[ConciselyVerbose]

The marijuana being claimed to mean anything is a joke. I think, legally speaking, it came down to who started the physical confrontation. If it was Zimmerman the stand your ground law would not have applied, but that could not be proven, so I'm not sure the jury had a choice.

[modi123_1]

I watched as little of the chum-feed as possible, and find myself fairly apathetic to the whole trial in light of the rote murders that occur each day. I have not been compelled to pour over court documents, testimonies, or construct my own timeline of the events after data clustering key moments of the event. While it is unfortunate a young person died the accused was cleared by a jury of his peers in light of the prosecutor's evidence, case, wording, etc.

[macosxnerd101]

I came across this link (which does cite the Florida law) summing up Manslaughter in Florida pretty well. The moment a gun entered the picture, manslaughter became a first degree felony, requiring a minimum of 9.25 years if convicted.

It is interesting to note the Florida definition of Justifiable Homicide, which is a legal defense against a manslaughter charge.

Quote

Justifiable Homicide

The killing of a human being is justifiable homicide and lawful if done while resisting an attempt by someone to kill you or to commit a felony against you.

I think in light of the poor job done by the prosecution, along with the clarity of Florida law, the jury couldn't give him manslaughter. The sufficient condition to convict him on that charge simply had not been met.

[creativecoding]

Quote

Also included in Trayvon Martin's autopsy report is a toxicology report, which shows Martin had 1.5 nanograms of THC – the active ingredient in marijuana – and 7.3 nanograms of another THC substance found in his blood. Traces of cannabis – marijuana – were also found in his urine. The problem with the toxicology report is it doesn’t indicate exactly when the drugs were used and whether Martin was on drugs the night he was killed.

Ah, that just bugs me so much. It plays off the fact that not everyone knows exactly how much a nanogram is. To put this into perspective, the legal limit for driving in Washington is 8 nanograms. You have to have more than 15 nanograms to show up as positive on a federal drug test. After smoking you'll have easily over hundreds of nanograms. 1.5 means he smoked about a month ago, or was in a room with another person smoking in it for 5 minutes.

So no, 1.5ng doesn't indicated exactly when the drugs were used, but it definitely says that he wasn't high on marijuana the night he was killed.

I haven't been following the case closely enough to form an opinion however. I just had a bone to pick with that statement.

[ConciselyVerbose]

creativecoding, on 14 July 2013 - 11:10 PM, said:

Quote

Also included in Trayvon Martin's autopsy report is a toxicology report, which shows Martin had 1.5 nanograms of THC – the active ingredient in marijuana – and 7.3 nanograms of another THC substance found in his blood. Traces of cannabis – marijuana – were also found in his urine. The problem with the toxicology report is it doesn’t indicate exactly when the drugs were used and whether Martin was on drugs the night he was killed.

Ah, that just bugs me so much. It plays off the fact that not everyone knows exactly how much a nanogram is. To put this into perspective, the legal limit for driving in Washington is 8 nanograms. You have to have more than 15 nanograms to show up as positive on a federal drug test. After smoking you'll have easily over hundreds of nanograms. 1.5 means he smoked about a month ago, or was in a room with another person smoking in it for 5 minutes.

So no, 1.5ng doesn't indicated exactly when the drugs were used, but it definitely says that he wasn't high on marijuana the night he was killed.

I haven't been following the case closely enough to form an opinion however. I just had a bone to pick with that statement.

That combined with the fact that it should have no bearing whatsoever on this case. Even if he had been, it really doesn't have much of an impact pm anything.

[jon.kiparsky]

Quote

Martin shouldn't have been beating his head into the pavement.

The phrase "self-defense" has come up more than once in the course of this trial. Did Trayvon Martin not have a right to self-defense, when being pursued by an armed madman?
Even supposing that Zimmerman's story were true (which we must suppose, since it's been accepted by a jury as fact), and Martin subjected him to all sorts of grievous physical bettery - does a citizen not have the right to defend himself against an attack in the night?

[jon.kiparsky]

macosxnerd101, on 15 July 2013 - 12:10 AM, said:

In contrast, Zimmerman had wounds consistent with being assaulted.

No, there's no indication that Martin committed an assault.

Quote

At Common Law, an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact.

An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm.

cite

The assault was carried out by Zimmerman. Anything Martin did was self-defense.

Quote

Toxicology also reports that Zimmerman had been using drugs recently before being killed.

Utterly irrelevant.

Quote

Again- every party was in the wrong here.

Utter nonsense. Walking home is not a crime, and Zimmerman was not a cop. Zimmerman had no business being where he was, doing what he was doing, and for him to assault and murder a child does not put that child in the wrong.

[depricated]

I believe we don't have enough information to truly form an educated opinion on the matter.

There are two important points that are relevant:

Point 1: Martin and Zimmerman engaged in a violent physical altercation.
Point 2: Zimmerman won the fight.

We cannot know the truth of the matter by any natural means. We can choose to believe the story as presented by the Defense, as presented by the Prosecution, as presented by the Media, or we can simply think for ourselves. Grasping for sensational phrasing like calling Zimmerman an "armed madman" or crying foul that all Martin had to defend himself with was skittles, just makes me believe you're watching too much Nancy Grace and aren't capable of critical thought yourself.

Realisitically, Martin appears to have attempted to bash Zimmerman's head in. Head trauma can be worse than mortally wounding, it can be crippling. The right blow could have done worse than kill Zimmerman and addled him for the rest of his life. By all means, if someone is attempting to murder or cripple you you have every right to defend yourself against it by any means necessary.

Both parties were clearly in the wrong. Zimmerman should have stayed away, should not have initiated contact, waited for police, should not have instigated the encounter. At the same time, and this is what's being overlooked by everyone stroking themselves to the idea that Martin is a victim: Treyvon Martin should have done the same. He should have called for police, not engaged Zimmerman, and kept his distance.

It's unfortunate that a kid died, but a trial by jury of his and our peers have concluded that Zimmerman's actions were justified (or at least did not fit the charges levied against him).

This post has been edited by depricated: 15 July 2013 - 04:35 AM

[bingy]

Depreciated,

Please tell me how someone can defend themselves against a gun when all they had available to them was their hands, feet, arms, legs, an energy drink, and a bag of skittles. This information was made widely available to the public.

[no2pencil]

I have not followed this at all, & I stand in agreement wit the 'dispatcher' remark. However as it was put by a caller to our local radio station :

"This is a situation of two stupid people running into one another, & now we all have to hear about it".

Personally, I'd rather talk about Temar Boggs story, than these two knuckleheads. We should reward bravery & heroics, not obsess with idiots.

[depricated]

bingy, on 15 July 2013 - 05:46 AM, said:

Depreciated,

Please tell me how someone can defend themselves against a gun when all they had available to them was their hands, feet, arms, legs, an energy drink, and a bag of skittles. This information was made widely available to the public.

depricated said:

Grasping for sensational phrasing like calling Zimmerman an "armed madman" or crying foul that all Martin had to defend himself with was skittles, just makes me believe you're watching too much Nancy Grace and aren't capable of critical thought yourself.

emphasis added

Also, I've disarmed a shotgun from a man who had it pointed at my head. I was younger than Martin at the time.

This post has been edited by depricated: 15 July 2013 - 04:58 AM

[xclite]

depricated, on 15 July 2013 - 07:57 AM, said:

Also, I've disarmed a shotgun from a man who had it pointed at my head. I was younger than Martin at the time.

For every one person that's pulled this off, how many just die? Sorry we aren't all ninjas and don't reach your standard for badassery.

The idea that somehow the typical person has a reliable or even hopeful recourse against a gun seems unfounded.

I also think about how many times I've walked home late at night, looking at houses BECAUSE THEY'RE THERE. The whole situation sucks. It would be interesting to know what actually happened when Zimmerman confronted Martin.

[jon.kiparsky]

depricated, on 15 July 2013 - 06:34 AM, said:

Both parties were clearly in the wrong.

In order to make this equivalence, you have to make a hell of a lot of assumptions for which you have no evidence whatsoever. We do know that Zimmerman made at least two terrible moves: he pursued Martin, when his dispatcher told him not to, and he got into a fist fight while carrying a gun. If he hadn't initiated the situation, Martin would not have had to defend himself, and putting himself in a situation where he was at risk of losing the weapon created a situation where someone was very likely to get shot.

I suppose it feels good to find some sort of balance of blame, but it simply doesn't reflect anything about the situation as we know it.

[depricated]

xclite, on 15 July 2013 - 06:22 AM, said:

depricated, on 15 July 2013 - 07:57 AM, said:

Also, I've disarmed a shotgun from a man who had it pointed at my head. I was younger than Martin at the time.

For every one person that's pulled this off, how many just die? Sorry we aren't all ninjas and don't reach your standard for badassery.

The idea that somehow the typical person has a reliable or even hopeful recourse against a gun seems unfounded.

I also think about how many times I've walked home late at night, looking at houses BECAUSE THEY'RE THERE. The whole situation sucks. It would be interesting to know what actually happened when Zimmerman confronted Martin.

What I deleted from my post before was an invitation for further discussion on a point I'm going to bring up below.

I agree, and I don't expect that everyone took self-defense classes and learned to disarm a gunman either. But I think it easily dismisses the supposition that a person is powerless against a gunman, especially point blank.

I felt that that did a sufficient job of dismissing the question, so that actually addressing what Martin did would simply belabour the point.

I agree, it was a shitty situation, and we don't truly know what happened. But getting all indignant because the kid had a can of tea and some skittles when combat began is...honestly, I don't even know what to call it - it's a List(of LogicalFallacy) that just keeps getting added to. We have appeals to emotion, red herrings, and so on.

jon.kiparsky, on 15 July 2013 - 06:37 AM, said:

depricated, on 15 July 2013 - 06:34 AM, said:

Both parties were clearly in the wrong.

In order to make this equivalence, you have to make a hell of a lot of assumptions for which you have no evidence whatsoever. We do know that Zimmerman made at least two terrible moves: he pursued Martin, when his dispatcher told him not to, and he got into a fist fight while carrying a gun. If he hadn't initiated the situation, Martin would not have had to defend himself, and putting himself in a situation where he was at risk of losing the weapon created a situation where someone was very likely to get shot.

I suppose it feels good to find some sort of balance of blame, but it simply doesn't reflect anything about the situation as we know it.

No, it feels good to know that the justice system isn't putting a man in prison for life for self-defense.

As I said, we cannot truly know what happened. We can piece it together by the evidence presented, and we can choose which of the 'official' stories to believe (defense, prosecution, or nancy grace). I choose, instead, to review the evidence.

Treyvon Martin had no defensive wounds on him. He had wounding to the knuckles of his left hand, consistent with throwing a punch. Zimmerman had several wounds to the head caused by blunt force. This indicates that one of two situations occurred: either Zimmerman revealed the gun and Martin retaliated, or when confronted by Zimmerman, Martin retaliated without knowledge of the gun. Either way, there was sufficient time for Martin to punch Zimmerman in the face (wounding his left hand, splitting Zimmerman's nose, consistent with photos of Zimmerman immediately after the incident) and then tackle him to the ground and repeatedly bash his head into the concrete.

Zimmerman should not have instigated, and that is why he's in the wrong. That doesn't change the fact, though, that Martin chose to attack Zimmerman. Martin was in the wrong for attacking. There is a plethora of evidence which supports this. Reports also indicate that Zimmerman tried to call for help, rather than fight back and injure Martin. The only other wound on Martin, according to the autopsy report, was the bullet wound. Bloodied knuckles, and a bullet hole.

Both were wrong for the actions they took. That seems rather cut and dry. It doesn't mean either of them deserved to die, but the level of aggression levied against Zimmerman was sufficient that deadly force was an appropriate recourse.

[xclite]

depricated, on 15 July 2013 - 09:25 AM, said:

xclite, on 15 July 2013 - 06:22 AM, said:

depricated, on 15 July 2013 - 07:57 AM, said:

Also, I've disarmed a shotgun from a man who had it pointed at my head. I was younger than Martin at the time.

For every one person that's pulled this off, how many just die? Sorry we aren't all ninjas and don't reach your standard for badassery.

The idea that somehow the typical person has a reliable or even hopeful recourse against a gun seems unfounded.

I also think about how many times I've walked home late at night, looking at houses BECAUSE THEY'RE THERE. The whole situation sucks. It would be interesting to know what actually happened when Zimmerman confronted Martin.

What I deleted from my post before was an invitation for further discussion on a point I'm going to bring up below.

I agree, and I don't expect that everyone took self-defense classes and learned to disarm a gunman either. But I think it easily dismisses the supposition that a person is powerless against a gunman, especially point blank.

Nobody is claiming he couldn't do *anything*. The fact is that a gun vastly changes the power balance in a struggle, and he DIDN'T have anything to counter the gun that Zimmerman didn't have. That's the point of the skittles/pringles can comment. You're creating a strawman here - the argument isn't that Martin could only feasibly fight back with a bag of skittles. It's that Zimmerman had a gun and the only thing extra that Martin had was a bag of skittles.

Saying Martin had hands and feet and could physically defend himself concedes that Zimmerman could have as well - he even had 30 lbs on the guy.

This post has been edited by xclite: 15 July 2013 - 06:42 AM