Trayvon

[GH2001]

Again, I don't understand the bending over backwards to try to disagree with me, after it has been agreed that negligent homicide is what took place here.

Really?  We've agreed that there was negligent homicide?

I certainly haven't agreed.  I don't even know that there was homicide.  Self defense?  Was his death "unnecessary?"  If he acted as if he meant to kill me, my family, my friends or somebody I don't even know very well then stopping him by any means necessary seems fair.  To paraphrase Dolph. "If he dies, he dies." 

Sometimes people die in horrible ways.  Doesn't mean somebody has to pay. 

You jump somebody you accept the risks for doing it.   If I start beating the crap out of somebody at the Braves game because I was in their seat and they asked me to move, I deserve whatever they bring to the table -- knife, gun, mace, axe, hammer, bazooka, spear.  If I die, well then I'm the idiot.   Bad on me.

That's the way the world should operate if it doesn't already. 

EDIT:

The judge allowing the jury to tack on lesser charges is, to me, grounds for an appeal if they come back with those.  But I'm not the Florida SC.  Should be, the place would be a lot nicer, but I'm not.

What this guy said. All of it. ESP the braves game part.

As to what JR said, I think sometimes we as a general populace forget that the burden of proof is on the state. Any reasonable doubt, and you know what you gotta do.

Speaking of the braves, fuck Yasul Puig. That is all.

[AUChizad]

Again, I don't understand the bending over backwards to try to disagree with me, after it has been agreed that negligent homicide is what took place here.

Really?  We've agreed that there was negligent homicide?

I certainly haven't agreed.  I don't even know that there was homicide.  Self defense?  Was his death "unnecessary?"  If he acted as if he meant to kill me, my family, my friends or somebody I don't even know very well then stopping him by any means necessary seems fair.  To paraphrase Dolph. "If he dies, he dies." 

Sometimes people die in horrible ways.  Doesn't mean somebody has to pay. 

You jump somebody you accept the risks for doing it.   If I start beating the crap out of somebody at the Braves game because I was in their seat and they asked me to move, I deserve whatever they bring to the table -- knife, gun, mace, axe, hammer, bazooka, spear.  If I die, well then I'm the idiot.   Bad on me.

That's the way the world should operate if it doesn't already. 

EDIT:

The judge allowing the jury to tack on lesser charges is, to me, grounds for an appeal if they come back with those.  But I'm not the Florida SC.  Should be, the place would be a lot nicer, but I'm not.

Equal force. It is paramount to the self-defense law.

If your house is getting broken into and you see a gun? Absolutely, you have the right to blow his brains out. If you've been following a guy for miles on foot, he finally turns around and asks you what the fuck your problem is and attacks you with his hands? You don't have the right to take his life by shooting him in the chest. That's not how the law works, nor should it be.

[Kaos]

Equal force. It is paramount to the self-defense law.

If your house is getting broken into and you see a gun? Absolutely, you have the right to blow his brains out. If you've been following a guy for miles on foot, he finally turns around and asks you what the fudge your problem is and attacks you with his hands? You don't have the right to take his life by shooting him in the chest. That's not how the law works, nor should it be.

Equal force is BS.  You are bigger than me.  If you start punching my skull you're seriously going to tell me that my only defense would be punching your skull back?  No.  If I have a trained ocelot I should turn his teeth and claws loose on you.  And shoot you. And hack off your arms with a long blade.  And feed your eyeballs to a squirrel. 

[Tiger Wench]

Equal force. It is paramount to the self-defense law.

If your house is getting broken into and you see a gun? Absolutely, you have the right to blow his brains out. If you've been following a guy for miles on foot, he finally turns around and asks you what the fuck your problem is and attacks you with his hands? You don't have the right to take his life by shooting him in the chest. That's not how the law works, nor should it be.

Since you like to quote Wikipedia:

A skull fracture is a break in one or more of the eight bones that form the cranial portion of the skull, usually occurring as a result of blunt force trauma. If the force of the impact is excessive, the bone may fracture at or near the site of the impact and cause damage to the underlying physical structures contained within the skull such as the membranes, blood vessels, and brain, even in the absence of a fracture.

Any significant blow to the head results in a concussion, with or without loss of consciousness.

A depressed skull fracture is a type of fracture usually resulting from blunt force trauma, such as getting struck with a hammer, rock or getting kicked in the head. These types of fractures, which occur in 11% of severe head injuries, are comminuted fractures in which broken bones are displaced inward. Depressed skull fractures carry a high risk of increased pressure on the brain, or a hemorrhage to the brain, crushing the delicate tissue.
 
Compound depressed skull fractures occur when there is a laceration over the fracture, resulting in the internal cranial cavity being in contact with the outside environment increasing the risk of contamination and infection.

He attacks me with his hands, using said hands to pound my skull into the concrete.  He's not kicking me in the shin.  He's not punching me in the nose.  HE IS POUNDING MY HEAD INTO A CONCRETE SIDEWALK.

At best, I "only" have a concussion and some scratches.  Also per Wiki, it can take as little as 15 psi to crack a skull in certain locations - so at worst, my skull caves in and I am a vegetable.

But I can't shoot him.

Right.

[JR4AU]

If you've been following a guy for miles on foot, he finally turns around and asks you what the fuck your problem is and attacks you with his hands? You don't have the right to take his life by shooting him in the chest. That's not how the law works, nor should it be.

Miles?  You serious?  Not that it matters really. 

Shall I go on the assumption that YOU believe that Trayvon was justified in going on the attack because he thought he was being followed and got tired of it, and thus Zimmerman has no claim to self defense because of that?

Your statement of law only become correct when applied to certain fact scenarios, and is incorrect in others. 

[AUTiger1]

Equal force. It is paramount to the self-defense law.

If your house is getting broken into and you see a gun? Absolutely, you have the right to blow his brains out. If you've been following a guy for miles on foot, he finally turns around and asks you what the fuck your problem is and attacks you with his hands? You don't have the right to take his life by shooting him in the chest. That's not how the law works, nor should it be.

This assumes that his intentions are more than to run the guy off from the neighborhood and that he had intentions of doing harm, which the state would have to prove beyond reasonable doubt. 

What if I am just walking around my neighborhood for some exercise and someone who is not from there is doing the same and feels like I am following him? What if he turns and ask me "what the fuck is your problem?" and starts attacking me with his fist?   I have no right to defend myself even to the point of taking his life if I feared for mine? 

[WiregrassTiger]

I'm the one saying we agree, despite you guys trying really hard to say I'm a blathering idiot for having the same opinions that you do.

I would just like to point out that I've never thought of you as a blathering idiot for having the same opinions that I do. It is for completely different reasons. Carry on. 

[JR4AU]

This assumes that his intentions are more than to run the guy off from the neighborhood and that he had intentions of doing harm, which the state would have to prove beyond reasonable doubt. 

What if I am just walking around my neighborhood for some exercise and someone who is not from there is doing the same and feels like I am following him? What if he turns and ask me "what the fuck is your problem?" and starts attacking me with his fist?   I have no right to defend myself even to the point of taking his life if I feared for mine?

Following someone doesn't give them justification to go on the offensive.  In fact the "stand your ground" law is just that.  If you feel threatened, you can stand your ground, you can't go in the offensive.  Damn sure can't go on the offensive just because you're tired of being followed. 

Your second paragraph is exactly the hypothetical I was thinking of. 

[CCTAU]

This is getting ridiculous. Bleeding hearts are all for the criminal until they are the one's that get attacked.
A man with an itchy trigger finger and hell bent on shooting someone DOES NOT WAIT TILL HIS ATTACKER IS UPON HIM. ANY injuries inflicted upon Zimmerman (and there were) says that he waited to be attacked BEFORE responding. THAT IS SELF DEFENSE...unless you ae black. Then its half whitey killing another innocent black boy.

This is a kangaroo case in a kangaroo court. This should never have gone to trial. It only went this far because of an ignorant (leftist) media inciting racial tensions.

THERE WAS NO HOMICIDE. WE WILL NEVER AGREE ON THAT!

And there is NO evidence stating otherwise.

[AUChizad]

What am I missing here?

Since Zimmerman openly admits shooting Martin, had he been charged with manslaughter, which is action without intent to cause death, he would be walking towards prison right now.

I predict that Zimmerman gets off on second degree - the DA is in over his head - he can try and inflate all the inflamatory statements Zimmerman made, and try and spin them towards enough intent to justify second degree, but I don't think, based on what I have seen, heard and read so far, that I would vote for second degree.  I would have voted for manslaughter, no question. 

Like I said before, I'd convict the guy on manslaughter, and give him probation or time served or something.  Doubt he constitutes a continuing threat to society.  But he walks on Murder Two.

Negligent homicide or inv manslaughter is what we have here.

It sounds to me like most everyone here thought he was guilty of manslaughter...until they found out that he could actually be charged for it.

[JR4AU]

This is getting ridiculous. Bleeding hearts are all for the criminal until they are the one's that get attacked.
A man with an itchy trigger finger and hell bent on shooting someone DOES NOT WAIT TILL HIS ATTACKER IS UPON HIM. ANY injuries inflicted upon Zimmerman (and there were) says that he waited to be attacked BEFORE responding. THAT IS SELF DEFENSE...unless you ae black. Then its half whitey killing another innocent black boy.

This is a kangaroo case in a kangaroo court. This should never have gone to trial. It only went this far because of an ignorant (leftist) media inciting racial tensions.

THERE WAS NO HOMICIDE. WE WILL NEVER AGREE ON THAT!

And there is NO evidence stating otherwise.

There was a Homicide, as one person killed another.  There was no murder here.  IMHO. 

[CCTAU]

There was a Homicide, as one person killed another.  There was no murder here.  IMHO.

Sorry. Meant the aggravated kind.

[AUChizad]

Shall I go on the assumption that YOU believe that Trayvon was justified in going on the attack because he thought he was being followed and got tired of it, and thus Zimmerman has no claim to self defense because of that?

I believe that it is reasonably understandable for a kid to attack someone for fear of their own safety after they've obviously been followed on foot for several blocks through a neighborhood.

You guys can bring up all the hypothetical bullshit about jogging that you want, but it is clear as day that Zimmerman was following Trayvon because of his "suspicious nature", and that BOTH of them were aware of this. That's what the whole "creepy ass cracker following me" stuff was about. That's what "You got a problem man?" was about. Do you dispute that those events took place? You think he just assaulted Zimmerman out of the blue, completely unprovoked? Talk about a leap of assumption.

To answer your question, I don't necessarily think it was "right" for Trayvon to confront Zimmerman, and I certainly don't think it, in and of itself, is grounds to eliminate Zimmerman's right to self defense that Trayvon had a motive for attacking him.

I do think circumstantially that he was asking for trouble by following him around, and he found it. Furthermore, I think based on the evidence of the case, that he probably could have avoided taking Trayvon's life at several points during the incident. We're all talking about the fact that Trayvon definitely went on the offensive first and was beating Zimmerman within an inch of his life as if that is indisputable fact, yet you guys are cherry picking the validity of other testimony to suit your assumptions/predetermined opinions. Like I said, neither are saints in this, I don't understand the urge to paint either of them that way.

[Kaos]

What am I missing here?
It sounds to me like most everyone here thought he was guilty of manslaughter...until they found out that he could actually be charged for it.

Math? 

Three quotes from TW and one lukewarm assent from another doesn't make a consensus.

I'm watching the closing argument now. The prosecutor is a douche.  Idiot.  His hysterical tone makes me think he's lying.  He sounds like my kids when they go "I don't WANNA!"

He's terrible.  Looks like dabney Coleman and dr Phil had a baby.

Matlock would have only lasted one episode if it was all like this.  Phil Coleman is awful.

[CCTAU]

Furthermore, I think based on the evidence of the case, that he probably could have avoided taking Trayvon's life at several points during the incident.

It doesn't matter. If you are attacked, it is not your responsibility to AVOID taking someone's life. It is your responsibility to INSURE your OWN life.

That is where we differ. If you attack me, I am not concerned with your life...ONLY MINE.

And that is what the stand your ground law addresses.

NOT GUILTY!

[AUChizad]

This is getting ridiculous. Bleeding hearts are all for the criminal until they are the one's that get attacked.
A man with an itchy trigger finger and hell bent on shooting someone DOES NOT WAIT TILL HIS ATTACKER IS UPON HIM. ANY injuries inflicted upon Zimmerman (and there were) says that he waited to be attacked BEFORE responding. THAT IS SELF DEFENSE...unless you ae black. Then its half whitey killing another innocent black boy.

So I'm a "bleeding heart" now? You do realize that there are a lot of people out there who are 100% convinced that Zimmerman committed 2nd degree murder out there and that Trayvon is saint, incapable of any wrongdoing himself.

How am I getting painted in this category for taking the rational, reasonable middle ground that Zimmerman is not a stone-cold murderer, but that his self-defense was excessive based on the testimony that we've heard and the fact that a kid is dead in the aftermath, and that somewhere between imperfect self-defense voluntary manslaughter and criminally negligent manslaughter, Zimmerman is not 100% innocent in this?

Also, you admit that you are "for the criminal" here. Your racism is showing.

This is a kangaroo case in a kangaroo court. This should never have gone to trial. It only went this far because of an ignorant (leftist) media inciting racial tensions.

I'm 100% in agreeance on this. I don't think the right-wing media has done any favors by propping up Zimmerman as a hero either, but that's neither here nor there. By and large, we're talking about this because it's a ratings bonanza because it plays off of racial hatred on both sides. No good comes from this. It's sensationalism at its worst.

THERE WAS NO HOMICIDE. WE WILL NEVER AGREE ON THAT!

And there is NO evidence stating otherwise.

Derp. No one shot and killed another person, ending their life? You've got some scoop that the rest of the country would love to get in on.

[AUChizad]

To answer your question, I don't necessarily think it was "right" for Trayvon to confront Zimmerman, and I certainly don't think it, in and of itself, is grounds to eliminate Zimmerman's right to self defense that Trayvon had a motive for attacking him.

To expand on this, a lot depends on your definition of "starting it" is. The person that threw the first punch? I believe that to be Trayvon, as do most people. The person that initiated the behavior that caused the scuffle? I don't think there's any doubt that that was Zimmerman.

Hypothetical analogy: Let's say you're at that Braves game and the dude next to you keeps calling your wife a mommy part and a whore and telling you he can smell her pussy from where he's sitting.

Do you clock him? By your standards, you'd better be prepared to get your face blown off.

I'm not saying that Zimmerman following Trayvon was intentionally disrespectful in the same way as the example above. I'm just saying throwing the first punch isn't necessarily all that's involved in who "started it" and who is right or wrong. Also, unlike the example above, I believe that Trayvon feared for his own safety due to Zimmerman's actions, right or wrong. Of course, none of this has anything to do with a court of law, I'm just saying from a common sense perspective.

[Kaos]

Your scenario fails.

BTW, I'm forced to watch this on CNN, a network I've managed to avoid for many years. The rampant bias is unbelievable.  It's honestly shocking to watch this banefield twit lick the prosecution pole.  Her breathless bias is infuriating.

Hey. They're in Atlanta, right?  I could go there and put an end to this.

[GH2001]

What am I missing here?
It sounds to me like most everyone here thought he was guilty of manslaughter...until they found out that he could actually be charged for it.

I was merely stating what actually happened which is what JR said - one human killed another in a struggle. It was a homicide. And to most with logic, involuntary.

So you think tray on had a right to defend himself because he was being hounded but at the same time you don't think Zimmerman had any right to defend himself from having his head bashed on the concrete?? Good grief man.

And the judge allowing for manslaughter AFTER closing arguments is utter bullshit. With that, this has indeed become a kangaroo court. He was brought in on a murder charge. He is either guilty of the charge or not. They knew their murder case was crap and are pulling this 11th hour bullshit.

[JR4AU]

What am I missing here?
It sounds to me like most everyone here thought he was guilty of manslaughter...until they found out that he could actually be charged for it.

You quoted two people, then claimed that to be "everybody". 

Do you know what constitutes manslaughter in Florida?  Negligence?