Community > Politics, Current News & Events

Topic: Trayvon Martin: Evidence Emerges He Was A Drug Dealer And Ga
Spidercmb Joined Fri 04/27/07 Posts: 13137	Fri 04/20/12 02:36 PM
proof of a scuffle we already knew occurred the photography is too shotty (lighting) to tell the damage under the blood,,,, There is no law that requires that you allow yourself to be beaten to near death before you protect yourself, so the severity of the wounds don't matter. This proves that Trayvon was on top pounding Zimmerman's head into the ground. Just like Zimmerman and the witnesses have stated. Zimmerman should walk free, the fact that he is being prosecuted is a true injustice.

Peccy Joined Thu 06/28/07 Posts: 17181	Fri 04/20/12 04:10 PM Edited by Peccy on Fri 04/20/12 04:16 PM
Why does the severity of the wounds matter? Did you want gray matter hanging out in order to justify it?

willing2 Joined Sun 06/08/08 Posts: 20221	Fri 04/20/12 06:04 PM
proof of a scuffle we already knew occurred the photography is too shotty (lighting) to tell the damage under the blood,,,, Yeah. It's either someone else, a bad photo-shop, the wounds were self-inflicted after the fact or, he paid white cops to beat him up to look like it was done by the dead thug. No way a dead thug would have done that to a Messican.

massagetrade Joined Thu 02/22/07 Posts: 8505	Fri 04/20/12 08:36 PM
proof of a scuffle we already knew occurred the photography is too shotty (lighting) to tell the damage under the blood,,,, There is no law that requires that you allow yourself to be beaten to near death before you protect yourself, so the severity of the wounds don't matter. This proves that Trayvon was on top pounding Zimmerman's head into the ground. Just like Zimmerman and the witnesses have stated. Zimmerman should walk free, the fact that he is being prosecuted is a true injustice. Hypothetically: What if Zimmerman started the fight? Suppose I attack someone. They start to defend themselves, causing me harm. They get the upper hand, but I keep fighting so they keep fighting back, even though they are winning. Then I decide my life may be in danger, so I use deadly force to end the fight. What should happen to me?

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Fri 04/20/12 08:54 PM
proof of a scuffle we already knew occurred the photography is too shotty (lighting) to tell the damage under the blood,,,, There is no law that requires that you allow yourself to be beaten to near death before you protect yourself, so the severity of the wounds don't matter. This proves that Trayvon was on top pounding Zimmerman's head into the ground. Just like Zimmerman and the witnesses have stated. Zimmerman should walk free, the fact that he is being prosecuted is a true injustice. come now,, there are laws that determine in a 'fight' how much force is excessive or excusable in a fight for ones life against someone with a gun,, IF the gun owner is the aggressor and ends up killing the non aggressor.... there is no law that required the one without a gun to retreat to avoid being shot,,,, there are laws against killing though,,,and degrees of reasonableness like,, if someone pushes you, y ou may not be justified in shooting them if someone comes at you with a broken bottle, you may not be justified in shooting them if a teenager is fighting you on the ground, you may also not be justified in shooting them,,,

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Fri 04/20/12 08:57 PM
proof of a scuffle we already knew occurred the photography is too shotty (lighting) to tell the damage under the blood,,,, Yeah. It's either someone else, a bad photo-shop, the wounds were self-inflicted after the fact or, he paid white cops to beat him up to look like it was done by the dead thug. No way a dead thug would have done that to a Messican. you miss my point, all I see is blood,,I dont see the wounds at all blood flows downward so a picture of blood on a head doesnt do much to show what type of injury caused the bleeding,,,(ie. hitting the head on the ground during a scuffle, VS, having ones head BANGED against the ground repeatedly during a scuffle)

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Fri 04/20/12 08:57 PM
proof of a scuffle we already knew occurred the photography is too shotty (lighting) to tell the damage under the blood,,,, There is no law that requires that you allow yourself to be beaten to near death before you protect yourself, so the severity of the wounds don't matter. This proves that Trayvon was on top pounding Zimmerman's head into the ground. Just like Zimmerman and the witnesses have stated. Zimmerman should walk free, the fact that he is being prosecuted is a true injustice. Hypothetically: What if Zimmerman started the fight? Suppose I attack someone. They start to defend themselves, causing me harm. They get the upper hand, but I keep fighting so they keep fighting back, even though they are winning. Then I decide my life may be in danger, so I use deadly force to end the fight. What should happen to me? thank you,, someone gets it,,,,

Spidercmb Joined Fri 04/27/07 Posts: 13137	Fri 04/20/12 10:32 PM
proof of a scuffle we already knew occurred the photography is too shotty (lighting) to tell the damage under the blood,,,, There is no law that requires that you allow yourself to be beaten to near death before you protect yourself, so the severity of the wounds don't matter. This proves that Trayvon was on top pounding Zimmerman's head into the ground. Just like Zimmerman and the witnesses have stated. Zimmerman should walk free, the fact that he is being prosecuted is a true injustice. Hypothetically: What if Zimmerman started the fight? Suppose I attack someone. They start to defend themselves, causing me harm. They get the upper hand, but I keep fighting so they keep fighting back, even though they are winning. Then I decide my life may be in danger, so I use deadly force to end the fight. What should happen to me? The evidence doesn't support that scenario in this case.

Spidercmb Joined Fri 04/27/07 Posts: 13137	Fri 04/20/12 10:35 PM
if someone comes at you with a broken bottle, you may not be justified in shooting them if a teenager is fighting you on the ground, you may also not be justified in shooting them,,, So in your world, if I have a gun I should allow a thug to to slash me up with broken glass or beat me unconscious or to death? You really must hate your fellow man to think that people should line up to be victims.

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Fri 04/20/12 10:59 PM
proof of a scuffle we already knew occurred the photography is too shotty (lighting) to tell the damage under the blood,,,, There is no law that requires that you allow yourself to be beaten to near death before you protect yourself, so the severity of the wounds don't matter. This proves that Trayvon was on top pounding Zimmerman's head into the ground. Just like Zimmerman and the witnesses have stated. Zimmerman should walk free, the fact that he is being prosecuted is a true injustice. Hypothetically: What if Zimmerman started the fight? Suppose I attack someone. They start to defend themselves, causing me harm. They get the upper hand, but I keep fighting so they keep fighting back, even though they are winning. Then I decide my life may be in danger, so I use deadly force to end the fight. What should happen to me? The evidence doesn't support that scenario in this case. we dont know if the evidence does or not,,,

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Fri 04/20/12 11:02 PM
if someone comes at you with a broken bottle, you may not be justified in shooting them if a teenager is fighting you on the ground, you may also not be justified in shooting them,,, So in your world, if I have a gun I should allow a thug to to slash me up with broken glass or beat me unconscious or to death? You really must hate your fellow man to think that people should line up to be victims. it depends upon the CIRCUMSTANCES,,,,thats what evidence is for,,,, who is the thug? the one with the gun or the one with the broken glass? if the one with the gun attacks first, is the second person a 'thug' if they grab a bottle to defend themself with? or ,,if the one with the bottle attacks first, is the second person a 'thugh' for pulling their gun?

alleoops Joined Sat 08/06/11 Posts: 10832	Sat 04/21/12 10:29 AM
"If the one with the gun attacks first, is the second person a 'thug' if they grab a bottle to defend themself with?" If the one with the gun attacks first, bang! the second person would be dead. No bottle needed.

Ladylid2012 Joined Sun 07/05/09 Posts: 42269	Sat 04/21/12 10:44 AM
This is the controversy over the stand your ground law.... no one here disputes self defense. In the state of Utah, during self defense you can ONLY damage the 'attacker' as much as they have damaged you. Excessive force is not allowed. If Martin started this scuffle and busted the back of Zimmerman's head open... Zimmerman would be legally allowed to bust Martin's head open, not shoot him, not kill him. I think the law needs to be looked at more, seems to be reoccurring issues with it.

galendgirl Joined Sun 07/06/08 Posts: 24728	Sat 04/21/12 11:03 AM
Regardless of the circumstances of the crime or results that will unfold, this is another sad example of the public trying the case and presuming guilt/innocence of both parties in a media circus. I'm keeping an open mind, rather than taking sides with either party because no trial has been held (despite that it seems Zimmerman was convicted by the public immediately.) The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says that in "all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed" and it disappoints me to know that people feel they have the right to act as judge/jury based on what they heard in the news, on the street, on the internet, etc. The real crime here is the slow murder of our Bill of Rights.

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Sat 04/21/12 06:01 PM
"If the one with the gun attacks first, is the second person a 'thug' if they grab a bottle to defend themself with?" If the one with the gun attacks first, bang! the second person would be dead. No bottle needed. not really, not everyone with a gun intends to JUST shoot a person,,,,,

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Sat 04/21/12 06:03 PM
Regardless of the circumstances of the crime or results that will unfold, this is another sad example of the public trying the case and presuming guilt/innocence of both parties in a media circus. I'm keeping an open mind, rather than taking sides with either party because no trial has been held (despite that it seems Zimmerman was convicted by the public immediately.) The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says that in "all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed" and it disappoints me to know that people feel they have the right to act as judge/jury based on what they heard in the news, on the street, on the internet, etc. The real crime here is the slow murder of our Bill of Rights. the Bill of Rights was very objectively worded,,,there is no real murder here,, there is just the very open interpretation that the wording itself allows 'speedy' has no factual time frame attached to it,,,,

JJ_Richmond07 Joined Fri 10/30/09 Posts: 602	Sat 04/21/12 07:01 PM
I'm with Galendgirl here try to keep an open mind about the situation. We are all well aware of the fact that this was misinterpreted by all news stations at first with the stating of the facts and the pictures that were used in the media. A lot of people are getting riled up in the process and I find in every arguement things that don't add up. At the end of the day all we know is something happened shortly after the phone call to the 911 operator ended. Everyone is trying to re-enact what happened after the call ended, we won't know until the case is weighed in court. There are some key things that I would like to know before making my decision like for instance the trajectory of the bullet and residue from the powder. I think this will tell a lot of the final minutes. Meaning if the the powder residue is all over Martin then I would say Zimmerman shot Martin in cold blood. If the residue is mainly on Zimmerman then I would say it is possible Zimmerman was going for the gun to get Martin to step back and could have pulled the trigger as he was pulling the gun from a holster, waist band, wherever it came from and happen to get a kill shot. Do we even know where the bullet hit Martin?

galendgirl Joined Sun 07/06/08 Posts: 24728	Sat 04/21/12 08:22 PM
Regardless of the circumstances of the crime or results that will unfold, this is another sad example of the public trying the case and presuming guilt/innocence of both parties in a media circus. I'm keeping an open mind, rather than taking sides with either party because no trial has been held (despite that it seems Zimmerman was convicted by the public immediately.) The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says that in "all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed" and it disappoints me to know that people feel they have the right to act as judge/jury based on what they heard in the news, on the street, on the internet, etc. The real crime here is the slow murder of our Bill of Rights. the Bill of Rights was very objectively worded,,,there is no real murder here,, there is just the very open interpretation that the wording itself allows 'speedy' has no factual time frame attached to it,,,, You've picked out a portion of the sentence and changed the meaning of the post as well as ignored the intent of the amendment.

oldhippie1952 Joined Mon 03/14/11 Posts: 22693	Sat 04/21/12 08:32 PM
We will just have to wait and see what the evidence actually is. I am unclear on why he was not shot in the legs or stomach or somewhere where it would not kill him. Maybe Zimmerman was too groggy from the head pounding to do that, who knows?

Spidercmb Joined Fri 04/27/07 Posts: 13137	Sat 04/21/12 09:06 PM Edited by Spidercmb on Sat 04/21/12 09:07 PM
This is the controversy over the stand your ground law.... no one here disputes self defense. In the state of Utah, during self defense you can ONLY damage the 'attacker' as much as they have damaged you. Excessive force is not allowed. If Martin started this scuffle and busted the back of Zimmerman's head open... Zimmerman would be legally allowed to bust Martin's head open, not shoot him, not kill him. I think the law needs to be looked at more, seems to be reoccurring issues with it. I call that the "Sucks to be a women" law, because it's a rare woman who can defend herself with equal force against a man.