RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events 17 year old Trayvon Martin shot by Neighborhood watch guy Zimmerman

Why do you insist on painting Treyvon Martin as a child?

Even 5'11 158 is a decent size. Also Martin was an athlete.

He was far from harmless.

I wish Treyvon had lived, but not at Zimmerman's expense.

The media was the beast here. They way they rushed to report the story, then rather than correct mistakes the media spun facts to fit their story.

They even tried to not only change Zimmerman's race, they invented a new one.

"White-Hispanic"

That is their biggest fuck up.










Everyone knows that it's 'Whispanic'.

Obama: Trayvon could have been me

• Speaking at the White House on Friday, President Obama addressed the verdict in the George Zimmerman trial for the killing of Trayvon Martin for the first time since 2012, when he declared that if he had a son, he’d look like Martin. This time, Obama said, “Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago.”
  
  Obama added that he had experienced racial profiling personally: "There are very few African-American men who haven't had the experience of being followed in a department store — that includes me."
  
  Finally, Obama went into the racial complexities of the Martin situation: "A lot of African-American boys are painted with a broad brush...If a white male teen was involved in the same kind of scenario, both the outcome and the aftermath might have been different." He did say, "As difficult and as challenging as this whole episode has been, I don't want us to lose sight that things are getting better...We're becoming a more perfect union, not a perfect union, but a more perfect union."

Short version of the speech:

Whole wheat cracka.

Way to ease racial tensions Mr. President!

He wants riots. Besides drawing attention away from the NSA and IRS scandals, it creates a "never let a crisis go to waste" scenario he can exploit.

You seem to be saying the same thing but just adding in your opinion about the prosecution. The jury used reasonable doubt Doctor. If and when there is a civil suit a verdict will be based on a preponderance of the evidence btw. So like OJ there could be a different outcome.

Martin was a kid. Just barely 17 by a couple of weeks when Zimmerman killed him. As for his height, 5'11 and 158lbs makes for a skinny kid. I suspect that's why conservatives sometime lie and make him 6'4 and heavier and even posting pics of some other older black guy. Check out the picture in snopes of Martin and he looks like a kid that just went through a growth spurt. Gangly with thin long arms and legs.

Yeah because those scandals are about to explode anytime soon.

No opinion. It's actually how our legal system is supposed to work. The burden of proof is upon the prosecution to covince the jury that Zimmerman broke the law. I was hoping that you just misused the term. This post shows that you simply don't know what the fuck you're talking about.



Yes. They had a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman committed murder or manslaughter, so the didn't convict and found him 'not guilty'. He was not found 'not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt'.

I apologize for the inaccurate info. In my defense, I'm asian so anything above 5'2" is a giant and can beat me up, regardless of age.

Oh sorry I thought you had made a comment about the prosecution not doing a good job Doctor. (I was reading a couple of things at once) You still seem to agree with me but just saying it in a different way. The jury was instucted to use reasonable doubt in it's delibratations. Yep, it's the prosecutors job to convince a jury that they can render a not guilty verdict but they are the ones deciding if it's beyond a reasonable doubt or not.

At least we can agree it's not right to pretend Martin was taller and heavier than what he was?

I actually didn't think you were intentionally making it up. Some parts of the conservative press and blogasphere made that into a "fact". At one point I thought he was a mini-hulk myself.

If races were different...

No. It's the prosecution's job to convince the jury to render a guilty verdict. In order to do that the jury has to believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime as the prosecution stated, an instruction that all juries in a capital criminal case are given the this country. My comment was that the prosecution didn't do a good job considering the not guilty verdict that the jury reached. Jurors don't have to believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is innocent.

The jury is instructed as such by the judge.


http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/jury_instructions/chapters/chapter3/p1c3s3.7.rtf

Shouldn't the kid be hispanic?

Al Sharpton:




What a gleaming tower of eloquence for the black community Mr Sharpton is.

Exactly as I said and the opposite of what you're saying. The defendant is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt through the evidence presented by the prosecution. Nowhere does it say that the defendant must be found 'not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt'.

I understand your point. However, even that isn't a prosecutors job.

The job of a public prosecutor is to do justice, not merely convict. If the evidence isn't there, the DA is supposed to drop or reduce the charges.

The prosecution in this case arguably didn't do that. They pursued a vendetta for political reasons.

As such, they failed in their ethical obligations.

God, M E M.
You keep repeating the same selective omissions.
Martin called (the then unknown) Zimmerman a "creepy ass cracker", which sounds more an expression of annoyance and contempt than fear.
Martin "wasn't doing anything wrong", but neither was Zimmerman. He observed Martin behaving suspiciously, called the police to report and describe the behavior, and observed Martin from a distance. And in this, Zimmerman did nothing wrong.

It was Martin who assaulted Zimmerman, who broke his nose, gave him two black eyes, and lacerations to the back of the head, as observed in a recorded 911 call made by witness John Goode. In the autopsy, powder burns to Martin's body were (according to the forensics expert who WROTE THE TEXTBOOK on powder burns evidence) evidence consistent with Zimmerman's account.

The detective who investigated said on observing the evidence, witnesses and looking for racial motive on Zimmerman's part, found absolutely no evidence of racist motive on Zimmerman's part. The guy had black family members.
He tutored black kids, even after the tutoring program had ended! He took a black girl to prom!
With all this evidence stacked up, it is pure slander to insinuate that Zimmerman targeted Martin because he was black, or that there is not evidence to back up Zimmerman's story.
There absolutely was evidence.



And by the way, while Snopes is partly correct that one Facebook photo was someone other than Martin, as I posted earlier in the topic, Daily Caller posted a whole bunch of OTHER photos where Trayvon Martin --the REAL Trayvon Martin-- posed all ghetto gangster, and posted a number of belligerent gangster-posing comments, under the name "No_Limit_Nigga".

I'm not at all convinced that the "innocent boy" photo of Trayvon was taken "only 7 months" before he was killed, as the Martin family lawyer alleged. Martin is clearly far more developed and muscular.
The family took down Trayvon's Facebook and Twitter pages because they KNEW these posts and photos made clear he was not an innocent little boy.
They hid the truth!

I've also seen little reporting of the fact that Trayvon Martin was a poor student with disciplinary problems, and had THREE 10-day suspensions in a year, for things that would be arrestable offenses outside school: marijuana possession with a bong pipe, spraying graffiti on a locker, and possessing a bag of women's jewelry with a screwdriver described as "a burglary tool".

In addition --OMITTED FROM COURT EVIDENCE BY THE JUDGE-- Trayvon Martin's phone text messages and photos, talking about him planning to buy a gun, a photo of an anonymous hand (most likely Trayvon's)brandishing a gun. And Trayvon's exchanged texts with his half-brother, asking Trayvon to teach him how to fight, which Trayvon obviously had superior skill at from the texts. And texts where he describes breaking an opponent's nose and pounding him over and over in the face as the recommended way to take them down.
PRECISELY the method he used to take down Zimmerman.

It can be under-reported but not hidden, but the evidence that you choose to selectively ignore is no less clear.



And regarding the height-difference, even assuming Trayvon was only 5' 11", he still was 2 inches taller, more muscular --a football player-- and far more skilled at fighting, according to Zimmerman's own personal trainer, who said despite much training, Zimmerman's skill on a scale from 1 to 10, still remained an inept "1".

As I posted earlier, I've seen plenty of mainstream/liberal sources report Trayvon Martin's height as 6' 3"...


... and he certainly looks about that in his "last photo with family".
I've seen it stated elsewhere that Martin was not measured accurately at the time of his autopsy, and that he actually is 6' 3". Snopes dodges all these issues.

And beyond that, like unprofessional babies, the prosecution team denied the verdict in their press conference directly after-the-fact, angrily insisted that Zimmerman is guilty, undermined the justice system and the verdict, and directly contributed to incidents of whites beaten in at least 4 states (so far) where the black mob said "this is for Trayvon".

A shortcut to the point that MEM is totally misunderstanding the phrase 'beyond a reasonable doubt' and, apparently, our criminal justice system.

Once again using slightly different words... The jurors use reasonable doubt when rendering their verdict. They are instructed by the judge to use that high standard. If they use a different standard than they are not following their instructions.

You'll note your article uses the word "described" when discussing weight and height. The autopsy probably was more accurate than the earlier descriptions (guesses). You also misstate that an eyewitness (John) saw who innitiated the attack. That isn't true he saw part of the fight but not how it started or how it ended. I could go on but you get the idea.

Maybe people shrink upon death. I've seen it happen in Super Mario Bros.

Like a 100% cotton shirt in the laundry!

Geez, M E M.

I posted that in a VERY long post, where I tried to give a comprehensive overview of all the red flags in Trayvon Martin's personal history, red flags that are collectively consistent with Zimmerman's account, and backed by witnesses and forensics. Excuse me if I left one tiny ambiguity that Goode didn't confirm, that is still corroborated by Zimmerman's account and forensic evidence.

Specifically:
(1)the witness (John Goode) observed Trayvon Martin on top pounding away on Zimmerman unrelentingly.
(2) the autopsy revealed no bruises on Trayvon Martin, so Zimmerman clearly didn't throw the first punch, or ANY punches.
(3) the only bruising was on Trayvon Martin's knuckles and nowhere else on his body, showing that he was punching Zimmerman.
(4) Trayvon Martin's text messages that detail his fighting ability and personal choice of face-bashing technique, that perfectly matches the technique he used on Zimmerman.

Sorry for just doing the end of your long comprehensive post WB. I still think Zimmerman was the one with an actual history of violence when you compare the two. Assaulting an officer with violence and domestic abuse allegations of slapping his exfiance around. We discussed it and it gets down to you only wanting to use Martin's history. It's incriminating to you that Martin wanted to buy a gun but not so for Zimmerman having one as he followed Martin. It's incriminating for Martin to ask a brother to show him how to fight but it doesn't mean anything to you that Zimmerman was spending a couple of hours a day several days a week at a mixed martial arts gymn. In any case the judge kept out both histories for the most part. Probably a bigger benefit to Zimmerman IMHO. I think there's a good chance that there will be a civil suit if it's allowed and we'll see all this included in a civil trial btw.

As for Zimmerman's injuries, they were minor and even right after killing Martin he didn't think they were bad enough to warrant a trip to the hospital. Now if you look at his description of the fight it doesn't add up that he wouldn't have gone to the hospital. Also consider that he didn't even attempt to block any of those blows. Instead he somehow was able to get his gun out and shoot Martin. An incredible feat if you look over what he said Martin was doing to him and the positions of their bodies.

Irrelevant. The point of self defense is to try and keep someone from inflicting injury. There is no legal requirement that someone wait to get a serious injury and then fight back. Indeed, such a requirement would be absurd, insofar as the injuries could prevent the victim from fighting back.

You seem not to understand how it's being used, though. The way you state it, the jury believed beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was not guilty. That is not the burden of the defense. I think that you may believe the same thing that I'm saying, but the words that you're typing and posting mean the opposite.

Not necessarily. While the laws of every state vary, typically even in a civil suit, "Evidence of a person’s character or character trait is not admissible to prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character or trait."

"http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_404

Yes.

I don't believe that the shooting was due to racism.

The area had a lot of burglaries, the description of the suspect(s) was black and wearing a hoodie.

As cliche as it sounds Treyvon fit the description.

So there's an alternate universe where Kanye West went back in time and killed "Stand by Me" era Jerry O'Connell?

I'm pretty much done with this case. At the end of the day, I think the jury handed down the only verdict they could. People on both sides were far too emotionally connected to this case. Libs are bitching and whining because it didn't go their way. Far too many cons seem to be gloating over the verdict for no apparent god damned reason than the guy they felt--notice their emotional attachment too--was not guilty was found not guilty. They'll be disappointed by a case soon enough and, to me, it's that love/hate relationship that both sides have with the justice system and its inability to be a respecter of person, race, religion, or whatever that proves the system works.

You could save a lot of typing time, Iggy, if you just made "a pox on both their houses" your sig.

I like to exercise my fingers.