#1 2013-07-25 18:12:38
The ridiculous Trayvon Martin case
It’s a failure of US judicial system. It failed to help the weak side people.
When it says Zimmerman is not guilty to kill Trayvon Martin, then what Trayvon was? He became an attacker – a threat to other’s life. That’s how a court to turn an innocent man to be a potential life threatener. An unarmed teen on his way to his relative’s house. He now was believed to be a threaten to other’s life. The other one, though proved having original bad will against Trayvon and finally killed him, became victim.
It indicates that any law abiding citizens should be obedient to unreasonable search (followed, monitored, provoked…). Or he would be killed, if the provoker announced that his life has been threatened.
This case also would encourage people to use guns in argument because dead people losing their voice in the case.
Offline
#2 2013-07-25 19:00:59
The justification for using deadly force is not just to protect from the threat of death. The threat of serious injury is also reasonable justification for using deadly force.
A fist fight can cause serious permanently debilitating injury. Blindness, paralysis, broken facial bones and even death are not unheard of.
Do a a quick google search for "killed by a punch in the face", "blinded by a punch in the face", and "paralyzed by a punch in the face" and you will see many real world examples.
While I agree that Zimmerman should not have followed Martin, Martin also bore a responsibility to behave civilly when confronting Zimmerman or just not confronting Zimmerman at all.
There were bad decisions made on both sides, but the bad decision by Zimmerman did not rise to the level of murder or manslaughter (or at least could not be proven to rise to that level beyond a reasonable doubt).
Our system of jurisprudence is intended to ensure that an innocent person does not go to jail. Prosecutor and jurors often loose sight of that principle and end up sending an innocent person to prison. That is a travesty. I would much rather have a system of justice in which a guilty man may go free than an innocent man be imprisoned.
I would not be surprised, however, if he were found to be responsible in a civil case where the legal burden is much lower.
Offline
#3 2013-08-06 16:47:08
SilverSmythe2 wrote:
The justification for using deadly force is not just to protect from the threat of death. The threat of serious injury is also reasonable justification for using deadly force.
.
It seems Trayvon Marting had more reason to apply for that justification.
The fact: Trayvon Martin was on his way to his father's firend's house. He was unarmed. He didn't know Zimmerman.
The fact. Zimmerman carried a gun. He devoted for a task force to catch and arrest burglars. He actively tracked Trayvon. He dialed 911, said Trayvon was suspicious.
Who was the man provoked the case? Who had the motive to kill?
The rest story mostly depends on Zimmerman's description. It turns a provocateur into a victim. That's why it's a bad case to encourage people to kill in argument. Because the dead could never have a voice. The killer takes too much advantage.
Offline
#4 2013-08-06 17:00:27
Kathy, the case was indeed ridiculous. A spic thug and a nigger thug had a confrontation and one of them wound up dead. It happens several times a day in America. It should have been a local police matter that we didn't hear about 24/7. Because opportunists decided to make the spic an Honorary Caucasian and make it into a racial circus for fun and profit, St. Trayvon, Patron Saint of People Of Color Murdered By Racist Whites has been canonized by the media.
Offline
