thoughts on the Trayvon murder

You KNOW that's not going to happen...

Vice Lord wrote: END OF SUBJECT

Mods, close the thread please

Mods... close Vice Lord's padded cell... he's loose again

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

Vice Lord wrote:

FredHayek wrote: Actually justice may have been done. If Martin was actually beating Zimmerman, he does have a right to shoot the teen, especially if he thinks his life was at risk.

No he doesn't..Since kindergarden i've been in about 25 physical fights..I ended up being friends with about 20 on them...Men and Boys fight like little puppies fight- Thats how men establish a pecking order...You cowardly pussies are so scared of other people that you want the right to kill anybody for the smallest reasons?

Using your logic I can kill anybody as long as he touched me or I can lie and say he touched me in "threatening" way...How bout I get alone with you, punch myself in the face and shoot you in the head?


What happened to the Men in this country?

Its a pansy nation- You wimps can handle a little altercation without killing someone can't you? I mean c'mon..Man up

Well.. thanks for the little fable... .

You never had fights in school? thats all we did..I understated it..I think I had 25 in the 5th grade.. Why I had to beat up two of the biggest toughest kids in the 5th grade just to get lil precious..One kid flunked twice and was full grown at the time

Duja Lukovich from czechoslovakia- He was driving himself to school in the 6th grade

LadyJazzer wrote: You KNOW that's not going to happen...

lol I thought it was a good place to end the discussion

LadyJazzer wrote: Zimmerman SAYS he was on the way to the store... PROVE it.

Since you are obviously having difficulties comprehending due process under the law, allow me to explain what that means. Zimmerman needs to prove nothing contained in his statement - those that would seek to charge him with committing a crime must be able to prove his statement isn't what happened before charging him with a crime to comply with due process. Not suspect it isn't what happened, not believe it isn't what happened, believe that they are able to bear of burden of proof that establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that it isn't what happened.

LadyJazzer wrote: I want this sucker ARRESTED so that "due process" may occur. If he's innocent, that will come out; and if he's guilty, I want him put away for a LOOOONG time, so he can get to be REALLY good friends with "Tyrone" in the prison... (Steven Seagal reference... )

Thank goodness between the FBI, and the Florida Special Prosecutor's Office, we may finally see that. It's obvious that the rednecks of the City of Sanford and it's Police Department were either incompetent enough, or racist enough not to do the job.

I want due process to attach before the time limit for doing so expires. I frankly don't give a sh*t what you "think" I want.

There is not a statute of limitations on criminal homicide charges. If at any point during the remainder of Zimmerman's natural life it is reasonably believed that the burden of proof necessary exists, he may be arrested at that point and charged with the crime regardless of how many years have passed. Certainly there is a time limitation on the filing of civil actions, but those are at least one year from the time of the incident and could easily be three or even five years.

We don't arrest people, charge them with a crime and compel their appearance in a court of law unless and until there is a reasonable expectation that their guilt can be established beyond a reasonable doubt - we actually have laws which require it be done this way and punishment under those laws if they are not followed. If these things are done in the absence of that reasonable expectation, due process has been denied and there are legal consequences as a result of doing so. Due process is, first and foremost, a procedural progression. Outcome based results, so called substantive due process, only comes into play if and only if it can be established that the procedural due process has not occurred. Anyone who, at this point in time, doesn't believe that there is a reasonable doubt about whether or not Zimmerman shot Martin for reasons other than self defense is simply looking to forward a partisan political agenda which has absolutely nothing to do with the rule of law. When there exists good reason to believe that someone may not be guilty of committing a crime, we don't arrest them, accuse them of having committed a crime and subject them to prosecution and potential loss of their liberty anyway. We reserve these actions for those that we reasonably expect can be shown to have committed the crime for which they stand accused.

PrintSmith wrote:
[snip]

We don't arrest people, charge them with a crime and compel their appearance in a court of law unless and until there is a reasonable expectation that their guilt can be established beyond a reasonable doubt

You do in Lady Jazzer's little socialist "paradise." I hope that Lady Jazzer never has the chance to operate in the capacity of judge, jury, police, block captain, sailor, soldier or spy in this country.

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

towermonkey wrote: Wow, that's a lot of pages with people trying to justify what appears to be a murder. Having lived in Florida, I can believe the allegations of racial motivation, but I don't know what lives in anyone else's heart but my own. This one will be hard to take to trial because of the laws there.

Allegations are usually backed with various facts. You nor anyone else have any facts that Zimmerman's act was motivated out of racism and there is nothing to suggest that the PD and everyone else involved in this case were operating from a racist point of view. This racism narrative by the left has already played itself out. Try a new approach.

I see you're still illiterate.

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote: Well.. thanks for the little fable... but the facts are this... IF Trayvon WAS attempting to cause bodily harm to Zimmerman, according to Florida law, Zimmerman had the right to shot him. You may not like that, you may think the Florida law is flaw... you may think the George Bush sneaked into the neighborhood and loaded the gun for Zimmerman... whatever happened to "men," whether people are scared or not... nothing... none of your rants are going to change anything. If it came down the way Zimmerman related... then he was with in his rights. I mean c'mon... act like an intelligent grown up.

IF Trayvon WAS attmpting to defend himself against bodily harm from what he took as an attack from Zimmerman, and Zimmerman took this as an attack on himself and used this as a right to devfend himself with a gun, where does the blame fall? We will never know as Trayvon can't speak from the grave.

I can't believe you dragged Bush into this.

Photo-fish wrote:

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote: Well.. thanks for the little fable... but the facts are this... IF Trayvon WAS attempting to cause bodily harm to Zimmerman, according to Florida law, Zimmerman had the right to shot him. You may not like that, you may think the Florida law is flaw... you may think the George Bush sneaked into the neighborhood and loaded the gun for Zimmerman... whatever happened to "men," whether people are scared or not... nothing... none of your rants are going to change anything. If it came down the way Zimmerman related... then he was with in his rights. I mean c'mon... act like an intelligent grown up.

IF Trayvon WAS attmpting to defend himself against bodily harm from what he took as an attack from Zimmerman, and Zimmerman took this as an attack on himself and used this as a right to devfend himself with a gun, where does the blame fall? We will never know as Trayvon can't speak from the grave.

I can't believe you dragged Bush into this.

That is always the great debate in any self defense shooting without witnesses. Did the "victim" attack first or use "fighting words"?