Trayvon Martin

[Rudy Peña]

Unless you have been convicted, you have a clean record.

Jack gets convicted of rape. Goes to apply as a cook in a high school.


Rudy gets accused of rape. Goes to apply as a cook in a high school.



Both agree to get a background check. Once the school sees that Jack has been convicted of rape, they will not hire him. Once the school sees Rudy has been accused of rape, they will not hire him.

This can go with anything. Once the police have something on your record, its there whether you got convicted or not.

The only reason Zim didnt get convicted cause he got a deal or something.

[Jack]

Actually, following a dismissal, you can have your arrest record expunged. Further, the actions of an employer have no bearing on how something is viewed by law. Stating that he has a clean record is truthful.

[Drought]

Unless you have been convicted, you have a clean record.

Actually ... its on his records, just no conviction tied with the allegation.
It still remains with his personal record info and as such, I'd say he has no convictions, but he does have a history indicating previous problems involving the police. Its a police record, not a conviction record

As for the Trayvon not being reported missing, the most obvious reason will likely be that his parents figured him to be hanging out with his GF, or so I would think.

And yes, being 17 years, no matter how the law may convict you, @17, your still a kid.
Also, if you see the pictures of Trayvon I would estimate him younger then 17.

Dovahkiin, you seem to be favouring the stance where carrying guns is the right thing to do to pre-emptively defend yourself.
Do you actually believe that carrying firearms in the street by none law enforces, is a good thing ?

If so, your biased

[Rudy Peña]

Perhaps you missed the part where i stated he has no convictions?

@Ra: Killing in self defense is not murder. Murder is a legal term and has a specific definition, especially for the purposes of law.

semantics, an idiotic law allowing the killing of another because you're "scared" is absurd.

You really do not understand the law. However it does not matter, because once again, SYG has no bearing on this case. Neither would Castle Doctrine. In fact, Zimmerman would have been justified in using lethal force in England as well and any other place that has duty to retreat.

Why? Because Zimmerman did not confront Martin, when the operator said that he did not need to follow Martin, Zimmerman ok and turned back to his car. He lost Martin. Martin came up behind Zimmerman, confronted Zimmerman, then attacked him. Martin's attack was not justified, as they had exchanged words and Martin attacked Zimmerman as Zimmerman was attempted to call the police back.

Martin struck Zimmerman in the face, breaking his nose and knocking him on his back. Martin then began to repeatedly slam Zimmerman's head into the ground. Eventually Martin attempted to grab Zimmerman's gun, it was during the struggle for the gun when Martin was shot. The autopsy, forensics, witness statements and Zimmerman's injuries support this version of events. Despite what the media would have you believe, the police did a full investigation of the events and Zimmerman was originally a suspect. It was later at the police station that Zimmerman was determined to be telling the truth and that it was a case of justified self defense.

http://news.yahoo.com/trayvon-martin-vi ... ories.html


All I got to say is watch the video...and you will see no injuries on Zim, Jack.


He lied and the police lied.

[Psyko]

Perhaps you missed the part where i stated he has no convictions?

@Ra: Killing in self defense is not murder. Murder is a legal term and has a specific definition, especially for the purposes of law.

semantics, an idiotic law allowing the killing of another because you're "scared" is absurd.

You really do not understand the law. However it does not matter, because once again, SYG has no bearing on this case. Neither would Castle Doctrine. In fact, Zimmerman would have been justified in using lethal force in England as well and any other place that has duty to retreat.

Why? Because Zimmerman did not confront Martin, when the operator said that he did not need to follow Martin, Zimmerman ok and turned back to his car. He lost Martin. Martin came up behind Zimmerman, confronted Zimmerman, then attacked him. Martin's attack was not justified, as they had exchanged words and Martin attacked Zimmerman as Zimmerman was attempted to call the police back.

Martin struck Zimmerman in the face, breaking his nose and knocking him on his back. Martin then began to repeatedly slam Zimmerman's head into the ground. Eventually Martin attempted to grab Zimmerman's gun, it was during the struggle for the gun when Martin was shot. The autopsy, forensics, witness statements and Zimmerman's injuries support this version of events. Despite what the media would have you believe, the police did a full investigation of the events and Zimmerman was originally a suspect. It was later at the police station that Zimmerman was determined to be telling the truth and that it was a case of justified self defense.

http://news.yahoo.com/trayvon-martin-vi ... ories.html


All I got to say is watch the video...and you will see no injuries on Zim, Jack.


He lied and the police lied.

Hard to say about the back of the head. The "ABC Exclusive" logo covers the best moments to view his head clearly for several long moments of the video and as he walks away there is a darker spot on the back of his head. It could be an odd patch of hair, but who's to say since they ruined the close-up shot. And you can't really see his face to know about the nose.

I did read that Zimmerman did receive some first aid when he was first placed in the police cruiser at the scene, so any blood may have been cleaned up at that point.

(Just for the sake of argument).

My personal view on this case is that it should go to trial and have all of the facts and both sides represented and decided upon, instead of the media debating and one side being unsatisfied forever. At least have both sides voiced in a court of law so a jury can come to a reasonable conclusion as to the events of that night. It would be much better than this trial by public opinion, which is constantly filled with misinformation and politics.

The only fair thing to do for either side is to have a trial. No one knows what exactly went on, but at least in a court room the evidence and truth will prevail over propaganda and political posturing. No conclusion will ever be reached if this continues as it is going now.

[deni]

Perhaps you missed the part where i stated he has no convictions?

@Ra: Killing in self defense is not murder. Murder is a legal term and has a specific definition, especially for the purposes of law.

semantics, an idiotic law allowing the killing of another because you're "scared" is absurd.

You really do not understand the law. However it does not matter, because once again, SYG has no bearing on this case. Neither would Castle Doctrine. In fact, Zimmerman would have been justified in using lethal force in England as well and any other place that has duty to retreat.

Why? Because Zimmerman did not confront Martin, when the operator said that he did not need to follow Martin, Zimmerman ok and turned back to his car. He lost Martin. Martin came up behind Zimmerman, confronted Zimmerman, then attacked him. Martin's attack was not justified, as they had exchanged words and Martin attacked Zimmerman as Zimmerman was attempted to call the police back.

Martin struck Zimmerman in the face, breaking his nose and knocking him on his back. Martin then began to repeatedly slam Zimmerman's head into the ground. Eventually Martin attempted to grab Zimmerman's gun, it was during the struggle for the gun when Martin was shot. The autopsy, forensics, witness statements and Zimmerman's injuries support this version of events. Despite what the media would have you believe, the police did a full investigation of the events and Zimmerman was originally a suspect. It was later at the police station that Zimmerman was determined to be telling the truth and that it was a case of justified self defense.

If you tell us not to believe the media, Jack, may I ask where do you have your info from?

I guess from the very same media you ask us not to believe

[Jack]

Unfortunately, it's just about impossible for Zimmerman to get a fair trial. Most everyone is convinced he is guilty of a crime.

The media is blatantly distorting the truth. They have doctored photos and the police recording. They have lied about Zimmerman's race, Martin's age, size and weight. They lied about the reasons Martin was suspended, and for how long the suspension was. The main stream media had lied, mislead and twisted the facts about this case.

They wanted a case of some racist white man killing a poor little innocent black boy in Florida to drive their ratings, and dammit they were going to get it even if they had to invent it.

Hint: Psyko is right about the spot on Zimmerman's head. It's a laceration from the fight that has been conveniently hidden by ABC's logo. Zimmerman received medical treatment at the scene, the paramedics wanted him to go to the hospital. But he refused, he wanted to go with the officers to the station to get this ordeal behind him. He went to the hospital the next day.

NBC released the call Zimmerman made to the police. They claimed it was a 911 call. Actually, he called the nonemergency number. Not entirely sure if it's the same in florida, but here the big cities have setup a nonemergency number, 311, for these exact situations.

In the recording NBC released, Zimmerman says that Martin is acting suspecious, that he looks high and he's black. What actually happened is Zimmerman listed his reasons for he was suspecious of Martin. Then the operator asks if Martin is white, black or Hispanic. Only then does Zimmerman state that Martin looks black.

I can't remember who, might have been NBC again, but one news agency released a photo of Martin that had been edited to make Martin appear younger and more innocent.

While we're on the subject of Martin's innocence... The MSM reported that Martin was stand up guy and a role model student that mentored other kids. They said that he was serving a 4 day suspension for being tardy. Actually he was serving a two week suspension for theft, possession of drugs and fighting or something. Can't remember now. Earlier he had been suspended for vandalism.

The more you know~

[Jack]

@Deni: the police reports are available for anyone with an internet connection.

[MEZZANINE]

Unless you have been convicted, you have a clean record.

Jack gets convicted of rape. Goes to apply as a cook in a high school.


Rudy gets accused of rape. Goes to apply as a cook in a high school.



Both agree to get a background check. Once the school sees that Jack has been convicted of rape, they will not hire him. Once the school sees Rudy has been accused of rape, they will not hire him.

This can go with anything. Once the police have something on your record, its there whether you got convicted or not.

The only reason Zim didnt get convicted cause he got a deal or something.

Your right, mud sticks and when an accusation is made, proved or not, people who dont know the accused personally always have that doubt in their minds.

Actually, following a dismissal, you can have your arrest record expunged. Further, the actions of an employer have no bearing on how something is viewed by law. Stating that he has a clean record is truthful.

In this time of social media an official record can be cleaned but the knowledge of the accusation remains in the public domain and is easily found.

A story only last year in the UK showed how employers were looking potential employees up online and one person in particular made the news as an example when he didnt get a job purely because he had boasted about taking drugs online, I think he had posted comments about taking ecstasy on a night out.




Be honest, if your were an employer, found that 3 applicants for a job that were equal in all other ways but did online searches and saw

1) Had nothing online of interest
2) Had admitted online to using recreational drugs
3) Had been accused of a serious crime like assault or rape, had been requited, but we all know some guilty go free due to lack of evidence

Which would you employ ???

[Psyko]

Unfortunately, it's just about impossible for Zimmerman to get a fair trial. Most everyone is convinced he is guilty of a crime.

Possibly. But it would be exceedingly more fair than the treatment he is receiving now.

While the media can distort fact to fit their rhetoric (both sides are so guilty of this there is no way to know what the truth really is), the real evidence should be free from any tampering and would hold up well in a court of law. Juries can be selected so no/little bias exists and each juror has not been predisposed to the case at hand. Each side can have their version told and a jury can make their unbiased ruling in the facts of the case.

That is a lot more fair than a man being ostracized by most of the country due to the media dragging the hard facts of the case through the mud just to paint a pretty target on his back.

I don't know if he's guilty of murder by self-defense, or murder/manslaughter, but if I were him I would rather opt for a trial than the trial by public opinion fire that is roaring through our country.

[deni]

@Deni: the police reports are available for anyone with an internet connection.

I find it hard to believe that full police reports are published online especially when they contain names and information about suspects, victims or witnesses for example.

Please post a link to the police report on the discussed case, if you want to make a point and so we all have the same level of information as a basis for a dicussion. Thank you.


Edit: 'Google it' is not a valid reply

[Psyko]

@Deni: the police reports are available for anyone with an internet connection.

I find it hard to believe that full police reports are published online especially when they contain names and information about suspects, victims or witnesses for example.

Please post a link to the police report on the discussed case, if you want to make a point and so we all have the same level of information as a basis for a dicussion. Thank you.


Edit: 'Google it' is not a valid reply

Aside from news articles about the police report, this is what I found when I "googled it". http://www.propublica.org/documents/ite ... ice-report

[MEZZANINE]

@ Jack

Official police statements to the press can be found, NOT the internal reports.


Oh and just watching the news as I get ready for work, another example comes up of your insane gun culture, yet another school/university mass shooting just because someone got upset and had easy access to a gun

Ex-student ID'd as suspect in shooting at Oikos University in California that killed 7

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/04/02/1- ... al-school/

It's true that guns dont kill people...................... but people with guns DO

Guns making killing far to quick and easy in the heat of the moment when your bloods up, without a gun you might swear, shout, maybe in extreme cases get into a fight.......... with guns people die.

[Jack]

This thread isn't about gun rights, it's about a shooting in Florida, there is a thread about gun rights already, please post there or make a new thread if you wish discuss that subject. I'll happily debate it there, but not here.

@Deni: without my phone, I do not have internet access on my computer. This is the only site I can really access with this phone. So finding and posting the police report isn't really possible. Sorry. But you can find it at the police departments website, it's in PDF form.

If not for the lack of proper net access, I would have posted a lot of links, including youtube videos comparing information. My post would also have been longer and I would have gone into more detail about the self defense doctrines in the united states.

[Ra]

Perhaps you missed the part where i stated he has no convictions?

@Ra: Killing in self defense is not murder. Murder is a legal term and has a specific definition, especially for the purposes of law.

semantics, an idiotic law allowing the killing of another because you're "scared" is absurd.

You really do not understand the law. However it does not matter, because once again, SYG has no bearing on this case. Neither would Castle Doctrine. In fact, Zimmerman would have been justified in using lethal force in England as well and any other place that has duty to retreat.

Why? Because Zimmerman did not confront Martin, when the operator said that he did not need to follow Martin, Zimmerman ok and turned back to his car. He lost Martin. Martin came up behind Zimmerman, confronted Zimmerman, then attacked him. Martin's attack was not justified, as they had exchanged words and Martin attacked Zimmerman as Zimmerman was attempted to call the police back.

Martin struck Zimmerman in the face, breaking his nose and knocking him on his back. Martin then began to repeatedly slam Zimmerman's head into the ground. Eventually Martin attempted to grab Zimmerman's gun, it was during the struggle for the gun when Martin was shot. The autopsy, forensics, witness statements and Zimmerman's injuries support this version of events. Despite what the media would have you believe, the police did a full investigation of the events and Zimmerman was originally a suspect. It was later at the police station that Zimmerman was determined to be telling the truth and that it was a case of justified self defense.

Wow, what a nice account. I forgot you were there, you should really come foward as a witness. Oh wait.. Zimmerman should be on trial for murder. If it was self defense, let him prove it in court and not hide behind an idiotic law. If only we could ship the gun nuts out of America.. then we wouldn't have concealed carry or this **Filtered**..