Cheech Posted April 9, 2012 Report Share Posted April 9, 2012 No. Never said he was. I am on the fence on the Martin/Zimmerman thing.I was disputing one poster's opinion that any person involved in any death should always be charged and always go to trial to figure out if they are innocent. I say people should be charged only if the prosecutor thinks they can prove the person is guilty.Exactly, however an investigation should always happen, and that didn't happen here until everyone got all ornery about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scruit Posted April 9, 2012 Author Report Share Posted April 9, 2012 Exactly, however an investigation should always happen, and that didn't happen here until everyone got all ornery about it.That has yet to be seen. The Sanford Police are saying there *was* an investigation and that Zimmerman was exhonorated. The fmaily weren't happy with that. Now there is a state special prosecutor assinged.If the state special prosecutor also exonorates Zimmerman then that means the Sanford Police (and the police chief who was temporarily ousted becuase of this case) are also exonorated.If he is charged and convicted the Sanford Police are in deep sh*t. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magley64 Posted April 9, 2012 Report Share Posted April 9, 2012 (edited) You don't know what she has. I don't know what she has. Nobody knows what she has. Only the prosecutory knows whaty she has. Only SHE can make any decision regarding pressing charges.Wait, where does "back of the head" come from? Are you just flat-out making crap up now?yeah i made up that whole story... did you think i actually had seen such a video, and then exxagerated on where he was shot?the ONLY details I have are as follows. 1 Armed man vs 1 Unarmed man. The unarmed one is dead, the armed one is free.I guess the lesson we learned here is if you intend to shoot someone, make sure they are dead so they cannot argue their side. Edited April 9, 2012 by magley64 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kawi kid Posted April 9, 2012 Report Share Posted April 9, 2012 Its the prosecuting attorney's job to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not act in defense. If the evidence isn't there to prove him guilty there shouldn't be a trial. We are innocent until proven guilty, what happened to that? And to who ever said he ignored police orders to stop following that is false. A request from a dispatcher is not considered a police order. He ignored a dispatchers order not a.policeman's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kawi kid Posted April 9, 2012 Report Share Posted April 9, 2012 yeah i made up that whole story... did you think i actually had seen such a video, and then exxagerated on where he was shot?the ONLY details I have are as follows. 1 Armed man vs 1 Unarmed man. The unarmed one is dead, the armed one is free.I guess the lesson we learned here is if you intend to shoot someone, make sure they are dead so they cannot argue their side.If its deemed a justifiable homicide then he is a free man. You have passed judgement because he was armed. If you was knocked to the ground on your back or your chest disparity of forces says you are in immediate and inevitable danger if you are being attacked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magley64 Posted April 9, 2012 Report Share Posted April 9, 2012 If its deemed a justifiable homicide then he is a free man. You have passed judgement because he was armed. If you was knocked to the ground on your back or your chest disparity of forces says you are in immediate and inevitable danger if you are being attacked.No i passed judgement because 1 is dead, and the other is alive, that is enough (in my mind) to charge him with trayvon's death. If "self defense" is his response, then it is up to him to prove that in a court. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C-bus Posted April 9, 2012 Report Share Posted April 9, 2012 Everyone in America has their opinion. I have one too, but I'm not going there. My only hope is that the legal system judges this based on facts and evidence and does not succumb to pressure from the outside. I'll endure rioting if he truly was innocent and I'll endure a blow to the 2nd amendment movement if he was guilty. I just want them to get it right based on the facts of THIS situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kawi kid Posted April 9, 2012 Report Share Posted April 9, 2012 No i passed judgement because 1 is dead, and the other is alive, that is enough (in my mind) to charge him with trayvon's death. If "self defense" is his response, then it is up to him to prove that in a court.So guilty until proven innocent? Gotcha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magley64 Posted April 9, 2012 Report Share Posted April 9, 2012 (edited) So guilty until proven innocent? Gotchathe evidence is there to "charge" him, Martin is dead.does that make him guilty of murder? no, he has the right to his defense. and it is up to the jury to decide, not me...The evidence is clearly there, If the bullet from his gun, that he was carrying caused the death of Trayvon martin...(which nobody is disputing)I'm curious what would constitute "proof" in your opinion...and speaking of innocent until proven guilty, what about Trayvon Martin? where is his due process? What does he get if it's proven that he was innocent? Nothing.... nothing at all. Edited April 9, 2012 by magley64 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RVTPilot Posted April 9, 2012 Report Share Posted April 9, 2012 Everyone in America has their opinion. I have one too, but I'm not going there. My only hope is that the legal system judges this based on facts and evidence and does not succumb to pressure from the outside. I'll endure rioting if he truly was innocent and I'll endure a blow to the 2nd amendment movement if he was guilty. I just want them to get it right based on the facts of THIS situation.Solid. And I think you touch on the point at the cruz of all this. To date, it doesn't appear that the justice system has acted accordingly in either collecting facts nor accurately protecting either side from the court of public opinion. Add to that media specualtion and distortion and you have numerous hot button issues percualting with one another. This will not end well regardless of whether the conclusion reached it the correct one by constitutional standards or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Punk Posted April 9, 2012 Report Share Posted April 9, 2012 If this makes it to trial I hope the prosecutor has the sense to charge him with something that will result in a conviction even if it is jaywalking. The L.A. riots could have been avoided if the prosecutors hadn't of over reached with their charges. It would have been a slam dunk to have charged them with assault. Based on protests so far if this makes it to court there better be a conviction or expect to see riots. I don't know what happened in this case but I would have no issue if it doesn't go to trial. A death does not mean a crime was committed. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magley64 Posted April 9, 2012 Report Share Posted April 9, 2012 If this makes it to trial I hope the prosecutor has the sense to charge him with something that will result in a conviction even if it is jaywalking. Disagree, he needs to be charged with the death of a human being... whether he is convicted or not is up to a jury of his peersI don't know what happened in this case but I would have no issue if it doesn't go to trial. A death does not mean a crime was committed.I agree, not necessarily, but a death by one person shooting another person, in an area that is not a war zone? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
downwithdisease Posted April 9, 2012 Report Share Posted April 9, 2012 (edited) thanks for my lunch entertainment. innocent until proven guilty. there was an investigation. the man claimed self defense. medical records show he had a broken nose and a wound on the back of his head. a police officer said his back was wet with grass on it which would back up his claim of his head being bashed in the ground. the man tutors african american kids in his neighborhood. he is hispanic not white. NBC made this into something its not. Ill wait till the court ruling comes but he sounds pretty innocent to me. Everyone saying he is the aggressor listened to the NBC tape. Listen to the real tape and read the police report. sharpton and jackson should read this article...http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-03-04/news/31122324_1_white-boy-fire-tv-station then they should watch this...http://www.worldstarhiphop.com/videos/video.php?v=wshhbsFTQfx5486MTJPx Edited April 9, 2012 by downwithdisease 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casper Posted April 9, 2012 Report Share Posted April 9, 2012 Disagree, he needs to be charged with the death of a human being... whether he is convicted or not is up to a jury of his peersHow can you charge without proof of a crime? What he did may or may not be a crime. That's what is being investigated right now. Guys, it's really not that difficult of a concept. Our legal system has been working fairly well for a couple hundred years. The man is innocent until proven guilty. The state's special prosecutor is working on gathering enough evidence to decide whether or not he committed a crime, and if so to charge him. OJ was probably guilty as a mofo but got his due process and wasn't able to be convicted. Cases such as this are the minority in our legal system, and it's always better to have a guilty person go free than an innocent man spend time behind bars. If you disagree with this, then you should probably move to Mexico. Let the legal system do it's thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RVTPilot Posted April 9, 2012 Report Share Posted April 9, 2012 How can you charge without proof of a crime? What he did may or may not be a crime. That's what is being investigated right now. Guys, it's really not that difficult of a concept. Our legal system has been working fairly well for a couple hundred years. The man is innocent until proven guilty. The state's special prosecutor is working on gathering enough evidence to decide whether or not he committed a crime, and if so to charge him. OJ was probably guilty as a mofo but got his due process and wasn't able to be convicted. Cases such as this are the minority in our legal system, and it's always better to have a guilty person go free than an innocent man spend time behind bars. If you disagree with this, then you should probably move to Mexico. Let the legal system do it's thing.Not an invalid POV and I agree with a bit of what you say Ben, but let me play devil's advocate here. We're so worried about giving due process to the alleged perp, what about providing the truth as to why someone is dead? Is he guilty of making the poor decision to bring his fists to an unexpected gunfight? What is more important here; making sure a man is proven innocent/not guilty, or providing justice to the family of the one shot? I agree the legal system should be left to do its job. It just seems as if to this point, it has not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casper Posted April 9, 2012 Report Share Posted April 9, 2012 Not an invalid POV and I agree with a bit of what you say Ben, but let me play devil's advocate here. We're so worried about giving due process to the alleged perp, what about providing the truth as to why someone is dead? Is he guilty of making the poor decision to bring his fists to an unexpected gunfight? What is more important here; making sure a man is proven innocent/not guilty, or providing justice to the family of the one shot? I agree the legal system should be left to do its job. It just seems as if to this point, it has not.We don't even know if a crime has been committed yet, therefore there is no perp. What we know is a kid was shot. Of the little bit of evidence that has been released, some supports the shooter and some supports the kid. That's it at this point. When they decide whether the shooting was a crime or not is when all of this bickering will make a lot more sense. For right now, I really think everyone needs to take a couple steps backwards and let the legal system do its job. The police determined there was no crime after their investigation. Now the state and FBI are looking at it. If they decide also there was no crime, then that's it. If they do end up charging him, first the police department is going to be screwed. Second, let a jury of his peers, not the media, decide if he is guilty or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MidgetTodd Posted April 9, 2012 Report Share Posted April 9, 2012 If you just hide the body shit like this wouldnt happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magley64 Posted April 9, 2012 Report Share Posted April 9, 2012 We don't even know if a crime has been committed yetI disagree, what we don't know is "who" committed a crime, either it was assault and battery by a now dead person, and andy was in a self defense situation, or some cowboy on a power trip hunted down and killed an innocent person. the facts as i've heard them don't really point to any alternatives. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kawi kid Posted April 9, 2012 Report Share Posted April 9, 2012 the evidence is there to "charge" him, Martin is dead.does that make him guilty of murder? no, he has the right to his defense. and it is up to the jury to decide, not me...The evidence is clearly there, If the bullet from his gun, that he was carrying caused the death of Trayvon martin...(which nobody is disputing)I'm curious what would constitute "proof" in your opinion...and speaking of innocent until proven guilty, what about Trayvon Martin? where is his due process? What does he get if it's proven that he was innocent? Nothing.... nothing at all.Proof to me is evidence that shows it was something other than a justifiable homicide. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheech Posted April 9, 2012 Report Share Posted April 9, 2012 You have no Constitutional right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Although I can cite tons of precedent where that's an accepted privilege, I can also cite tons of precedent where it's not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RVTPilot Posted April 9, 2012 Report Share Posted April 9, 2012 I disagree, what we don't know is "who" committed a crime, either it was assault and battery by a now dead person, and andy was in a self defense situation, or some cowboy on a power trip hunted down and killed an innocent person. the facts as i've heard them don't really point to any alternatives.I agree. No one ends up shot to death when a crime is not committed. Maybe the crime that started all this was assault by Martin. I agree, Ben, the legal system should do its job, and not allow the media to try this case before it would ever see a courtroom. That happened in L.A. for O.J. The fact that FBI is even involved at this point gives credence to the argument that the Sanford PD had not done due dilligence in investigating this case with regard to either side. But when an ordinary citizen takes the law into his own hands, he should be held responsible to answer to the elected and empowered law of the community to justify his actions beyond all doubt, just as in order to be proven guilty, it must be proven he's guilty above all doubt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magley64 Posted April 9, 2012 Report Share Posted April 9, 2012 Proof to me is evidence that shows it was something other than a justifiable homicide.so we can just shoot and kill whoever we want on the street, so long as long as we can claim to "justify" it?no witnesses, it must have happened exactly as the person who is living said it did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casper Posted April 9, 2012 Report Share Posted April 9, 2012 You have no Constitutional right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Although I can cite tons of precedent where that's an accepted privilege, I can also cite tons of precedent where it's not.It's actually higher and older than the Constitution, and considered common law. It's also in the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which the US has agreed to. I'm actually interested in knowing what cases set a precedent of guilty until proven innocent. I may be off my rocker, but I'm pretty sure that would be considered an international human rights violation. There are exceptions, of course, like employment drug screening, but this is why failing a workplace drug test cannot land you behind bars. Article 11. (1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence. (2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed..Innocent Until Proven GuiltyFirst' date=' it should be pointed out that if you did it, you're guilty, no matter what. So you're not innocent unless you're truly innocent. However, our system presumes innocence, which means that legally speaking, even the obviously guilty are treated as though they are innocent, until they are proven otherwise.The concept of the presumption of innocence is one of the most basic in our system of justice. However, in so many words, it is not codified in the text of the Constitution. This basic right comes to us, like many things, from English jurisprudence, and has been a part of that system for so long, that it is considered common law. The concept is embodied in several provisions of the Constitution, however, such as the right to remain silent and the right to a jury.[/quote'] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyler524 Posted April 9, 2012 Report Share Posted April 9, 2012 If somone has me on the ground attacking me and i can get a shot off, you better believe I would. The kid may or may not have been innocent but the media has painted this picture that he was just a little innocent 17 yo kid that just wanted some tea amd skittles. The forst picture of him that came out was him at like 12 not a 6'3" man. What of he was all drugged up or drunk? Would that change your mind? Just because someone is unarmed doesnt mean they cant be deadly. At the same time, just because you look shady doesnt mean that you are up to no good. Imo if he was on a power trip and wanted to shoot a black guy, he wouldn't have called the cops in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kawi kid Posted April 9, 2012 Report Share Posted April 9, 2012 so we can just shoot and kill whoever we want on the street, so long as long as we can claim to "justify" it?no witnesses, it must have happened exactly as the person who is living said it did. That's the legal system. If tgr prosecuting attorney cannot prove without reasonable doubt then its justified. End of story. By your standards if someone breaks into a house and the owner shoots them the owner has to go to jail. It don't work like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.