The Trayvon Martin Case Discussion

[quote=Mooninites]No, in America you are innocent until proven guilty. However, in this case there was the underlying sense that Zimmerman's defense team had to put reasonable doubt in the jurors mind that he acted in self defense. I think there was plenty of evidence that Zimmerman did act self-defense so I'm not really sure if he had to prove anything. And no, the claim of self-defense would not be an automatic presumption of negligence, it's the opposite, it would be the presumption that Zimmerman acted in necessity for his own safety/health. For the prosecution to 'disprove' self-defense they would have to prove that George Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin with malicious intent. The other charge was manslaughter which would have been a lot easier to prove, the prosecution only had to prove that George Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin with unlawful jurisdiction, which basically means he killed Martin in a reckless and avoidable manner. See the problem is it [i]"Seems"[/i] wrong or you [i]"think"[/i] it's wrong but our legal system isn't as irrational as people's feelings or emotions. You cannot be punished for shooting someone in self-defense. There was plenty of witness testimony that George Zimmerman was being attacked in MMA style by Trayvon and that he was repeatidly being beaten on the sidewalk and his head was bashed into the concrete numerous as well as a broken nose. Why would any legitimate legal system punish someone for acting in defense of their own well-being? If he were to be punished I think that would be the real travesty because it would set a precedent that you cant defend yourself from being beaten to death[/quote]

[quote=Pheyniex][quote=Mooninites] See the problem is it [i]"Seems"[/i] wrong or you [i]"think"[/i] it's wrong but our legal system isn't as irrational as people's feelings or emotions. [/quote] nice joke you have there, because the jury got manipulated by a fancy graph. the jury obviously doesn't feel or think. tell me what reasonable place considers killing an unarmed person a legitimate self defence action.[/quote]

[quote=YayaFTW][quote=Pheyniex] [quote=Mooninites] See the problem is it [i]"Seems"[/i] wrong or you [i]"think"[/i] it's wrong but our legal system isn't as irrational as people's feelings or emotions. [/quote] nice joke you have there, because the jury got manipulated by a fancy graph. the jury obviously doesn't feel or think. tell me what reasonable place considers killing an unarmed person a legitimate self defence action. [/quote] Let's say an athletic guy dropped you on the ground, landing his knuckles hard on your face and bashing your head against the concrete like there's no tomorrow. According to your logic, your assaillant is unarmed so you can't shoot him. Therefore, and again, according to you, you can't defend yourself if it leads to the possible fact that you kill him while trying to resist. Your options according to your logic: 1- Let him beat the crap out of you, and if your skull cracks open or if you suffer brain damage from concussions, well shit happens.[/quote]

[quote=Searz]^Good boy yaya :) [quote=Pheyniex] tell me what reasonable place considers [s]killing an unarmed person[/s] shooting a person to defend yourself after he bashed your face in a legitimate self defence action.[/quote] Fixed. From what I've seen there is a lot of evidence showing that Zimmerman was attacked by Trayvon. According to witnesses Trayvon was sitting on top of Zimmerman, delivering several blows to Zimmerman's head. And Zimmerman had a smashed nose to show for it. I am NOT saying that he did the right thing, because I'm pretty sure he didn't, but I certainly don't think he deserves significant punishment for it.[/quote]

[quote=Pheyniex]i did not say you ought to do nothing. rethink your overconclusiveness.[/quote]

[quote=Pølsemanden]Ohh, so he was getting beaten? I actually didn't know that. Sorry for going full cuddowls on this one.[/quote]

[quote=Mooninites]It's fine, I assume its not getting alot of attention in the EU (could be wrong) pretty sure searz nailed it[/quote]

[quote=Searz][quote=Mooninites] It's fine, I assume its not getting alot of attention in the EU (could be wrong)[/quote] The riots about the verdict were shown on Swedish television.[/quote]

[quote=Darcurse]Was shown in Germany, too. But in all seriousness, even while he got attacked to a point where self-defense was justified: The term self-defense is way more "acceptable" in America than in any other country. Normally "self-defense" works if you can proof that you were about to get violated, severely injured or killed, in America you can get away with "seemed like he was about to do sth" (not refering to Trayvon). And the american jurisdiction is rather fucked in terms of who can sue who for what. Guy sues for not knowing how to use a cruise control. Granny sues for running into a glass wall of an Apple store. Dude sues for getting fat eating only McDonald's food.[/quote]

[quote=Pølsemanden]I think the media missed a very important part of this story.. What happened to the skittles? :o[/quote]