JCC What are your thoughts on Trayvon Martin's death?

Both guys are at fault in any situation, the guy who provoked the biker for intentionally provoking him and the biker for losing control. If you insult comeone and they punch you, yes you were assualted but that assault was unlikely to happen had you not provoked that person in the first place. If the biker killed the guy who insulted him, he was provoked but used disproportionate force in retaliation and so should face the consequences. If he simply punched the guy and knocked him down he could claim it fair since the guy insulted him. If the biker was killed because he assaulted the person who was rude to him then that guy has to prove he ffelt that level of force was acceptable. After all, the guy started it first by insulting the biker. If you go looking to start trouble and then kill someone who starts the trouble you wanted in the first place, the law shouldn't protect you from killing if that was your intention in the first place.
With the Martin case, Zimmerman might have waitied for Martin to hit him so he would be justitfied in killing him because just gunning him down meant he faced jail. Causing a confrontation so you can do what you want and exploit the law to protect yourself should not be acceptable


If I were out somewhere and someone verbally abused me or threatened to punch my face in, I am not legally able to do anything until they actually assualt me otherwise I face legal action. If they did hit me and then I hit then back or headbutted them and broke their nose or whatever, I would at least be able to claim I was defending myself against someone who attacked me. Even at work I can't do anything to any customer unless they do something first, or I get fired. I get abused at work all the time, I can do nothing to them unless they engage me with physical violence.

I can't read the dueling thesis game this thread has begun so maybe this has already been posted but people have donated over $200k to Zimmerman?!

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/27/justice/florida-zimmerman-money/?c=&page=0

Amazing.

KK,

The police chief of that police dept. has resigned. I think that speaks volumes about a possible police 'cover-up.'

Yes, we know Zimmerman has admitted to the shooting, however, he shouldn't have apologized to the family until after the trial is over. As I said, saying "I'm sorry," can be construed as admitting blame/guilt.

And I'm out of time today. Back on Monday.

Hmm, but I don't think threatening speech has been traditionally protected. A dead or alive poster handed out by a citizen is life-endangering.

See Virginia v. Black

They weren't "fake" wanted posters. The people passing them out weren't making some sort of joke--and if someone took one of those posters seriously, you'd have quite a problem. The people handing out those posters were essentially calling for Zimmerman's death--an open hit on the man.

EDIT: I can't edit past the quote I posted, but I just find the whole mob mentality that resulted from faulty reporting on this case to be extremely disturbing. And the idea that anyone can put out a hit on someone else with a wanted poster, and not face any penalty is equally disturbing to me.

I think a "wanted: dead or alive" poster is an expression that also has a history as a "signal of impending violence."

"In Virginia v. Black the Court found that Virginia's statute against cross burning is unconstitutional, but cross burning done with an attempt to intimidate can be limited because such expression has a long and pernicious history as a signal of impending violence."

Wtf.

Oops, first one was too small:

"In Virginia v. Black the Court found that Virginia's statute against cross burning is unconstitutional, but cross burning done with an attempt to intimidate can be limited because such expression has a long and pernicious history as a signal of impending violence."

Yeah, I have a hitman in my contacts. ...?

Well, what I mean when I say they're not fake is that it's violent rhetoric calling for the death of another citizen, whether it's government issued or not. It's still intimidating and threatening language that if acted upon, could result in someone's death.

And as far as I know, our government is no longer in the business of posting "dead or alive" posters. (EDIT: nevermind, Osama Bin Laden comes to mind..umm, withdrawn )

In this case, it's more clear cut than possible threats/intimidation via cross burning, because it directly calls for the death of another citizen rather than possibly hint at it.

I wouldn't know where to start, and I imagine a lot of people don't, which is why a lot of them tend to catch the attention of authorities before they're successful-- well, that and people who want to put out hits are usually idiots.

Regarding the $200,000 that has been donated to Zimmerman via that website, the judge is going to review and or possibly revoke Zimmerman's bail. The judge is going to look at the money and what it's designated for, I guess.

I want to chime in on my thoughts but not sure how much may have been said since I am choosing not to read all 21 pages of posts. I do think this was an accident biggest reason is who in their right mind (and seems Zimmerman is) would call the cops before or stick around after. The questions though I had during the Bond hearing was which way were the shadows running people claim to see and where did the fight occur cause if it was close to his car it adds to the claim he was heading toward the car. I know Trayvon is the victim but there are clearly things he could have done like ignore and keep going, i've been in similar situation where I was walking down street one day and passing car for some reason the driver and passenger stopped and started pushing me and pulled a knife, I just kept walking and they just followed until cops showed up and they sped off. Unless the witness says they were running away from where the car was and toward Trayvons home it makes me believe the self defense claim more.

Would the judge actually be able to do anything, given that it was specifically said that the money was going towards his legal defense when it was put up?

I was under the impression that he was supposed to claim it when asked about finances...I could totes be wrong though.

I haven't heard anything more about this. The judge has the option to either revoke bail or set a higher amount, but I don't know when or even if that will happen.