R.I.P Trayvon

Rex Ryan said:
Eh to me its to many differences between Zimmerman and Goetz.

The Goetz case, most people defended his actions and the kids that tried to rob him all ended up committing crimes again except the one that was paralyzed. In the Goetz case, his actions could be more rationalized.

The Zimmerman case, I would say that most people regardless of race would disagree with zimmermans actions on this one.


What sucks though is that if Zimmerman walks there's an outside chance of some type of racial incident happening around there which will suck because people who have nothing to do with this situation would be affected.
Click to expand...
It was a tragic event but thankfully Mr. Zimmerman is still here to tell his side of the story, Unlike Mr Ricardo Portillo.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/08/18128846-teen-soccer-player-charged-in-refs-death?lite

A 17-year-old boy accused of delivering a fatal punch to a soccer referee after being penalized during a game in Utah was charged with homicide by assault on Wednesday. Ricardo Portillo, 46, was refereeing a youth soccer match near Salt Lake City when he called a penalty against the goalie. He issued the teen a yellow card, and the player retaliated by punching Portillo in the jaw. Portillo died after being in a week-long coma. 
 
At the end of the day, this whole situation would have never happen if he would have just took his fat *** home... instead of profiling, confronting, and unjustifiably killing Martin...

You shouldn't be allowed to roam the streets with firearms abusing moronic gun laws... He needs to be made an example.
 
Last edited:


He should be convicted on all his lies alone its clear he's not very truthful
 
He should be convicted on all his lies alone its clear he's not very truthful
[/quote]
assyrianplaya said:
Don't have an opinion because the trial will show more than we all know... but doesn't this goes both ways??
Click to expand...

You are right it does go both ways, none of us were there.



That video is crazy :smh:
 
Last edited:
solegit08til said:
Because he's not on trial for that? It doesn't show his character if the jury doesn't know the full story.

I got a DV charge that is straight BS but I had to take the plea because of school.

I really hope Zimmy goes down but they probably aren't gonna factor that in.
Click to expand...
But just like they are bringing up Trayvon and his suspension over a little bag of weed and his Facebook images... You really going to sit there and say character has nothing to do with it... It's the very foundation of why this idiot followed this boy, the whole damn conversation was about not trusting" those" people...
As much as I want this man to rot in jail, get brutally sodimazed, and ultimately die, in my heart I see him getting off, laws weren't created for the black man or black female
Yeah I said that sh*t
 
mugen81 said:
But just like they are bringing up Trayvon and his suspension over a little bag of weed and his Facebook images... You really going to sit there and say character has nothing to do with it... It's the very foundation of why this idiot followed this boy, the whole damn conversation was about not trusting" those" people...
As much as I want this man to rot in jail, get brutally sodimazed, and ultimately die, in my heart I see him getting off, laws weren't created for the black man or black female
Yeah I said that sh*t
Click to expand...

Yes, but didn't the judge order Travon's past cannot be included in testimony? So in that regard, if I'm the defense I'm doing everything I can to have ZImmerman's past removed as well.

That was my point.
 
Law3001 said:
You would be a terrible lawyer :lol:
Click to expand...

For who?

I'm going off of what was said if I'm apart of the Zimmerman defense team I'm looking to get all that stuff thrown out as Travon's past has been thrown out. I want FACTS. Thats all speculation. What was the entire story of the DV charge?


Don't get me wrong. I'm not arguing FOR Zimmerman. I don't think he should have murdered, or had a gun in that situation for that matter. I feel a 29 year old man should be able to at least handle a 17 year old. Even if Travon was a matured 17 year old. I'm just playing what the law is going to see.


I just don't see dude getting a 1st degree murder rap.
 
shoefreakbaby said:
That is not how trials work.


The prosecutor is saying that he killed trayvon in rage, why wouldnt they mention the time he smacked his girl friend up. It will show he has anger issues, its all bout tearing down his character.
Click to expand...

I agree. But in this case if Travon's past is not allowed to be used in the trail, then neither should Zimmerman's.

If the defense can't paint Travon as an aggressive teen who had a history of violence (the bus incident) and drug use then it should be vice versa in the court room. EQUAL for both.



Thats where I was going. I understand how a trial works.
 
stevielips said:
I agree. But in this case if Travon's past is not allowed to be used in the trail, then neither should Zimmerman's.

If the defense can't paint Travon as an aggressive teen who had a history of violence (the bus incident) and drug use then it should be vice versa in the court room. EQUAL for both.



Thats where I was going. I understand how a trial works.
Click to expand...
I don't understand how that works? Trayvon isn't on trial(obviously) Zimmerman is. Zimmerman character matters.

Trayvon's probably does as well but Zimmerman wouldn't have known that before the altercation. Having two rage/angry men get into never leads to good things, just because one of them is dead, doesn't mean we should ignore that Zimmerman has his issues as well.

Equal for both? This trial isn't Zimmerman vs Trayvon....
 
Rex Ryan said:
Eh to me its to many differences between Zimmerman and Goetz.

The Goetz case, most people defended his actions and the kids that tried to rob him all ended up committing crimes again except the one that was paralyzed. In the Goetz case, his actions could be more rationalized.
Click to expand...

You're viewing it more in terms of public perception. I'm looking at it from a "burden of proof" POV.

Goetz was never physically assaulted. He simply felt threatened enough to the point where he believed he had to shoot the young men.

In the Trayvon Martin case, there's a strong possibility that Zimmerman endured actual and provable physical harm that led him to believe he was in physical danger.

Think in terms of how the jury would look at it. I'm thinking it would be easier to convince a jury that an individual was acting in self defense when violence occurred (Martin case) as opposed to the threat of violence (Goetz case).

It all could have been avoided if Zimmerman didn't follow Martin and alerted police to suspicions. However, following Martin was not criminal. If the defense can prove that Martin was the aggressor, Zimmerman will be found not guilty of murder.
 
ssjjfar said:
I don't understand how that works? Trayvon isn't on trial(obviously) Zimmerman is. Zimmerman character matters.

Trayvon's probably does as well but Zimmerman wouldn't have known that before the altercation. Having two rage/angry men get into never leads to good things, just because one of them is dead, doesn't mean we should ignore that Zimmerman has his issues as well.

Equal for both? This trial isn't Zimmerman vs Trayvon....
Click to expand...


Well technically it is. If I'm Zimmerman's defense I want to show that Trayvon initiated an altercation which cause my client to use self defense in order to stay alive. I want to show that he was an angry teen that wasn't supposed to be there in the first place with a history of aggressive behavior and drug use.
 
ssjjfar said:
I don't understand how that works? Trayvon isn't on trial(obviously) Zimmerman is. Zimmerman character matters.

Trayvon's probably does as well but Zimmerman wouldn't have known that before the altercation. Having two rage/angry men get into never leads to good things, just because one of them is dead, doesn't mean we should ignore that Zimmerman has his issues as well.

Equal for both? This trial isn't Zimmerman vs Trayvon....
Click to expand...


And what does the law state. Innocent until proven guilty. Zimmerman HASNT been proven guilty so yes it should be EQUAL.
 
CelticsFan9783 said:
You're viewing it more in terms of public perception. I'm looking at it from a "burden of proof" POV.

Goetz was never physically assaulted. He simply felt threatened enough to the point where he believed he had to shoot the young men.

In the Trayvon Martin case, there's a strong possibility that Zimmerman endured actual and provable physical harm that led him to believe he was in physical danger.

Think in terms of how the jury would look at it. I'm thinking it would be easier to convince a jury that an individual was acting in self defense when violence occurred (Martin case) as opposed to the threat of violence (Goetz case).

It all could have been avoided if Zimmerman didn't follow Martin and alerted police to suspicions. However, following Martin was not criminal. If the defense can prove that Martin was the aggressor, Zimmerman will be found not guilty of murder.
Click to expand...


Exactly.
 
stevielips said:
Well technically it is. If I'm Zimmerman's defense I want to show that Trayvon initiated an altercation which cause my client to use self defense in order to stay alive. I want to show that he was an angry teen that wasn't supposed to be there in the first place with a history of aggressive behavior and drug use.
Click to expand...
I understand wanting to show that Trayvon had a history. I even said it would matter, but Zimmerman is the one that is actually on trial.


stevielips said:
And what does the law state. Innocent until proven guilty. Zimmerman HASNT been proven guilty so yes it should be EQUAL.
Click to expand...
Equal to a dead guy that isn't involved in trial, I don't understand the concept. If Trayvon was alive and it was a him vs Zimmerman situation then I can understand equal for both, there is no equal here since Trayvon isn't on trial for anything.
 
ssjjfar said:
I understand wanting to show that Trayvon had a history. I even said it would matter, but Zimmerman is the one that is actually on trial.
Equal to a dead guy that isn't involved in trial, I don't understand the concept. If Trayvon was alive and it was a him vs Zimmerman situation then I can understand equal for both, there is no equal here since Trayvon isn't on trial for anything.
Click to expand...

I get what youre saying, but that is not how the defense is going to look at it. To the defense it is Zimmerman vs Travon because in their eyes their client was assaulted which caused him to do what he did.
 
ssjjfar said:
Equal to a dead guy that isn't involved in trial, I don't understand the concept.
Click to expand...

He's obviously not literally involved.

But it's the defense team's job to take the jury back to the time and place of the incident and paint a vivid picture of what happened through hear/say, physical evidence, circumstantial evidence, and then hire an "expert witness" to confirm what allegedly could have happened because of his perception of Trayvon's psyche. The only way to get inside the mind of Trayvon and validate his actions would be to use his past recorded behaviors, which include those that are criminal.

It's really all BS. The jury will look at the expert witness like his opinion matters the most because of his title. I've seen this happen in many notorious cases.
 
Last edited:
stevielips said:
Well technically it is. If I'm Zimmerman's defense I want to show that Trayvon initiated an altercation which cause my client to use self defense in order to stay alive. I want to show that he was an angry teen that wasn't supposed to be there in the first place with a history of aggressive behavior and drug use.
Click to expand...


and how do you explain this^ 

Counselor 
 
Zimmerman will be found guilty of something--just not murder.  

It still boggles my mind how you can follow an unarmed citizen while armed, and when confronted by that citizen because of you following them, you can "stand your ground" and claim self defense.  That makes absolutely NO sense.  

edit:  Not to mention, Trayvon had every legal right to be where he was.  He wasn't trespassing.  He wasn't casing homes to burglarize.  He was walking back to his dad's spot.  Damn shame, I tell ya.  Damn shame.  
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

therealest1
R.I.P. Paul Reubens AKA Pee-wee Herman
Replies
13
Views
579
$tacy
$tacy

The ultimate sneaker enthusiast community.

NikeTalk was created as a way of giving back to both the sneaker enthusiast community and to the greater global community of which we are all a part.

NikeTalk is NOT affiliated with Nike Inc. in any way, shape, or form. All opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Nike, Inc.

© 1999-2024 NikeTalk.com

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom