Personally, I believe that Zimmerman shouldn't have been charged with 2nd degree. I was thinking manslaughter. And nobody said that Trayvon (BTW, I believe it is spelled with an a and not e) is a saint. None of us are. I think he was a young kid whose life was cut tragically short.

As for what crap? The fact that you classified a young boy walking home as a future felon, and his death no big loss. That was an awful thing to say.

Hey, you know you're my fave, Wiseguy. I was just bored and getting into a conversation I never involve myself in, to throw my 2 cents out there. I don't happen to agree with you on this particular situation, and i'm sorry if you thought I was having you re-state yourself to me. I'm just an adult white girl making some trouble. DON'T SHOOT!

I didn't say Treyvon would be a future felon. I said that, or at least meant, if he reacted violently simply because he was confronted, that very well may have shown behavior problems that could lead to a future prison stint.

And while manslaughter is probably more applicable, the prosecution will likely go with 2nd degree murder so they can get Zimmerman to plead out to manslaughter.

Well, that's what I don't get, Tag. I don't understand what I've said that is soooooo disagreeable or is sooooooo offensive.

I've already said I'm making assumptions based on what little info has come out. But I think I'm coming from a fairly objective standpoint while others have gone to one extreme or the other, i.e. demonizing one side while making the other side out to be an perfectly innocent.

1. Zimmerman crossed a line he shouldn't have by confronting Treyvon. That makes him culpable in the event that ultimately led to Treyvon's death and he should be charged with manslaughter.

2. Treyvon, even though be confronted by Zimmerman, shouldn't have reacted with physical violence - if that's what in fact happened. Being frustrated, mad, arguing back, etc. would be understandable. But escalating it to a fight is crossing a line himself.

What's so wrong with what I've said (over and over again) above?

Do you think that ya'll will be subpoened to testify at Zimmerman's trial? Afterall, ya'll seem to have alot of information that both the prosecution and defense would like to have.

None of us was there! None of us knows what happended! Duh! The closest thing to an evidenciary fact that the public has exposure to at this point in time that lends itself in any way to intent, opportunity, and motive are the 911 tapes. We don't have the ballistics report; we don't have the autopsy report; we don't have the forensics report; we don't have any witness statements. What we do have is anecdotal information that some Board members selectively use to buttress their argument.

As I stated above, I think that 2nd degree murder is going to be hard for the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. That's why there will probably be other included charges such as manslaughter.

olivant - is it possible the 2nd degree as a possibility opens up a prosecutorial tactic to influence a manslaughter plea bargain?

Well, that's why olivant, I'm just speaking hypothetically as what I'd have done if approached by some civilian following me, minding my business, and such.

This is where I have some issues with what you're saying, Ivy. If I'm walking down the street and someone is going to come up to me, question me, follow me, be confrontational, whatever, I'm going to start getting defensive and angry. See, I know me. And I know I'm not alone. If I know I've done nothing wrong and I'm minding my own business and you're obviously looking for a fight, then you're going to get one. That doesn't give you the right to shoot to kill me.

That's it for me, I'm out of here. Y'all been great.

Thats what I think is going to happen.

It's possible, but I will reserve my final opinion until I can read or hear the forensics and ballistics reports. The question I need to have answered is how the two of them became proximate to one another. I've not heard or read anything to indicate just how that happened.

Ahh, but notice what you keep saying - you'd get defensive and angry. All understandable and warranted. But would you - and I'm speaking hypothetically here - physically attack the person who confronted you? And look at it if you're Treyvon (not a woman).

I think you hit the real difference we have here. I don't believe Zimmerman was "looking" for a fight. I think he confronted Treyvon based on a stereotypical view of him, not to mention being overzealous in his community watch position.

It becomes a question of self defense whether Zimmerman shooting him was warranted. But, to me, that's not even the real issue. Zimmerman is guilty of starting the altercation that led to the fight in the first place.

As tragic as the Trayvon story is, the Tulsa stuff is sickening.

Two guys went around killing African-Americans at random because one of them was a victim of black-on-white violence.

They deserve the death penalty. That's definitely 1st degree murder. What's the point of going after people that had nothing to do with what you're mad about besides sharing the same skin color as the guy who shot your dad?

That said, I can understand their frustration with the case (check out the article below). Justifiable homicide? Self defense? Sounds to me like Jefferson should have been guilty of 2nd degree murder.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=704&articleid=20120411_11_A4_ULNSbd928261

Stuff like this happens every single day. It's why Zimmerman has so many supporters. Many whites feel that when we're the victims of black-on-white crime, it goes unnoticed. When the roles are reversed, it's a international story.

I get what your saying. And there's definitely some truth to it. Of course, on the other hand, blacks often complain (and rightly so) that a black child going missing doesn't get nearly as much press attention as a white child; i.e. Natalie Holloway, Elizabeth Smart, etc.

The reason the media hypes "Missing White Females" isn't because they are genuinely concerned with their safe return. It's because they're usually dead and the media wants to make a circus of the trial or mystery surrounding who dunnit.

Like that pregnant lady in Cal whose husband killed her. He pretended she was missing and joined the search team, but we all knew it was him and that she was dead already. That's the kind of storyline the media likes. It's not because they favor white females.

And you are illustrating exactly the sorts of backwards attitudes that give many religious conservatives a justifiably bad name.

If religious people want to believe in God they are quite free to do so. When they, however attempt to make laws for everybody else based on nothing more than a belief in God, they're going to get questioned. The morons in Tennessee who are attempting to bring in intelligent design and creationism thru the back door by criticizing the chemical basis of life and evolution are an example of why biblical literalists don't mix well with science and logic, you know that post-Enlightenment stuff. Biblical literalists make claims about the world that are at best untestable and at worst demonstrably untrue. If they wish to step on the playing field of science with that junk, they're gonna get smoked. Again.

Amazing that you see Trayvon as a "thug and no big loss to society" while the previously arrested Zimmerman is not so described. That's the essence of white skin privilege and is why so many people got so excited by this case in the first place. Probably the original officers felt the same way.

The stand your ground laws and the right to self-defense apply to Trayvon as much as they do to Zimmerman.

The idea that Trayvon was under some requirement to drop his eyes and shuffle to answer Zimmerman's questions is silly. Zimmerman is no police officer and has no right to question or detain anyone.

No one can answer why Zimmerman got out of the car armed.

The bottom line in my mind is that immature adults like Zimmerman shouldn't be able to walk around the streets with concealed weapons anyway; this affects ALL of us. This story is a perfect example of the dangerous looney gun-culture we have in America, and I'm seriously frightened that so many wackos go out in public packing heat.

I think we need to take a serious look at the concealed handgun laws in this country.

I say, No thanks, unstable gun-toting white guy, who thinks he's protecting me and my family from thugs. I'd rather deal with the so-called thugs who KNOW they're going to jail if they mess with me, then deal with some glorified community watchman who thinks he's above the law.

When these idiots do shoot someone it'd better be a life or death situation and this was clearly not life or death, as statistically it usually isn't. (He used the gun simply because he had it, not because he needed it.) That's why he's beyond guilty in my mind. Tray didn't have a gun, it was a simple fist fight (if anything) so use your fists you coward, Zimmerman, especially if you start the ordeal by stalking him.

And I'm more than a bit concerned at the lack of compassion for an innocent child who's been murdered in the prime of his life. There's no evidence to suggest this young man wouldn't have been as productive a member of society as anyone here, nor that he's prone to temperamental violence.

Why wouldn't he stop to confront this idiot who's following him? What if the guy followed him back to his house and attempted something there on his family?

Well put, Frank. And I'm not so liberal that I'm completely anti-gun. Far from it. But concealed carry permits should come with a mandatory mental evaluation, at the very least. The current system makes it far too easy for borderline personality types to get their hands on handguns.

I'm not completely anti-gun, pb. I know some are always going to feel the need to go out in public Rambo style, and sometimes when in a bad part of town with a family or whatever I can understand.

But if they end up killing someone, it needs to be life or death situation. Otherwise they should go to jail for a great portion of their life IMO. That's the best way to deter the Rambo/Cowboy/Gangster types.

Also in this case it's kind of like the To Kill A Mockingbird slippery slope analogy. If we trivialize the rights of blacks, and allow whites to flippantly kill blacks, it's only a matter of time before those whites start murdering other whites and blaming it on blacks.

Whether you are pro gun r anti gun or neutral, the point, in the Treyvon MArting murder is the cops told this self styld vigilante NOT to pack heat in that particular situation, and he
disobeyed them. These self appointed community watchdogs are a menace. If they cannot get a license to be a cop, there's a a reason.

BTW that prosecutor is scary!

DT,

I never heard of her til now, BUT she does seem to know her stuff and from what I could tell gave appropriate answers and conducted a professional interview no? But yea, she seems stern...like the teacher who you can't pull anything over.


TIS

I think they're going to have a VERY hard time proving second degree murder. I'm guessing there will be additional charges so the prosecutor doesn't look like a fool if Zimmerman is exonerated of the murder charge. But that's all I'm gonna say because I don't want to rile up Olivant with conjecture .

And talk about a tainted jury pool?

Unless you've been living under a rock, you probably have an opinion about this guy.

See, you can make good decisions when you try. As I stated above, 2nd degree murder will be quite a challenge for the prosecution to prove. Other included offenses are normal, but I can see a hung jury. I can also see a change of venue.

As those of you who read my last post know, I want to know how the two protagonists ended up proximate to each other. Part of that has been answered. I heard another portion of the 911 tapes and it appears from that portion of the tape that they just ran into each other.

I think the media could help if it were to put together a flow chart of sorts of that night's events.

Ivy League, in a recent post you preached that a person (Mel Gibson) should not not be judged by his worst moments, which included multiple rants with profanity and racially charged language. Yet without equivocation you label Trayvon Martin a "thug," and characterize the loss of his life as inconsequential. You base this on an interpretation of facts that have not been established. Moreover, you make assumptions from allegations to speculate that he would be headed for prison. While you lectured that it was improper to rely on substantiated facts to judge Gibson's character, why do you rely on unproven allegations to assail Trayvon's character and even speculate on inferences drawn from mere allegations to conclude that he would end up in prison.

What makes Gibson different than Martin?

I echo KLY's statements and inquiries.

The rich & famous are always forgiven.

Yes, especially since he had some serious documented issues. He was arrested for assault, which was dismissed in exchange for attendance in an anger management program. His ex-girlfriend had also taken a restraining order out against him. Yet with that background, he was able to get a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Doesn't that just sound so wrong???

I bet Chris Brown could get a permit.

True SB. Zimmerman definitely had anger issues and STILL was able to have a gun. It IS wrong. Nobody is asking for rights to be taken away but there is nothing wrong with checking out exactly who you are giving a gun to.

It is amazing how many people can get guns. I've recently heard in some states it's actually legal (with a permit) to bring a gun in a bar. After all drinking & guns go so well together right? Really does that make sense?

TIS