Bagism: Web Board
[Show Followups] [Post New Message]
 [Search Web Boards] [Web Boards Menu] [Letter Box Web Board]

Re: Obama was Trayvon 35 years ago?

Posted by **Johnny D** on Jul 20, 2013 at 11:16:46 PM:
In Reply to: Re: Obama was Trayvon 35 years ago? posted by **BlackMonk** on Jul 20, 2013 at 5:53:16 PM:


***
***There was also testimony to the contrary, but even granting what you say is true, that doesn't say anything about who started the fight, does it?
**
**Just some thoughts, and NOT directed at you or anyone:
**
**The Jury can not give a verdict based on who started the fight.
**
*
*What's your legal opinion based upon? The question of who started the fight seems very relevant to a claim of self-defense. Otherwise, we would have a situation where someone could start a fight, shoot the other person when he begins to lose, and have no responsibility legally. As far as I know, legally, if a person starts a fight, they usually can't claim self-defense.
*
*

My non-legal opinion is that the jury had no witnesses to testify as to who started the fight. The evidence and the witnesses claimed only the action AFTER whoever started anything in some fight.

For a legal view, it is "my understanding" that if it is proven that someone was "unlawful" in approaching or retaining someone, (as in some criminal act of any kind), then the self defense claim would, or should be, dismissed by the jury. So, with the jury not given any proof of a criminal restraint by Zimmerman, there was no way for them to give a verdict based on who started the fight. THEY or any of us don't really know. They and us only know who was the current aggressor right before the shot, proven by the witnesses and the evidence of the angle of the shot and the way it went through the sweatshirt, with a gap between it and Trayvon, (HIM leaning over at the time of the shot). The WHO started the fight is now only known by Zimmerman. The jury had nothing to go for that part of it, is my point. Thanks.


**
**That is just for others to debate, and be mad or not about who they THINK started the fight. For better or worse. The jury only heard and saw what was presented to them, not what was shown and heard on TV night after night. It might not be a factor anyway, given the actual fight is when the fear factor for one's life can happen, or even without a fight, one can claim fear for their life, and the goes Bang. The Who started anything doesn't seem to apply to the right to defend with deadly force. ???
**


LET ME POINT OUT that my questioning MY own viewpoint above (???) is one I am not sure about. Here's how I understand it though, (after looking up law facts): IF any action was an unlawful one to start with,,,,then it does seem to make sense that the self defense would not be found. The jury could not know WHO started it,,,,,for again, no proof of the start was given, other than Zimmerman's photos and written statement about him being punched first, claiming Trayvon started the fight. Words would not be unlawful,,,,hitting would...So, whoever hit first? That is the aggressor at first, and if it was Zimmerman, his self defense claim would be just to get him off,,,not to get to the truth. Courts are about winning cases,,,not always about the truth, "so help" the careers of lawyers, and the lives of the defendants. The truth is usually found in the evidence,,,if ALL of it is presented.


Thanks for making me learn more. But it does seem the jury could not find any proof of who started it,,,and we don;t know,,,so how could they give a verdict of guilty if NOT knowing any evidence in court concerning WHO unlawfully started the action that led to a shooting.

For many to SIMPLY blame whitey is ridiculous and are just reaching for a scapegoat symbol out of past emotions. I get that. But it doesn't make it the truth, just as no ones knows what the truth is as far as knowing for sure who unlawfully started the fight. Juries can only go on evidence. They decided based on it, as some who thought guilty for some reason, looked at all the evidence, and all came to the same conclusion. They had NOTHING to let them know Zimmerman threw the first unlawful punch of any unlawful action. if they had "that" evidence, from some camera or people standing nearby before the first punch ot claim Z started it by some unlawful act,,,,then he would be found guilty.

NO proof is given to say five WHITE women and ONE Latino were going to find Zimmerman not guilty, no matter. Whoever thinks that won't be able to trust anyone at anytime, and I would feel sorry for them. Living in such bigotry and hatred over what happened by OTHER white people before, is not helping to make things better for ALL of us.

Thanks. And thanks for talking WITH me. Ask anything. I can be wrong, ya know. I just try to think of all factors. I welcome factors not thought about yet. NO Prob! I'm a constant evaluator and changing viewpoint, open person,,,IF I get info that changes my past viewpoints. Again,,,NO problem with that. It us called Growth!!!! (And, I actually care about and love my friends, despite what or how they think I am talking like to them). YOU, along with everyone here, "is" my friend, like it or not! :) Just allow me to kick you in the seat sometimes, as well as doing that to me when needed, (you and me both can do that to ME!) LOL...

"Understanding" THE PERSON, one by one,,,NOT as in some group of people, is the way to helping each other.

Johnny

Followup Messages:

top of page

 

Home Web Chat Web Boards Discography Library Quiz Art & Poetry Links Store

Image Map -- text links below

Home | Web Chat | Web Boards | Discography | Library | Quiz | Art & Poetry | Links | Store

Produced by Sam Choukri
Frequently Asked Questions
Last updated on Jul 26, 2013