/dev/null Posted March 27, 2012 Posted March 27, 2012 The parents are heading to DC. http://www.clickorlando.com/news/Parents-of-slain-Florida-teen-to-appear-on-Capitol-Hill/-/1637132/9717200/-/8r2hugz/-/index.html His grieving Mom also took a trip to the Patent and Trademark O http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/trayvon-martin-trademarks-769123ffice
Rob's House Posted March 27, 2012 Posted March 27, 2012 So Congress has determined this is a hate crime? Gee, I guess due process is useless these days. Yeah, well what about Trayvon? How much due process did he get?
3rdnlng Posted March 27, 2012 Posted March 27, 2012 The parents are heading to DC. http://www.clickorlando.com/news/Parents-of-slain-Florida-teen-to-appear-on-Capitol-Hill/-/1637132/9717200/-/8r2hugz/-/index.html From your link: "Martin's parents and family attorney are expected to attend a forum on racial profiling, hate crimes and "stand your ground" deadly force laws, sponsored by Democratic members of the House Judiciary Committee." All I can say is that they are low-life political hacks attempting to use this somehow for their own good.
KD in CA Posted March 27, 2012 Posted March 27, 2012 http://www.thesmokin...ademarks-769123 "Sybrina Fulton is seeking marks for the phrases "I Am Trayvon" and "Justice for Trayvon," according to filings made last week with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. In both instances, Fulton, 46, is seeking the trademarks for use on "Digital materials, namely, CDs and DVDs featuring Trayvon Martin," and other products." Absolutely classic. So happy to see that her overwhelming grief isn't stopping her from cashing in. I wonder what Al's cut is going to be on the merchandising. Only in America!
/dev/null Posted March 27, 2012 Posted March 27, 2012 Absolutely classic. So happy to see that her overwhelming grief isn't stopping her from cashing in. I wonder what Al's cut is going to be on the merchandising. Only in America! Don't forget to go out and buy your Official Obama 2012 Hoodie
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 27, 2012 Posted March 27, 2012 <br />Sorry Juror, you're wrong on this. If events transpired as the witness account say it's an open & shut case for self defense. <br /><br />Regardless of what happened prior to the confrontation, when Zimmerman is going back to his car and Trayvon approaches him Trayvon becomes the aggressor. And I think if someone had just broken your nose and was sitting on your chest repeatedly slamming your head against the concrete you would realize how reasonable it is to fear imminent bodily harm. At that point you can no longer retreat and thus stand your ground wouldn't apply. And you can't claim self defense for Trayvon because Zimmerman (I.e. The danger) was retreating. He can't even claim he was standing his ground because he was moning forward.<br /><br /><br /><br /> TRUE. As the original aggressor/stalker... Deadly force should still bring a manslaughter rap. What is stopping somebody from going on the prowl and then claiming self defense? All one has to do is make sure the job gets finished with a killing.
erynthered Posted March 27, 2012 Posted March 27, 2012 From your link: "Martin's parents and family attorney are expected to attend a forum on racial profiling, hate crimes and "stand your ground" deadly force laws, sponsored by Democratic members of the House Judiciary Committee." All I can say is that they are low-life political hacks attempting to use this somehow for their own good. All expences paid too I bet. Where all the Libs? Is this OK with you Lib's
Rob's House Posted March 27, 2012 Posted March 27, 2012 <br /><br /><br /> TRUE. As the original aggressor/stalker... Deadly force should still bring a manslaughter rap. What is stopping somebody from going on the prowl and then claiming self defense? All one has to do is make sure the job gets finished with a killing. That's a gross mischaracterization.
Juror#8 Posted March 27, 2012 Posted March 27, 2012 (edited) I'm not saying it's an open and shut case. He just keeps asking questions that he doesn't have answers to with assumptions that the police and DA haven't already asked and answered those questions and additional ones. He's no better than the idiot reporters that keep writing stories that speculate there's more to this story than the police want you know. And that undisclosed knowledge obviously points to something sinister. There's obviously more to this story than the police are telling the public. There always is. Why? Because cases aren't tried in the court of public opinion. But let's keep making assumptions and vilifying one side or the other before anything even gets to trial. Anything can always happen in a court of law regardless of facts. Look, you have your feelings about this case. Cool. I'm actually saying the opposite of your bolded point above. I'm saying, and I've said, that the man deserves a fair trial and nothing should be assumed as true. The lawyers are working within the periphery to figure out the details. I, like everyone else, have their opinions based on the evidence that has been put forth to date. But I have been careful to distinguish MY OPINION from black letter law and analysis of that law. In fact, my opinion hasn't even settled. I don't have any opinion about Zimmerman's criminal guilt or innocence. If certain things come to fruition, that may change. As of now, I believe the same thing that I believed a week ago when I wrote my first post on this matter: -He should have been arrested pending the outcome of an investigation -He went against the admonition of the police entity and followed a gentleman who didn't commit an articulable crime -He is bigger than Martin (which is only relevant in a proportionality context) -He had a weapon; Martin didn't Beyond that, I'm interested in the nuances of the law and how they pertain to this matter. I'm an attorney. I've represented clients in court. Though I've never represented a client at their initial trial, I have represented clients on direct appeal and in their Motion for Reconsideration of Sentence hearings. For those who have never served as an advocate in that context, I'm presenting the black letter law and the questions that will ultimately determine the legal applicability. You may not be interested in that. That may be like physics and calculus to a 4 year old to you. Fine. I get it. You want the Cliff's Notes. But for everyone else, it means a lot of questions, and hypothetical directions. The media is not asking the questions that I mentioned in my post. If you're not interested in reading anything counter to your opinion than just ignore my post. If you don't appreciate legal complexity, just ignore the post. If you arrived at your opinion and see anything contrary to that as a personal challenge, fine; ignore my posts. I won't take it personally. There are other drinking holes for you to frequent. Otherwise, chill out, pull up a chair, and join the discussion. Edited March 27, 2012 by Juror#8
Adam Posted March 27, 2012 Posted March 27, 2012 All expences paid too I bet. Where all the Libs? Is this OK with you Lib's Um, who are you talking to?
3rdnlng Posted March 27, 2012 Posted March 27, 2012 Look, you have your feelings about this case. Cool. I'm actually saying the opposite of your bolded point above. I'm saying, and I've said, that the man deserves a fair trial and nothing should be assumed as true. The lawyers are working within the periphery to figure out the details. I, like everyone else, have their opinions based on the evidence that has been put forth to date. But I have been careful to distinguish MY OPINION from black letter law and analysis of that law. In fact, my opinion hasn't even settled. I don't have any opinion about Zimmerman's criminal guilt or innocence. If certain things come to fruition, that may change. As of now, I believe the same thing that I believed a week ago when I wrote my first post on this matter: -He should have been arrested pending the outcome of an investigation -He went against the admonition of the police entity and followed a gentleman who didn't commit an articulable crime -He is bigger than Martin (which is only relevant in a proportionality context) -He had a weapon; Martin didn't Beyond that, I'm interested in the nuances of the law and how they pertain to this matter. I'm an attorney. I've represented clients in court. Though I've never represented a client at their initial trial, I have represented clients on direct appeal and in their Motion for Reconsideration of Sentence hearings. For those who have never served as an advocate in that context, I'm presenting the black letter law and the questions that will ultimately determine the legal applicability. You may not be interested in that. That may be like physics and calculus to a 4 year old to you. Fine. I get it. You want the Cliff's Notes. But for everyone else, it means a lot of questions, and hypothetical directions. The media is not asking the questions that I mentioned in my post. If you're not interested in reading anything counter to your opinion than just ignore my post. If you don't appreciate legal complexity, just ignore the post. If you arrived at your opinion and see anything contrary to that as a personal challenge, fine; ignore my posts. I won't take it personally. There are other drinking holes for you to frequent. Otherwise, chill out, pull up a chair, and join the discussion. It just occurred to me that we as taxpayers are paying for you to post here. Hmmm. Anyway, anbody that has made up their mind on this without all the facts is plain stupid and agenda driven. Al Sharpton & Jesse Jackson are race baiters trying to stir up a storm.
shrader Posted March 27, 2012 Posted March 27, 2012 Sorry Juror, you're wrong on this. If events transpired as the witness account say it's an open & shut case for self defense. Regardless of what happened prior to the confrontation, when Zimmerman is going back to his car and Trayvon approaches him Trayvon becomes the aggressor. And I think if someone had just broken your nose and was sitting on your chest repeatedly slamming your head against the concrete you would realize how reasonable it is to fear imminent bodily harm. At that point you can no longer retreat and thus stand your ground wouldn't apply. And you can't claim self defense for Trayvon because Zimmerman (I.e. The danger) was retreating. He can't even claim he was standing his ground because he was moning forward. We're still missing the most important detail here, which I think we never will hear, the actual moment of the shooting. Did Zimmerman shoot Martin during this struggle or did Zimmerman shoot him after Martin stopped and was leaving due to the anger of being beaten up (and of course there are other possibilities)? I'm leaning towards the first possibility at this point, but I'll almost guarantee that we never hear it because it would put the story to rest (goodbye ratings). The moral of the story for me for both Zimmerman and Martin is that if you do stupid things, they are far more likely to end badly (kind of like me deciding to post over here).
KD in CA Posted March 27, 2012 Posted March 27, 2012 I'm actually saying the opposite of your bolded point above. I'm saying, and I've said, that the man deserves a fair trial and nothing should be assumed as true. The lawyers are working within the periphery to figure out the details. . . . . He should have been arrested pending the outcome of an investigation But what if the investigation concluded that he didn't commit a crime that warrants an indictment? This seems to be a very real possibility that everyone in the media and the 'activist community' is just ignoring in favor of lashing out blindly. How could there be calls for a jury trial before he is indicted?
3rdnlng Posted March 27, 2012 Posted March 27, 2012 We're still missing the most important detail here, which I think we never will hear, the actual moment of the shooting. Did Zimmerman shoot Martin during this struggle or did Zimmerman shoot him after Martin stopped and was leaving due to the anger of being beaten up (and of course there are other possibilities)? I'm leaning towards the first possibility at this point, but I'll almost guarantee that we never hear it because it would put the story to rest (goodbye ratings). The moral of the story for me for both Zimmerman and Martin is that if you do stupid things, they are far more likely to end badly (kind of like me deciding to post over here). There's forensic evidence to support what really happened, what ever happened.
Joe Miner Posted March 27, 2012 Posted March 27, 2012 (edited) Look, you have your feelings about this case. Cool. I'm actually saying the opposite of your bolded point above. I'm saying, and I've said, that the man deserves a fair trial and nothing should be assumed as true. The lawyers are working within the periphery to figure out the details. I, like everyone else, have their opinions based on the evidence that has been put forth to date. But I have been careful to distinguish MY OPINION from black letter law and analysis of that law. In fact, my opinion hasn't even settled. I don't have any opinion about Zimmerman's criminal guilt or innocence. If certain things come to fruition, that may change. As of now, I believe the same thing that I believed a week ago when I wrote my first post on this matter: -He should have been arrested pending the outcome of an investigation You have no basis for this as you don't know what the investigation discovered -He went against the admonition of the police entity and followed a gentleman who didn't commit an articulable crime You don't know this happened. Zimmerman's story doesn't support this, and there's no way to know for sure. -He is bigger than Martin (which is only relevant in a proportionality context)You'll have a hard time convincing people that weight makes someone an aggressor. If I've read correctly, Martin is the taller of the two. Does that make him an aggressor? -He had a weapon; Martin didn'tHe legally had a weapon. How did he know at the time that Martin didn't? Just because you are carrying a gun doesn't mean you're looking for a fight. Bad assumption on your part. Beyond that, I'm interested in the nuances of the law and how they pertain to this matter. I'm an attorney. I've represented clients in court. Though I've never represented a client at their initial trial, I have represented clients on direct appeal and in their Motion for Reconsideration of Sentence hearings. For those who have never served as an advocate in that context, I'm presenting the black letter law and the questions that will ultimately determine the legal applicability. You may not be interested in that. That may be like physics and calculus to a 4 year old to you. Fine. I get it. You want the Cliff's Notes. But for everyone else, it means a lot of questions, and hypothetical directions. The media is not asking the questions that I mentioned in my post. If you're not interested in reading anything counter to your opinion than just ignore my post. If you don't appreciate legal complexity, just ignore the post. If you arrived at your opinion and see anything contrary to that as a personal challenge, fine; ignore my posts. I won't take it personally. There are other drinking holes for you to frequent. Otherwise, chill out, pull up a chair, and join the discussion. But your beliefs are based on your assumptions on the areas you listed. Some of them aren't based on any proven facts. And the couple of facts that you listed don't actually have any meaning unless you've already drawn a negative conclusion about Zimmerman. If the police and the DA didn't feel the need to arrest him, why would you push for an arrest? Especially considering that they have far more facts and evidence at their disposal than you do? I don't have an opinion on this as I don't know what happened other than there was some type of altercation and one guy ended up dead. If there's evidence to support an arrest and a trial great. If there's no evidence or not enough, then that's fine too. Edited March 27, 2012 by Joe Miner
Just Jack Posted March 27, 2012 Posted March 27, 2012 The parents are heading to DC. http://www.clickorlando.com/news/Parents-of-slain-Florida-teen-to-appear-on-Capitol-Hill/-/1637132/9717200/-/8r2hugz/-/index.html Crump also said authorities were trying to "demonize" Martin with news accounts that surfaced Monday, saying Martin had been suspended from school in Miami for 10 days after a search of his book bag turned up an empty plastic bag with marijuana residue. "Whatever Trayvon Martin was suspended for had absolutely no bearing on what happened on the night of February 26," he said. Martin's mother, Sybrina Fulton, said, "The only comment that I have right now is that they've killed my son and now they're trying to kill his reputation." Gee, just like the family "demonized" Zimmerman these past couple weeks.
shrader Posted March 27, 2012 Posted March 27, 2012 There's forensic evidence to support what really happened, what ever happened. Exactly, there has to be. Shot during the struggle = Martin's blood on Zimmerman. But we won't hear about this part because then there is nothing to talk about.
Buff_bills4ever Posted March 27, 2012 Posted March 27, 2012 Absolutely classic. So happy to see that her overwhelming grief isn't stopping her from cashing in. I wonder what Al's cut is going to be on the merchandising. Only in America! I don't see that as the case at all. She is protecting her son from being used as a cash cow for some unscrupulous jackass. This is exactly what she should've done. Now she has control about what her son's face gets plastered on. This whole thing is just a complete mess.
Joe Miner Posted March 27, 2012 Posted March 27, 2012 I don't see that as the case at all. She is protecting her son from being used as a cash cow for some unscrupulous jackass. This is exactly what she should've done. Now she has control about what her son's face gets plastered on. This whole thing is just a complete mess. Harsh words for Al and Jesse there.
Bigfatbillsfan Posted March 27, 2012 Posted March 27, 2012 So Congress has determined this is a hate crime? Gee, I guess due process is useless these days. Where are they taking away due process by having a hearing on the case. They aren't going to decide the fate of Zimmerman at the hearing are they? From your link: "Martin's parents and family attorney are expected to attend a forum on racial profiling, hate crimes and "stand your ground" deadly force laws, sponsored by Democratic members of the House Judiciary Committee." All I can say is that they are low-life political hacks attempting to use this somehow for their own good. Do you really feel like this is any different then any other politician in history? They all do this any chance they can get.
Recommended Posts