<p>What do you all think of the Travon Martin case? </p>
<p>Personally, I don't have much faith in the jury...</p>
<p>I am not at all surprised by the decision. The jury selection could have been better in my opinion.</p>
<p>I’m not surprised either, but I had that little grain of hope that it would turn out better :(. It makes my heart hurt to think about it.</p>
<p>The energy devoted to the case would have been better devoted to getting rid of that dumb law.</p>
<p>It was a heartbreaking case. Murder vs Self defense. It’s really sad to think that in any other state but Florida he would probably be in jail.</p>
<p>After spending years in the military and many years training in the martial arts under an instructor with over 20 years of law enforcement training, I feel conflicted on this case.</p>
<p>I feel the self-defense case was very compelling. That is unfortunately because that was the only side of the story that could effectively be told. I really think that the whole case could’ve gone a different way if Trayvon had lived if only for just long enough to give his side to the story.</p>
<p>As someone who carries arms for the purpose of self defense and as someone who has years of training and as someone who doesn’t plan to carry only a knife to a knife fight, it doesn’t bother me as much that “someone” (anyone in this regard, not necessarily related to this trial) would use a deadly weapon against an unarmed or less than equally armed attacker. The law doesn’t require a person to be physically hurt before defending oneself but there is a thin line between assault and defense that trained people learn to straddle. For every lethal technique I learn, I learn a non-lethal modification of that technique. Non-lethal force is always the preferred method and knowing when lethal force is required demands wise judgement. In fact, the truth is that Zimmerman and many others in this country who carry arms severely limit their options by only carrying guns. For example, a police officer carries a gun but he also has a club and mace and handcuffs. A cop has less than lethal weapons so that he can respond to force within the degrees to which he is threatened. If Zimmerman had training and if everything happened exactly as he claimed, an unarmed 17yo could’ve been subdued with non lethal means fairly easily.</p>
<p>On the other hand, I was once a 17 yo black male. I totally get everything that must’ve gone through Trayvon’s mind. I know in my heart that no matter who through the first punch that Trayvon was “defending” himself. I would’ve done the same thing. He was not the aggressor. The legal definition of self-defense would say that whoever made the first physically aggressive move was the “attacker” and the only one that survived to speak made that claim. But to a 17yo black male, the first aggressive move was the act of following Trayvon, profiling him as a criminal, and getting too closely involved in his personal, non violent, non threatening business.</p>
<p>And at the end of the day, it may have all just been a clash of cultures where neither side understood the other and the end was an unfortunate tragedy. So, why did the cops have to blow this thing up by not apprehending and taking into custody the confessed shooter of Trayvon on day 1?</p>
<p>Now I know what to do if I want to kill someone and get off.</p>
<p>Very disappointed. Jury selection was bad and so was the jury instruction. These Batman wannabes are disgusting. Bottom line, Zimmerman always wanted to be someone, and at the cost of a life, he succeeded.</p>
<p>I’m really disgusted with the outcome of this case. It really proves that America still has a long way to go</p>
<p>Ok, legally speaking, the jury made the right decision. They had to make a decision based on the facts that were presented to them and not with their emotions. Just because he was found not guilty doesn’t mean he is innocent. What it means is that the prosecution didn’t have enough evidence to show that he was guilty.</p>
<p>That last statement kind of flies in the face of the idea of innocent until proven guilty.</p>
<p>I think you’re confusing legal guilt and moral guilt. Legal guilt is what’s emphasized in the credo “innocent until proven guilty” and is why Zimmerman is going free — he was not proven guilty in a court of law.</p>
<p>However, if he truly murdered Trayvon, then whatever the legal outcome, he is morally guilty for that man’s death.</p>
<p>I watched a good amount of the case. Several days, I turned the TV off out of disgust at how feeble the prosecution seemed to be. Maybe that’s the fault of the media, pressing the racial vein so persistently. Any sort of racist motive was simply not as clear as it was depicted…or as our (African American community) perceived it.
Maybe a part of me sensed that the evidence simply was not legally convicting.
I have two gripes with the verdict.
- A boy is dead at another man’s hand. The killer is not in the least bit reprimanded.
NOTE: Maybe this is purely personal but in a situation where Self-defense is claimed on what I still believe to be a stick thin basis, something…even a fine or service ought to befall the killer. I guess I’d have favored the Manslaughter charge. - I fear it opens the door for more of what is UNQUESTIONABLY, at its core, racial profiling. This angers me the most.
You continue to treat young black boys as likely menaces. What are you fostering?</p>
<p>Just keep in mind that 95% of blacks are killed by blacks. The rage at the killing of black youth needs to be constructively directed to tackle the most pressing issue which to me is all the nameless black youth that are both dying and going to jail in numbers large enough to bring about the end of the black race in America unless something changes within black consciousness.</p>
<p>The burden of proof for the upcoming federal & civil lawsuits will be much lower. criminal justice did not work. Now it’s time for economic and eventually karmic justice. No one can kill and live a peaceful life.</p>