How Much Blame Should Go To Trayvon Martin's Parents ?

OK. I might have erred there, but the time of day is inconsequential. Suspicious characters can be suspicious at ANY time of the day.

 

It'll take a little time. But they'll gitcha. They'll gitcha.

 

A teen on foot caught in the rain is now "suspicious"... or did you buy into all that crap about George knowing every resident, their kids and guests??

You must have been some security guard.

- - - Updated - - -

A teen on foot caught in the rain is now "suspicious"... or did you buy into all that crap about George knowing every resident, their kids and guests??

You must have been some security guard.

 

That's the tree you want to be barking up right there.

That's why I always wonder when people make threads about portrait pictures of Martin and how he smoked weed and I always wondered; if anything they are distracting people from the real meat of the issue and I would think people would take them less seriously... Like counterproductive.. 1/4 of the population smoke weed. But you focus here on eyewitnesses to the event and the forensics evidence of the event and it makes more sense.

This has me confused; maybe my understanding is off. If somebody shoots and kills somebody else, and that part is already proven, definitive and admitted to by both sides, then doesn't the burden of proof swop to the defendent that they prove their shooting was justified? I mean proving somebody did not attack you is impossible, so how could we imprison any murderers if they can just play the self defense card.

Does it work with sleepwalking murders? Like prove I wasn't sleepwalking?

 

What a dumb post. It's refuted by the very quote that it quoted. Some people have to be told twice. Correct security procedure is correct security procedure, NO MATTER WHO IS DOING IT.

And it doesn't matter that Trayvon was 17 or that he was unarmed. Florida case files are replete with cases of Justifiable Homicide wherein a shooter excercised his legal rights, shooting an unarmed, teenage attacker. The attack part is what's relevant, not 17 or unarmed. Maybe in some places (like New York City) citizens are at the mercy (or lack of) the criminal and cannot shoot their attacker (or even carry a gun), but in Florida, we have the right to defend ourselves, and have done so hundreds of times. Only thing that makes this case different is it's been politicized by a bunch of worn out old men (Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, et al) looking to resurrect or bolster their sagging fame with the black extremist crowds.

 

Aggravated manslaughter.. the killing of a minor with a gun .... is 25 years in Florida.

George was so bloody smart that he couldn't speak????

 

I strongly suggest that you avoid making value judgements about security or security guards, since it is apparent you are very lacking in that regard. From what I heard about Trayvon walking around the complex, in the dark, in the rain, and looking at apartment windows, YEAH, that is very suspicious. OF COURSE it is, and it would be even if the complex had not been experiencing burglaries (which they had).

Also note, just because someone is identified as "suspicious" or a "person of interest" doesn't necessarily mean they have done anything wrong, and the guard is not assuming anything at that point, nor did George Zimmerman. It only means they are to be observed, and maybe reported. When this occurs it is simply a security person doing his job. Quite often, initially suspicious persons turn out to be perfectly innocent. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be watched or reported, and that's all Trayvon Martin had done to him, until he decided to commit the violent crimes of battery and attempted murder against George Zimmerman. This goes to the issue of Trayvon's parents and their possible lack of guidance for the young man. Notice how I brought this right back to the TOPIC of the thread. God, I'm good!

 

I can only offer the word "poppycock".

 

OFF TOPIC! Please stay on topic, All that happened here was self-defense >> Justifiable Homicide.

 

And the reason why that is all you "can only offer" is because you have not one shred of evidence to rest your preposterous notions upon. We understand that very well.

 

When I go chasing around somebody with a gun, call 911 and they tell me to back off, and I then kill them...I expect to go to jail, and I'm quite that's exactly what would happen. I'm also pretty sure I wouldn't "enjoy" the special treatment being afforded this killer.

 

Trayvon wasn't looking into windows.. George changed his story after he shot the boy.

 

In Florida, crimes must not only be shown to have been committed, they have to be shown to be INTENDED, as well. Without criminal intent, you have no crime. If you break a window with your elbow, there could be 2 scenarios. You intended to break that window and you did. You had criminal intent > you committed a crime.
On the other hand, you could have lost your balance, slipped, and accidently hit the window with your elbow. No criminal intent. No crime.

Since in all self-defense shooting cases, the shooter didn't intend to shoot the shot person, but did it to defend against an attack, there is no criminal intent, and thus no crime.

Proving somebody did not attack you is NOT impossible. It is quite possible, IF evidence shows that (videos, eyewitnesses, etc). In this case, the evidence shows that Trayvon Martin DID attack Zimmerman making a conviction in the case all but impossible. Even if no evidence existed, there could not be a conviction as the defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty by the prosecution. Burden of proof doesn't shift around. Either the prosecution proves their case or they don't. Sometimes guilty people get off because prosecutors simply are unable to prove their case. A lot of people think this is what happened in the (first) OJ Simpson case, and the Casey Anthony case. In this Zimmerman case, the prosecutors don't have a thing. They are only there because of political stunting, in a case that has no legal merit to begin with.

 

Windows....Shmindows. The case is about a shooting with a self-defense claim supported by eyewitness and forensic evidence. All this other stuff is hype.

 

1. Maybe the reason you expect to go to jail is because you don't know what you're talking about. 911 has no authority to tell a security person (who isn't breaking any law) to back off.

2. It is not against the law to be carrying a gun (licensed).

3. It is not against the law to follow (what you call chasing) a suspect, and in fact, it is official recommended procedure by the state of Florida (as I've already explained to you).

4. "Special treatment" ? - he shouldn't even have been arrested, and will quite likely be acquitted (if the jury has brains), and then file massive lawsuits against multiple parties involved.

 

Yeah, Z was just walking around, minding his own business, packing heat, just out for a walk, when thus kid viciously attacked him for no reason at all. YEAH RIGHT. (speaking of hype).

 

Intended? LOLOLOL So now you aren't just a security guard.. you are a mind reader.. Trayvon never got close enough to hit any window..

Casey Anthony and OJ didn't admit they had killed anyone. Do you know the difference?

 

Z was doing security. As for why Trayvon attacked him, that's irrelevant. All that matters is he did, evidence shows, and that makes if a self-defense justifiable homicide case. Like I said, if anybody has any evidence to the contrary, let's hear it. But I said EVIDENCE, OK ? The hot air doesn't rate.

 

George was NOT security.. He was an unpaid volunteer who ignored his training.. In short he was dumb as a stump.

- - - Updated - - -

George was NOT security.. He was an unpaid volunteer who ignored his training.. In short he was dumb as a stump.

- - - Updated - - -

George was NOT security.. He was an unpaid volunteer who ignored his training.. In short he was dumb as a stump.

 

Have you been getting enough sleep ? The example I gave about breaking a window has NOTHING whatsoever to do with Trayvon. It was just an example to illustrate the idea of criminal intent, in general. Get it ? Pheeeeeeww! (high-pitched whistle). In fact, I was thinking back to a window in our security guardhouse that one of the guards accidently broke, in a job where I worked back in 2005.

As for Casey Anthony and OJ, the only point there is that the prosecutions couldn't prove their cases, so they resulted in acquittals. And Zimmerman did not "admit" ( a word that implies guilt) to shooting Trayvon - he STATED it) And so ? Lots of people shoot people. That doesn't mean they committed a crime, or did anything wrong whatsoever. If anybody thinks they have a shred of evidence that Z did, let's hear it.

 

Doing security? You mean hunting, don't you?

 

Well, doing security IS hunting to a degree. It is hunting (or looking) for security breaches (suspicious persons, fire hazards, unlocked doors or open doors, dangerous exposed electrical wires, dangerous holes in the ground, holes in security fences, broken glass, etc) So yeah, I guess I do mean hunting, to a degree.

 

regardless if you think Zimmerman is guilty or innocent, Martin is a victim who was doing nothing more then walking home alone that night, had Zimmerman stayed in his car he would not of shot a unarmed young man that night

heck, had Zimmerman identified himself as a neighborhood watch guy when approaching Martin it would of helped too

.

 

FALSE! Martin was doing A WHOLE LOT MORE than just walking home alone that night. He was attacking somebody. He was committing the violent crimes of battery and attempted murder, and he did it in front of at least 2 eyewitnesses, both of whom reported it to the police. Martin was not a victim. He was a criminal perpetrator.

And as I've already explained numerous times (have you been reading the thread), Zimmeramn is not supposed to have stayed in his car. He's a security guy. He's supposed to be out following a suspect to Observe & Report.

http://www.politicalforum.com/member-casual-chat/307248-doesnt-matter-what-dispatcher-said.html

 

It really is irresponsible to allow a 17 year old to walk to the corner store to buy an Arizona Ice Tea and a bag of skittles.

What were his parents thinking?