Trayvon Martin: Before the world heard the cries - Page 41

**catharina** · #**601** Apr 11, '12, 2:29 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vincent N

It would make more sense if you had used the past tense. Then you could throw in a little subjunctive case, some exclamation points, a few emoticons and we would have ourselves some bonafide conjecture.

If/when a bona fide, potential witness is killed - that's relevant, IMO.
Not in your opinion? OK then; helpful to know that.

Dawnia · #**602** Apr 11, '12, 2:33 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by catharina

If/when a bona fide, potential witness is killed - that's relevant, IMO.
Not in your opinion? OK then; helpful to know that.

He was killed because he was a witness to his own murder? Uh huh.

Vincent N · #**603** Apr 11, '12, 2:33 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by catharina

If/when a bona fide, potential witness is killed - that's relevant, IMO.
Not in your opinion? OK then; helpful to know that.

I don't care to speculate. The fact is Trayvon Martin is not a witness to the investigation. By itself it does not constitute an argument to discount any other witnesses' accounts.

**catharina** · #**604** Apr 11, '12, 2:36 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dawnia

He was killed because he was a witness to his own murder? Uh huh.

I don't know why he was killed; neither do you.
If he had not died from a gunshot wound, he
would have been a primary witness to events.

Dead? He's now unavailable.

**catharina** · #**605** Apr 11, '12, 2:39 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vincent N

Absurd. GZ shot TM in self defense when retreat was not possible. This has never been refuted.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vincent N

I don't care to speculate. The fact is Trayvon Martin is not a witness to the investigation. By itself it does not constitute an argument to discount any other witnesses' accounts.

First post quoted above is primary example of your speculation.

**catharina** · #**606** Apr 11, '12, 2:41 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dawnia

He was killed because he was a witness to his own murder? Uh huh.

Are you aware that such 'killings' to prevent reports of any
criminal activities (such as assault) happen every day?

Guess not.

Vincent N · #**607** Apr 11, '12, 2:47 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by catharina

First post quoted above is primary example of your speculation.

Nonsense. You're digging up an earlier post to a different poster. What I stated is an answer to your question If/when a bona fide, potential witness is killed - that's relevant, IMO.
Not in your opinion?

As far as my previous statement that you quote. That's what the investigation has yielded and it's where we are right now. It could change soon if the prosecutor releases new information that causes it to change.

OrdinaryMelkite · #**608** Apr 11, '12, 2:49 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by iamrefreshed

I'm saying that he deserves his due process and absolutely should not be charged simply because people want it.

To me, IMO, Corey does not look like a DA who is pressured by ANYONE to charge anyone.

She is known as an extremely tough, aggressive prosecutor who not too long ago was criticized for charging (and convicting) a 12-year old as an adult.

Let me ask you this-----since we are into the strict idea of "evidence"-----what evidence is there that Corey was pressured into this?

Maybe she wants to be the next legal star for personal (maybe political) reasons?

Are you saying then there is NO legitimate evidence and reason to charge Zimmerman?

**catharina** · #**609** Apr 11, '12, 2:50 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vincent N

Nonsense. You're digging up an earlier post to a different poster. What I stated is an answer to your question If/when a bona fide, potential witness is killed - that's relevant, IMO.
Not in your opinion?

As far as my previous statement that you quote. That's what where we've been and are at right now. It could change soon if the prosecutor releases new information that causes it to change.

Opinions are formed over a continuum of time.
Comments are made over a continuum of time.

Re your posts: one thing led to another.
I did no digging. All was as fresh as the morn.

PS - it's the way that most forums work.
No mystery, no digging.
1 + 1 = 2

maryjk · #**610** Apr 11, '12, 2:51 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by OrdinaryMelkite

I hate to be a party-pooper here and go against the nice conversation , but now that Zimmerman is going to be charged, I just KNOW that folks are going to say "he's not going to get a fair trial--------just let him go. Miscarriage of justice for him to be charged."

Like DA Corey has NO reason to charge him. No evidence. Plain as day and obvious it is the way Zimmerman said it was.

Would any of you feel the same way if it was the other way around amd Martin was being chrged with killing neighborhood watch captain GZ?

BTW----sorry if I sound sarcastic here----I just feel that, just like many have already made up their minds about TM's "guilt," many have already made up their mind about GZ's "innocence."
The rush to judgement has been on BOTH sides here.

Look, I admit I tend to lean towards the TM side of things, I admit it----but I'm also open to have my mind changed by any evidence presented at the trial.
Let's see how the trial works out.

I'm interested in how the defense is going to spin the "stand your ground" defense---------especially since the guy who pushed the law through AND Jeb Bush both say GZ is not covered under it-----who knows? Will be interested in finding out.

In the United States, the accused enjoy the presumption of innocence. The prosecutor must "prove beyond a reasonable doubt" his guilt.

**gilliam** · #**611** Apr 11, '12, 2:52 pm

BBC:
Florida neighbourhood watch volunteer to face second degree murder charge over Trayvon Martin killing, official says

**catharina** · #**612** Apr 11, '12, 2:53 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by gilliam

BBC:
Florida neighbourhood watch volunteer to face second degree murder charge over Trayvon Martin killing, official says

Wow.

From the BBC?
Really?

Have you a source (link) for that?

**gilliam** · #**613** Apr 11, '12, 2:54 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by catharina

Wow.

From the BBC?
Really?

Have you a source (link) for that?

bbcnews.com (it's the breaking news)

Dawnia · #**614** Apr 11, '12, 2:54 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by catharina

Are you aware that such 'killings' to prevent reports of any
criminal activities (such as assault) happen every day?

Guess not.

Killed because you're a witness to another crime is one thing, being killed because your a witness to being killed makes absolutely no sense.

How is someone killed twice?

**gilliam** · #**615** Apr 11, '12, 2:55 pm

CNS News provides more insight on why Stand Your Ground is irrelevant in this case, courtesy of Ken Blackwell and Ken Klukowski of Liberty University School of Law:

Under any version of the facts, Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law did not apply in the Trayvon Martin incident. If Zimmerman pursued a confrontation with Martin, then Zimmerman was an attacker and cannot claim SYG. If Zimmerman’s account is true that he was on the ground and Martin was on top of him, then retreat was impossible, so there would be no duty to retreat anyway. A victim in such a situation can use deadly force, but only if he reasonably believes he is being attacked with deadly force.

To our knowledge, that is the law in all fifty states. It was the law before SYG statutes were ever passed, and SYG did nothing to change it.
So why is this not common knowledge after all the reporting on the Martin shooting? Tragically, some anti-gun activists are misinforming the public. They are aided by media commentators who failed the public trust by not researching and understanding the SYG issue before presuming to editorialize on it.

The police are usually not at hand when you are attacked by a criminal. The Second Amendment guarantees the right of law-abiding people to defend themselves. And laws like Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground have restored that right in states where it had been eroded, not to take innocent life, but instead to preserve it.