I guess our system is despotic, tyrannical, and anarchistic then

because many a case is won with 'circumstantial evidence' as opposed to 'facts'

Does that mean all cases should meet that low standard? Or that we should try to raise the standard for those examples that do not meet the standards?

Seems to me what is being called for by the likes of Al Sharpton is to lower the standard when it suits him, and raise it when it applies to him.

Because young black men are discriminated against by the justice system should not be a reason to lower our standards to meet that injustice out on everyone else. Instead we should better police those standards, and setup better ways of creating judicial accountability.

Equal protection under the law is vital to a just system, on that I could not agree more, however I would never call for that equation to be lowered to the lowest common denominator to create equality. Id ask for it to be raised to the highest possible standard that reasonably places the burden of proof on the parties that wish to imprison suspects of crime.

Innocent until proven guilty, and equal protection under the law are fundamental to justice. Thousands of years of human justice have proven those words to be true.

Does that mean all cases should meet that low standard? Or that we should try to raise the standard for those examples that do not meet the standards?




PROBLEM: few crimes have witness testimony that can PROVE what happened and even witness testimony has shown to be flawed in high stress situations

so the 'standard' will vary from case to case

however, definition of a high 'standard' put aside,,,,

the law should be applied CONSISTENTLY, whether its regarded as a low or a high standard

murder and homicide should not be contingent upon whether the one to lose their life is a felon, let alone PERCEIVED to be a felon

people should not have the right to be executioners or bullies because they perceive someone to potentially be a criminal,,,




and where HUMAN life is taken,



a higher 'standard' of evidence should be called for

If your in my house, I dont care why you are there, your presence is a threat to me and my family. My doors where locked, you broke it, your gunna get shot. THAT is a deterrent. Putting people who shoot intruders in prison for manslaughter is not justice. SORRY.

That was the purpose of the section of the law that talks about a forcible felony. There are very specific criteria that does not allow it to really do what you guys think it allows.

I really want you to answer my question. If you could right now, raise the standard to make it equal, or lower the standard to make it equal, what would you do?

Which would be more just?
Which would support innocent until proven guilty?

just, to me , is balanced

where there is consistency, there is balance, so I cant really say which would be more just if applied consistently


I do believe in the innocent until proven guilty, and proven guilty beyond a 'reasonable' doubt is totally dependent upon a jury and their personal interpretations of what is 'reasonable'


I think in cases where an intruder has 'broken' in someones home, benefit of the doubt should be given to the resident

I think in cases where an intruder does not appear to have 'broken' in, more investigation should be warranted before benefit of doubt is given

I think in cases where people are in PUBLIC, an investigation should always follow wherever there has been physical harm or death

I am really not sure any of your concerns are legitimate if the police do their jobs.

I think we should expect much higher standards for investigators, but also pay them about twice what we do now.

This would come with greater accountability, and penalties for misconduct. Just my .02

Witness: Martin attacked Zimmerman

What I want to know is why the family shows a five year old picture of Trayvon. Why is that the only picture we see? Where is the 6'2", 200 pound muscular adult that boy grew up to be?

I was totally on Trayvon's side when this story broke, but it's looking more and more like Zimmerman was the victim.

I noticed that too and it really bothered me.

this just proves there was a scuffle, there is no dispute about this


during a scuffle, both parties can at times be on top,,,,,



note that this particular witness says the red sweater was on the bottom, even though other witnesses say flashlights were there because it was so dark (hard to notice red in that kind of dark)

I dont know what Z was wearing or where it is posted but I do recall another witness stating to 911 the guy on top had on a WHITE Tshirt that may have had something on it (again, hard to discern color or patterns in the dark),, BUT it is hard to confuse a grey hoody for a white tshirt with possible markings,,,,

shame

why try to imply he was a big guy?

Im sorry. The police report doesnt even pan out your conclusion. It actually says the boy is 6 3 and 160 pounds
schoolmates called him 'slim' , my son is a slim 6 4 and 175 pounds

6 2 and 200 probably wouldnt garner that nickname


search online, the picture has been updated, and he doesnt look much different,,,(although I can note I have found no mention of how 'old' either picture is so they may BOTH be recent)


and a junior in high school is not an adult, unless he is the exceptional emancipated teenager,,

people are reaching for reasont to justify this man,, from why the boy may have been suspended to whether he just happened to be a very strong boy,,,,but in the end its all just excuses

the boy didnt need to be shot,, it was senseless...

I'm just going by what I read. I guess well all know when the autopsy results are released.

yes. I read that another WITNESS who called in that night actually stated the guy on top had a 'white t shirt'

hard to confuse a grey hoody with a white t shirt, even in the dark,,,but a shirt could be confused with a white t shirt, not sure what Z was wearing


the young man now saying the guy on the bottom wore red did not say that at the time of the 911 call which his SISTER actually made (not him) he just said the following

": "I saw a man laying on the ground screaming who needed help. I was going to go over there to try and help him, but my dog got off the leash, and I ran and got him, and I hurried around and down, and the screaming stopped."


this doesnt even imply there was a second man at all, at least not at the time of the incident when the young man ORIGINALLY gave his account,,,,,


but, perhaps, the autopsy would shed light

it would be interesting to understand how a man of his size couldnt flip over a 160 pound boy after such a close confrontation would obviously leave the boy laying face down on top of him

(the boy was found laying face down)

it may be the boy was shot in the back, explaining why he fell on his front

or he could have been shot in the front, with the Man carefully sliding out beneath him but I would consider that weird in such a high adrenaline situation....

I also find it curious that officers dont mention whether they see an exit or an entry wound in the boys back, which also seems like it would be obvious with a shot made within that close a proximity,,,,

plenty of things to suspect here,,hopefully it will start pieceing together and being more consistent than its been,,,

Unfortunately they will not 'autopsy' the 'truth'...

The boy turned to attack.

Why?

The man had a gun.

Why?

The community recorded things that were said by both prior to the death of one.

Both described the other as a 'suspicious' person.

both feared the 'stranger' and for THAT reason a young man died.

Why?

Because the community is divided by politics, race, religion, haircut, and many other things.

and a community divided against itself will have many violent acts.

Well it improve?

Perhaps.

Depends upon all the self important people with national agendas stepping back and letting that community heal itself.

Instead of adding to the number that thinks a Stranger is an Enemy.

Hunting someone down the street is not self defense at any stretch of the law and the 911 tape verifies that.

Also this law they are allowing this man to be free on is suppose to be like our "make my day" law here and it doesn't cover following someone down the street and killing them.

I don't know if Zimmermurderer is latino or white but it doesn't matter. He was in the wrong place, say the police, using wrong tactics and lethal force to kill a kid with skittles for his kid brother. I don't believe Zimmerman's account, i want some hard facts and a hanging rope if necessary. This was not vigilante justice, this was just murder from what I've heard so far.

In criminal court it is "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." In civil court it is by "preponderance of evidence." Ask any lawyer, or look how OJ Simpson got off in criminal court because of reasonable doubt but yet was successfully sued in civil court.

I absolutely agree with you.

The man should be in Jail (but realisticlly should he be in jail someone will 'shiv' him just for the 'bragging rights'.

I also think Mr. Sharpton could better apply his talents by going to the South Side and healing that community (although it does not fit his international agenda), rather than inadvertently inciting racial tensions with his good intent.

and the Panthers should take a bit of a lesson from MLK...

Peace brings a greater change than does violence and hatred.

So if Zimmerman just killed the kid, why did Zimmerman have a broken nose and an injury to the back of his head? Why did the closest witness describe seeing Zimmerman on his back, begging for help? Why did police find grass stains on Zimmerman's back?

According to Zimmerman, he stopped following Martin when the police told him to and he started back to his SUV. We don't know Trayvon's side. What we do know is that Trayvon's girlfriend heard Trayvon say "What, are you following me for?" From Zimmerman's phone call with 911, we learn that he had lost track of Trayvon after he was told that he shouldn't follow him "It's a home it's 1950, oh crap I don't want to give it all out, I don't know where this kid is."

Isn't it a plausible scenario that Trayvon decided to confront Zimmerman? Isn't it plausible that Trayvon attacked Zimmerman assuming that Zimmerman was up to no good? That possibility has been completely overlooked by many people in the media and in this thread. It should be fairly easy to prove, if Zimmerman was near the mailboxes that he mentions in the call to 911, that would mean he hadn't pursued Trayvon further after being told to end his pursuit.

This scenario fits with the evidence given by the new witness, the physical evidence of the wounds and grass stains on Zimmerman and the account given by Zimmerman himself.

I have lived in a black neighborhood for a long time and being white around white people around black people I have the privileged/or not so privileged view of seeing whites reacting to black folks in negative ways.

There is a reason Sharpton is still needed and the Black panthers are also still needed in some instances.

Until whites get an understanding that they are not the moral majority nor the end all be all for the world with white racist views to boot, we will have to have those willing to battle for black folks in cases such as this and many more.

And yes, whites are not the only racists in the world but so far they are the worst.

And the battle against white men and their prejudices rages on in all arenas in this country. Women have to fight, minorities have to fight.

What is their mental block that keeps them believing they have the right to mistreat everyone unlike them?