deed is no longer a mental block impeding a new relationship. Likewise, we can never say, "I will forgive you, but I won't have anything further to do with you." Forgiveness means reconciliation, a coming together again.

Without this, no man can love his enemies. The degree to which we are able to forgive determines the degree to which we are able to love our enemies.

Second, we must recognize that the evil deed of the enemy-neighbor, the thing that hurts, never quite expresses all that he is. An element of goodness may be found even in our worst enemy. Each of us has something of a schizophrenic personality, tragically divided against ourselves. A persistent civil war rages within all of our lives. Something within us causes us to lament with Ovid, the Latin poet, "I see and approve the better things, but follow worse," or to agree with Plato that human personality is like a charioteer having two headstrong horses, each wanting to go in a different direction, or to repeat with the Apostle Paul, "The good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do."

This simply means that there is some good in the worst of us and some evil in the best of us. When we discover this, we are less prone to hate our enemies. When we look beneath the surface, beneath. the impulsive evil deed, we see within our enemy-neighbor a measure of goodness and know that the viciousness and evilness of his acts are not quite representative of all that he is. We see him in a new light. We recognize that his hate grows out of fear, pride, ignorance, prejudice, and misunderstanding, but in spite of this, we know God's image is ineffably etched in being. Then we love our enemies by realizing that they are not totally bad and that they are not beyond the reach of God's redemptive love.

Third, we must not seek to defeat or humiliate the enemy but to win his friendship and understanding. At times we are able to humiliate our worst enemy. Inevitably, his weak moments come and we are able to thrust in his side the spear of defeat. But this we must not do. Every word and deed must contribute to an understanding with the enemy and release those vast reservoirs of goodwill which have been blocked by impenetrable walls of hate.

Let us move now from the practical how to the theoretical why: Why should we love our enemies? The first reason is fairly obvious. Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Hate multiplies hate, violence multiplies violence, and toughness multi# plies toughness in a descending spiral of destruction.

So when Jesus says "Love your enemies," he is setting forth a profound and ultimately inescapable admonition. Have we not come to such an impasse in the modern world that we must love our enemies-or else? The chain reaction of evil-hate begetting hate, wars producing more wars-must be broken, or we shall be plunged into the dark abyss of annihilation.

Another reason why we must love our enemies is that hate scars the soul and distorts the personality. Mindful that hate is an evil and dangerous force, we too often think of what it does to the person hated. This is understandable, for hate brings irreparable damage to its victims. We have seen its ugly consequences in the ignominious deaths brought to six million Jews by hate-obsessed madman named Hitler, in the unspeakable violence inflicted upon Negroes by bloodthirsty mobs, in the dark horrors of war, and in the terrible indignities and injustices perpetrated against millions of God's children by unconscionable oppressors.

But there is another side which we must never overlook. Hate is just as injurious to the person who hates. Like an unchecked cancer, hate corrodes the personality and eats away its vital unity. Hate destroys a man's sense of values and his objectivity. It causes him to describe the beautiful as ugly and the ugly as beautiful, and to confuse the true with the false and the false with the true.

A third reason why we should love our enemies is that love is the only force capable of transforming an enemy into a friend. We never get rid of an enemy by meeting hate with hate; we get rid of an enemy by getting rid of enmity. By its very nature, hate destroys and tears down; by its very nature, love creates and builds up. Love transforms with redemptive power.

The relevance of what I have said to the crisis in race relations should be readily apparent. There will be no permanent solution to the, race problem until oppressed men develop the capacity to love their enemies. The darkness of racial injustice will be dispelled only by the light of forgiving love. For more than three centuries American Negroes have been battered by the iron rod of oppression, frustrated by day and bewildered by night by unbearable injustice and burdened with the ugly weight of discrimination. Forced to live with these shameful conditions, we are tempted to become bitter and to retaliate with a corresponding hate. But if this happens, the new order we seek will be little more than a duplicate of the old order. We must in strength and humility meet hate with love.

My friends, we have followed the so-called practical way for too long a time now, and it has led inexorably to deeper confusion and chaos. Time is cluttered with the wreckage of communities which surrendered to hatred and violence. For the salvation of our nation and the salvation of mankind, we must follow another way.

While abhorring segregation, we shall love the segregationist. This is the only way to create the beloved community.

To our most bitter opponents we say: "We shall match your capacity to inflict suffering by our capacity to endure suffering. We shall meet your physical force with soul force. Do to us what you will, and we shall continue to love you. We cannot in all good conscience obey your unjust laws because noncooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation with good. Throw us in jail and we shall still love you. Bomb our homes and threaten our children, and we shall still love you. Send your hooded perpetrators of violence into our community at the midnight hour and beat us and leave us half dead, and we shall still love you. But be ye assured that we will wear you down by our capacity to suffer. One day we shall win freedom but not only for ourselves. We shall so appeal to your heart and conscience that we shall win you in the process and our victory will be a double victory."

That's all sweet and everything...

But King was getting on some real radical **** before being assassinated...

The workers strike thing he was trying to implement in Memphis was just one step needed to improve conditions for a down trodden people. 

After Malcolm died...King had become so disillusioned with the system that in the final months of King's life his whole mindset was undergoing a revolution of sorts. 

 

[mister friendly]

They can't have a field day with it

Your race is just an identifying characteristic akin to if you are man or woman, young or old, tall or short

I ask again, why should his race be admitted in this case?

I told you why

I told you it's a physical characteristic like anything else unlike your religion and sexual pereference deal

Just because it doesn't fit in your agenda doesn't mean it's not a valid

 

[turboevolution]

its open season on us now hunting season fellas

your mere presence is now a threat

What do you mean now? The killing of a black person by another black person has always been a sport (see Chicago)

 

[victor page]

Hope Zimmerman's brother catches a hot one.

 

[thepointgod]

I told you why

I told you it's a physical characteristic like anything else unlike your religion and sexual pereference deal

Just because it doesn't fit in your agenda doesn't mean it's not a valid

Physical characteristics generally are not admissible for the purpose of proving the case in chief unless it's somehow relevant to the crime being committed. TM being black had nothing to do with the physical acts relating the altercation and is therefore, irrelevant. Admission of his race may be admissible for other purposes, e.g. proving motive on the part of GZ, but the prosecution wasn't pursuing their case on that.

Asking the jury to consider in their determination whether TM was a man or woman or short or tall would also likely be irrelevant because it has little probative value.

 

[celticsfan9783]

I told you why

I told you it's a physical characteristic like anything else unlike your religion and sexual pereference deal

Just because it doesn't fit in your agenda doesn't mean it's not a valid

It's one thing to acknowledge it for identifying purposes in the field of law enforcement. But what does it have to do with this trial? The poster I responded to initially believed what he ID'd himself as should have been brought up by the prosecution. Completely irrelevant information as it pertains to the case.

If information like that is admitted into court for the purpose of swaying the jury one way or another, then other non-pertinent information would be allowed in for the same reason. That's the slippery slope.

 

[mister friendly]

its open season on us now hunting season fellas

your mere presence is now a threat

What do you mean now? The killing of a black person by another black person has always been a sport (see Chicago)

Here we go with Chicago again

The apathy trap

 

[hand2handking]

so yall are saying physical characteristics dont matter correct? but trayvon martin's 6'2 physical body and fists "beating up GZ and punding his head against the cement"

  posed a viable threat to GZ's LIFE and therefore is evidence?

But the presiding reason (ie TM's race) being as to why GZ was in hot pursuit is not admissible?

 

[mister friendly]

I told you why

I told you it's a physical characteristic like anything else unlike your religion and sexual pereference deal

Just because it doesn't fit in your agenda doesn't mean it's not a valid

It's one thing to acknowledge it for identifying purposes in the field of law enforcement. But what does it have to do with this trial? The poster I responded to initially believed what he ID'd himself as should have been brought up by the prosecution. Completely irrelevant information as it pertains to the case.

If information like that is admitted into court for the purpose of swaying the jury one way or another, then other non-pertinent information would be allowed in for the same reason. That's the slippery slope.

Nope, there's no way his race would've swayed the jury one way or the other because race is irrevalent according to many people in this thread

 

[hand2handking]

It's one thing to acknowledge it for identifying purposes in the field of law enforcement. But what does it have to do with this trial?

 

[turboevolution]

Here we go with Chicago again

The apathy trap

Is there something about my statement that you don't agree with or you think is false? 

 

[thepointgod]

so yall are saying physical characteristics dont matter correct? but trayvon martin's 6'2 physical body and fists "beating up GZ and punding his head against the cement"   posed a viable threat to GZ's LIFE and therefore is evidence?

But the presiding reason (ie TM's race) being as to why GZ was in hot pursuit is not admissible?

Roll your eyes all you want. That's the law. Physical characteristics are admissible if they are helpful in proving or disproving an element of the crime. The fact that TM is tall is irrelevant and is inadmissible. The fact that TM is X height and due to this height, he was or wasn't able to beat down, or get beat down by GZ is admissible.

 

[hand2handking]

Roll your eyes all you want. That's the law. Physical characteristics are admissible if they are helpful in proving or disproving an element of the crime. The fact that TM is tall is irrelevant and is inadmissible. The fact that TM is X height and due to this height, he was or wasn't able to beat down, or get beat down by GZ is admissible.

you will have to clarify the difference as one is an adjective and one is a direct measure to describe that measure

 

[robin thicke]

smh, that one laker fan. no wonder yall suck

 

[thepointgod]

Nope, there's no way his race would've swayed the jury one way or the other because race is irrevalent according to many people in this thread

You're conflating a bunch of arguments. Race has everything to do with this trial and everything to do with the outcome and the jury's decision.

However, race is still irrelevant for the purposes of the prosecution's case and is therefore inadmissible. I don't know what you want me to tell you, those are the rules of evidence whether you like it or not.