Jump to content
orangeeyes

George Zimmerman charged with 2nd Degree Murder

Recommended Posts

+rei+    34670
There is no confirmation on either instigator of fight or the veracity of said assault.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gear    712
[quote name='Conspire' timestamp='1335217827' post='3162672']
[quote name='Gear' timestamp='1335103979' post='3161677']The moment you begin following someone your the instigator. You just dont follow someone and just think they are not going to have hostile reaction. Most peoples reaction isnt to call the cops when they are being stalked. Most people are going to stand there ground, shout, run, and/or etc.
[/quote]

I couldn't agree with this any less. Just because someone is following you does not mean you get to attack them. Martin has his cell phone with him. Why doesn't he call the police and say he's being followed? Running is fine too (the transcript of Zimmerman's 911 call suggests Martin did run.)

[quote]You just cannot be in a neighborhood watch, follow a suspect, get in a fight(losing) , and shoot that person and claim it to be justified. [/quote]

This is an idiotic statement. You think it's OK for someone to violently attack another person for following them but that it's not OK for someone to shoot another person who is killing them?

Your judgment is obviously clouded on this subject.
[/quote]
Your right. I didnt say you have the right to attack anyone when being followed. I did state though that in a fear mindset which Im sure Martin was late at night with some strange man following him he entered to a flight or fight response. He ran and Zimmerman who was clearly told not to follow did. Now Im not sure if Zimmerman ran after him making it clear he was following him but Martin reacted in a physical way. How do you find that strange? If some stranger is following you are going to prepare yourself for confrontation.Martin could have called the cops. Your right but not everything is rational. Especially, when your doing shit out of fear(which can be defined legally). Martin clearly knew he was being followed so he ran you act as if he stood there waiting for Zimmerman to fight him.

How is my statement idiotic? Your taking things way out of context. Where did I even mention its cool to get beat and not shoot? How can you justify following someone when being told by OFFICIALS not to? If you let someone follow you and you have no reaction and no preparation for confronting him or her, your a damn coward. If you think a person who YOU are following isnt going to react then your an idiot. I mean did you really think Martin who doesn't know Zimmerman, the stranger, is going to let him walk up to him?

You cannot be a neighborhood citizen, see a suspect and follow him, call the cops and report (this is the point where officials generally tell you to stop and let them handle it) , told not to follow after a running person, the person reacts in violence ( which in all honesty should be obvious) , and have someone die because at this point both parties fear for their lives and say its justified.



I think its sad on both sides tbh. A kid died and man just trying to do his neighborhood a duty got his life ruined.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The whole point that you're making Conspire about Zimmerman being in the right, because he was defending himself applies exactly the same way to Trayvon.

Trayvon if he was on top beating up Zimmerman was standing his ground because he was threatened (feeling threatened is the legal standard of stand your ground, not even the more stringent, being threatened).

The stand your ground law protects someone who feels threatened. This is a terrible legal standard and is a poorly written law because of the nature of feeling threatened. I am sure both parties felt threatened, at different times, and for different reasons. If that is the standard there is little legal recourse to murder.

It seems to me that stalking someone, and then shooting them when they defend themselves from an armed man following them at night, is not self defense.
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+rei+    34670
If we're talking about what standards should be Zimmerman wouldn't have been armed anyway ;p
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Conspire    2391
[quote]you really think Martin who doesn't know Zimmerman, the stranger, is going to let him walk up to him?[/quote]
[quote]you act as if he stood there waiting for Zimmerman to fight him[/quote]

Your lack of a coherent stance on this matter is making it very difficult to respond. I reiterate that your judgment seems clouded on this subject.

[quote name='ThePedanticGentleman' timestamp='1335222191' post='3162741']The whole point that you're making Conspire about Zimmerman being in the right, because he was defending himself applies exactly the same way to Trayvon. Trayvon if he was on top beating up Zimmerman was standing his ground because he was threatened (feeling threatened is the legal standard of stand your ground, not even the more stringent, being threatened). The stand your ground law protects someone who feels threatened. This is a terrible legal standard and is a poorly written law because of the nature of feeling threatened. I am sure both parties felt threatened, at different times, and for different reasons. If that is the standard there is little legal recourse to murder. It seems to me that stalking someone, and then shooting them when they defend themselves from an armed man following them at night, is not self defense.[/quote]

There's a very real difference to "feeling threatened because someone is following me" and "feeling threatened because someone is on top of me, punching me and smashing my head into the ground." If Florida State law says you're allowed to attack someone who is following you, than yeah, I have a problem with that. If Florida State law says you're allowed to shoot someone who is assaulting you, than no, I don't have a problem with that. If Florida State law says both are OK, I think that's wrong, but how could you possibly charge Zimmerman? Your state law pretty much encourages things to escalate to this level. One thing the law could not possibly say is that you're allowed to attack someone who is following you, but that person is not allowed to protect themselves. Either they were both right, and Zimmerman should walk, or they were both wrong, and it's Martin's fault for creating a violent altercation. This is my whole point. Zimmerman is not at fault for the shooting because he was being racist and following someone whom he thought was dangerous because they were black. Martin is at fault for creating a violent altercation when other options were available.

The difference to me is that Martin has every opportunity to not engage. He can flee. Zimmerman's story is that Martin did flee, the confrontation was over, and Martin returned to the scene to reengage the confrontation and begun the altercation by attacking Zimmerman. I am trying not to lean on this story at all because it's not proven. All we know is that at the witness "John" saw Martin on top of Zimmerman, attacking him while Zimmerman called for help.

Martin does not have a right in my eyes to attack Zimmerman because he's following him. I don't think anyone with a level head could possibly believe a violent reaction is appropriate to being followed. I don't believe a violent reaction is appropriate even if you're provoked, as I explained in my Joe Racist sidewalk story.

Martin did not defend himself. He began the altercation.
  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gear    712
Im not understanding how you keep going after Martin's faults in the situation but do not see Zimmermans. I dont think you understand mental and physical mindsets in stressful situations. But Im not here for you to keep insulting my intelligence.
  • Downvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Conspire    2391
[quote name='Gear' timestamp='1335226547' post='3162808']
Im not understanding how you keep going after Martin's faults in the situation but do not see Zimmermans. I dont think you understand mental and physical mindsets in stressful situations. But Im not here for you to keep insulting my intelligence.
[/quote]

Because the reason Martin was shot was he forced Zimmerman into a situation where Zimmerman had to shoot him to defend himself. Zimmerman has plenty of faults in this case, but none forced Zimmerman into a situation where he had to shoot Martin.

I understand mental and physical mindsets in stressful situations just fine. I don't think you understand that being in these situations does not give one the right to attack someone and continue the attack when that person is on the ground. If I'm cornered in an alley but some guy I can claim to be threatened and attack him. Once the danger is gone (like say, I've knocked him down and could escape) I can't claim I was still afraid and so I jumped on him and continued to beat on him.

But to me Martin can't claim he was threatened. He's not cornered and it's easy for him to get away from the danger of being followed.

My opinion on this matter would change if there was any evidence that Martin was actually threatened. Being followed by someone in open space is not being threatened.
  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
»orangeeyes    11863
Peddle, your arguments are based [i]entirely[/i] on the assumption that Zimmerman's account of the story is true.

Does the fact that Zimmerman (who was not in danger at all at any point up to the altercation) chased a kid down a street while armed mean nothing to you? Apparently it doesn't. Trayvon was running away. Zimmerman had no reason to chase after him.

You don't know what happened in between Zimmerman chasing him and Martin getting shot. However, look at what we do know. Zimmerman, directly or indirectly (like I said, we don't know) instigated an altercation knowing full well he had the upper hand because he had a gun. His safety was not threatened until he decided to be a vigilante.

Whether he should get second-degree murder or not will become more apparent when we learn facts about the case. Based on what we know now, Zimmerman is still guilty of harassment and arguably manslaughter, not to mention he'll get raped by wrongful death suits. While I completely understand where you're coming from, there are many holes in the defendants' side that you refuse to acknowledge, because for whatever reason you're committed to arguing that Zimmerman is free of wrongdoing based on legal language. And yes, there is a good possibility that Zimmerman would get off if his story was 100% correct, but you have no way of knowing that.
  • Upvote 17

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Conspire    2391
[quote name='Fear the Deer v2.0' timestamp='1335233267' post='3162918']Peddle, your arguments are based [i]entirely[/i] on the assumption that Zimmerman's account of the story is true.

Does the fact that Zimmerman (who was not in danger at all at any point up to the altercation) chased a kid down a street while armed mean nothing to you? Apparently it doesn't. Trayvon was running away. Zimmerman had no reason to chase after him.

You don't know what happened in between Zimmerman chasing him and Martin getting shot. However, look at what we do know. Zimmerman, directly or indirectly (like I said, we don't know) instigated an altercation knowing full well he had the upper hand because he had a gun. His safety was not threatened until he decided to be a vigilante.

Whether he should get second-degree murder or not will become more apparent when we learn facts about the case. Based on what we know now, Zimmerman is still guilty of harassment and arguably manslaughter, not to mention he'll get raped by wrongful death suits. While I completely understand where you're coming from, there are many holes in the defendants' side that you refuse to acknowledge, because for whatever reason you're committed to arguing that Zimmerman is free of wrongdoing based on legal language. And yes, there is a good possibility that Zimmerman would get off if his story was 100% correct, but you have no way of knowing that.[/quote]

When you say Zimmerman instigated the altercation you're assuming Zimmermans story is false. You're right, we dont know what happened after Zimmerman started chasing Martin. We do know that Martin was assaulting Zimmerman while Zimmerman lay on his back. Theres just no excuse for that.

Its regrettable that Martin died so he could not be punished and learn from his mistake. Its not hard for me to defend a man for taking a single shot against someone who is continuing to attack him when Martin could have just ran away. He was practically home.
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 15

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
»Draigun    6835
There was also no excuse for Zimmerman to continue pursuing Martin after officers told him not to during the recorded phone call.
  • Upvote 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
»infinite    2317
[quote name='Conspire' timestamp='1335276220' post='3163210']
When you say Zimmerman instigated the altercation you're assuming Zimmermans story is false.
[/quote]

No he's not. Zimmerman instigated an altercation by pursuing Martin.


[quote name='Conspire' timestamp='1335276220' post='3163210']
We do know that Martin was assaulting Zimmerman while Zimmerman lay on his back. Theres just no excuse for that.
[/quote]

How do we know this? Regardless the same law that allowed Zimmerman to pump a bullet into Martin should allow Martin to defend himself against Zimmerman "if he felt threatened." Does this law only apply to Caucasians?


[quote name='Conspire' timestamp='1335276220' post='3163210']
Its regrettable that Martin died so he could not be punished and learn from his mistake. Its not hard for me to defend a man for taking a single shot against someone who is continuing to attack him when Martin could have just ran away. He was practically home.
[/quote]

Oh my God
  • Upvote 7
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Conspire' timestamp='1335276220' post='3163210']
[quote name='Fear the Deer v2.0' timestamp='1335233267' post='3162918']Peddle, your arguments are based [i]entirely[/i] on the assumption that Zimmerman's account of the story is true.

Does the fact that Zimmerman (who was not in danger at all at any point up to the altercation) chased a kid down a street while armed mean nothing to you? Apparently it doesn't. Trayvon was running away. Zimmerman had no reason to chase after him.

You don't know what happened in between Zimmerman chasing him and Martin getting shot. However, look at what we do know. Zimmerman, directly or indirectly (like I said, we don't know) instigated an altercation knowing full well he had the upper hand because he had a gun. His safety was not threatened until he decided to be a vigilante.

Whether he should get second-degree murder or not will become more apparent when we learn facts about the case. Based on what we know now, Zimmerman is still guilty of harassment and arguably manslaughter, not to mention he'll get raped by wrongful death suits. While I completely understand where you're coming from, there are many holes in the defendants' side that you refuse to acknowledge, because for whatever reason you're committed to arguing that Zimmerman is free of wrongdoing based on legal language. And yes, there is a good possibility that Zimmerman would get off if his story was 100% correct, but you have no way of knowing that.[/quote]

When you say Zimmerman instigated the altercation you're assuming Zimmermans story is false. You're right, we dont know what happened after Zimmerman started chasing Martin. We do know that Martin was assaulting Zimmerman while Zimmerman lay on his back. Theres just no excuse for that.

Its regrettable that Martin died so he could not be punished and learn from his mistake. Its not hard for me to defend a man for taking a single shot against someone who is continuing to attack him when Martin could have just ran away. He was practically home.
[/quote]
[img]http://i640.photobucket.com/albums/uu125/qjacker/2j0xlp0.gif[/img]
  • Upvote 6
  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Conspire    2391
[quote name='Infinite' timestamp='1335281056' post='3163241'][quote name='Conspire' timestamp='1335276220' post='3163210']
When you say Zimmerman instigated the altercation you're assuming Zimmermans story is false.
[/quote]

No he's not. Zimmerman instigated an altercation by pursuing Martin.


[quote name='Conspire' timestamp='1335276220' post='3163210']
We do know that Martin was assaulting Zimmerman while Zimmerman lay on his back. Theres just no excuse for that.
[/quote]

How do we know this? Regardless the same law that allowed Zimmerman to pump a bullet into Martin should allow Martin to defend himself against Zimmerman "if he felt threatened." Does this law only apply to Caucasians?


[quote name='Conspire' timestamp='1335276220' post='3163210']
Its regrettable that Martin died so he could not be punished and learn from his mistake. Its not hard for me to defend a man for taking a single shot against someone who is continuing to attack him when Martin could have just ran away. He was practically home.
[/quote]

Oh my God[/quote]

- i should have said [i]a physical[/i] altercation. There is no evidence Zimmerman started the fight. Martin has no wounds except from a single gunshot.

- there is an eyewitness who sees Martin on top of Zimmerman attacking him. Beating up someone lying on the ground is never "defending yourself.". Thats my whole point here. If Martin feels threatened and slugs Zimmerman and leaves it at that im not here defending Zimmerman. Martin went way past the boundaries of self defense when he repeatedly assaulted Zimmerman while Zimmerman was on his back.

- i am really shocked that many of you think aggrevated assault is an appropriate reaponse to stalking.

- pointing out that i am white does nothing but showcase your ignorance. If you knew anything about my life you would know im a racially tolerant person. I have not used anything related to race in my arguments.
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
»infinite    2317
[quote name='Conspire' timestamp='1335292866' post='3163335']
[quote name='Infinite' timestamp='1335281056' post='3163241'][quote name='Conspire' timestamp='1335276220' post='3163210']
When you say Zimmerman instigated the altercation you're assuming Zimmermans story is false.
[/quote]

No he's not. Zimmerman instigated an altercation by pursuing Martin.


[quote name='Conspire' timestamp='1335276220' post='3163210']
We do know that Martin was assaulting Zimmerman while Zimmerman lay on his back. Theres just no excuse for that.
[/quote]

How do we know this? Regardless the same law that allowed Zimmerman to pump a bullet into Martin should allow Martin to defend himself against Zimmerman "if he felt threatened." Does this law only apply to Caucasians?


[quote name='Conspire' timestamp='1335276220' post='3163210']
Its regrettable that Martin died so he could not be punished and learn from his mistake. Its not hard for me to defend a man for taking a single shot against someone who is continuing to attack him when Martin could have just ran away. He was practically home.
[/quote]

Oh my God[/quote]

- i should have said [i]a physical[/i] altercation. There is no evidence Zimmerman started the fight. Martin has no wounds except from a single gunshot.

- there is an eyewitness who sees Martin on top of Zimmerman attacking him. Beating up someone lying on the ground is never "defending yourself.". Thats my whole point here. If Martin feels threatened and slugs Zimmerman and leaves it at that im not here defending Zimmerman. Martin went way past the boundaries of self defense when he repeatedly assaulted Zimmerman while Zimmerman was on his back.

- i am really shocked that many of you think aggrevated assault is an appropriate reaponse to stalking.

- pointing out that i am white does nothing but showcase your ignorance. If you knew anything about my life you would know im a racially tolerant person. I have not used anything related to race in my arguments.
[/quote]

- I never pointed out that you were white, I don't even know you. Read that sentence again.

- I personally do not think stalking justifies assault on a person and I do not think civilians should be carrying weapons while pursuing someone especially while trying to be a vigilante. However that is irrelevant. The law gives ZImmerman the right to carry a weapon and the right to shoot him when he felt threatened that same law also gave Martin the right to use whatever force he thought was necessary to defend himself against Zimmerman pursuing him with a weapon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
»orangeeyes    11863
You say Trayvon should have just run away. Couldn't you say the exact same thing about Zimmerman, that he should have run at some point?

Zimmerman knowingly got himself into an altercation where he knew he could pull his gun out if worse came to worse. Correct?
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Medb    773
I'm just confused as to how at any point in a fight when the other person has a gun (unless you take it away from them), you can not feel threatened, especially when that person had stalked you. I mean, we don't know really any of the details of the fight except that at one point Martin was on Zimmerman assaulting him. But, if Martin found out Zimmerman had a gun (which I imagine he did) its incredibly hard to believe he wouldn't be thinking "This guy was planning to shoot me" since he was being followed by Zimmerman.
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Conspire' timestamp='1335292866' post='3163335']


- i should have said [i]a physical[/i] altercation. There is no evidence Zimmerman started the fight. Martin has no wounds except from a single gunshot.

- there is an eyewitness who sees Martin on top of Zimmerman attacking him. Beating up someone lying on the ground is never "defending yourself.". Thats my whole point here. If Martin feels threatened and slugs Zimmerman and leaves it at that im not here defending Zimmerman. Martin went way past the boundaries of self defense when he repeatedly assaulted Zimmerman while Zimmerman was on his back.

- i am really shocked that many of you think aggrevated assault is an appropriate reaponse to stalking.

- pointing out that i am white does nothing but showcase your ignorance. If you knew anything about my life you would know im a racially tolerant person. I have not used anything related to race in my arguments.
[/quote]

If someone were following me, and I felt threatened, and and saw that he had a gun (not sure if it's entirely true or not, I haven't been following this all that close the past few weeks, something I read said that the gun was out during the fight) I would beat the crap out of him until he was unconscious so I wouldn't get shot.

It all just goes back to the saying 2 can keep a secret if one of them is dead, and in this case, we will truly never know exactly what happened, all we can know for sure is that Zimmerman followed Martin when he was told by the police operator not to. (Do not know if that's illegal or not for sure) and then Martin was being followed, somehow they ended up fighting, and now Martin is dead. The (wrongful) pursuit of Martin should stand for something, or is disobeying a police person's orders within the law now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
»orangeeyes    11863
Not to be an asshole but this is how I see the "pro-Zimmerman" camp (for lack of a better descriptor) thinking it played out.



Zimmerman: Hello, young man. I have been following you because I intend to find out what you are doing in this neighborhood. You see, I am a neighborhood watchman with no criminal record to speak of, so it is my duty to make sure everyone is safe. I have a firearm, but do not intend to use it unless my life is threatened. I only wish to know what it is you are up to. Oh my god, you're assaulting me and I had no time at all to react! My life is in danger! I better shoot you in the chest.
  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Fear the Deer v2.0' timestamp='1335299161' post='3163408']
Not to be an asshole but this is how I see the "pro-Zimmerman" camp (for lack of a better descriptor) thinking it played out.



Zimmerman: Hello, young man. I have been following you because I intend to find out what you are doing in this neighborhood. You see, I am a neighborhood watchman with no criminal record to speak of, so it is my duty to make sure everyone is safe. I have a firearm, but do not intend to use it unless my life is threatened. I only wish to know what it is you are up to. Oh my god, you're assaulting me and I had no time at all to react! My life is in danger! I better shoot you in the chest.
[/quote]
If Zimmerman was as good of a neighborhood watchman as everyone claims, it would have went down exactly like that, he would have said something to that power, and none of this would have transpired.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah well, I think kill_switch stupidity has been surpassed by a lot and I didn't think anyone would be that stupid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Conspire    2391
[quote name='Infinite' timestamp='1335297531' post='3163381']
[quote name='Conspire' timestamp='1335292866' post='3163335']
[quote name='Infinite' timestamp='1335281056' post='3163241'][quote name='Conspire' timestamp='1335276220' post='3163210']
When you say Zimmerman instigated the altercation you're assuming Zimmermans story is false.
[/quote]

No he's not. Zimmerman instigated an altercation by pursuing Martin.


[quote name='Conspire' timestamp='1335276220' post='3163210']
We do know that Martin was assaulting Zimmerman while Zimmerman lay on his back. Theres just no excuse for that.
[/quote]

How do we know this? Regardless the same law that allowed Zimmerman to pump a bullet into Martin should allow Martin to defend himself against Zimmerman "if he felt threatened." Does this law only apply to Caucasians?


[quote name='Conspire' timestamp='1335276220' post='3163210']
Its regrettable that Martin died so he could not be punished and learn from his mistake. Its not hard for me to defend a man for taking a single shot against someone who is continuing to attack him when Martin could have just ran away. He was practically home.
[/quote]

Oh my God[/quote]

- i should have said [i]a physical[/i] altercation. There is no evidence Zimmerman started the fight. Martin has no wounds except from a single gunshot.

- there is an eyewitness who sees Martin on top of Zimmerman attacking him. Beating up someone lying on the ground is never "defending yourself.". Thats my whole point here. If Martin feels threatened and slugs Zimmerman and leaves it at that im not here defending Zimmerman. Martin went way past the boundaries of self defense when he repeatedly assaulted Zimmerman while Zimmerman was on his back.

- i am really shocked that many of you think aggrevated assault is an appropriate reaponse to stalking.

- pointing out that i am white does nothing but showcase your ignorance. If you knew anything about my life you would know im a racially tolerant person. I have not used anything related to race in my arguments.
[/quote]

- I never pointed out that you were white, I don't even know you. Read that sentence again.

- I personally do not think stalking justifies assault on a person and I do not think civilians should be carrying weapons while pursuing someone especially while trying to be a vigilante. However that is irrelevant. The law gives ZImmerman the right to carry a weapon and the right to shoot him when he felt threatened that same law also gave Martin the right to use whatever force he thought was necessary to defend himself against Zimmerman pursuing him with a weapon.
[/quote]

My last point was directed at schade, not yourself. I apologize for not quoting properly, I was posting from my phone. It definitely looks like I was talking to you.

You and I agree on a lot of points. As I say, if you believe Martin was in the right you have to believe Zimmerman was right to defend himself as well. If you rearrange your own points you get my exact argument....


[quote name='Terra' timestamp='1335298552' post='3163404']
I'm just confused as to how at any point in a fight when the other person has a gun (unless you take it away from them), you can not feel threatened, especially when that person had stalked you. I mean, we don't know really any of the details of the fight except that at one point Martin was on Zimmerman assaulting him. But, if Martin found out Zimmerman had a gun (which I imagine he did) its incredibly hard to believe he wouldn't be thinking "This guy was planning to shoot me" since he was being followed by Zimmerman.
[/quote]

You're assuming Zimmerman has his gun out. You're assuming because Zimmerman is armed he's threatening to use that force. I'm not making assumptions as to what happened during the altercation. It sounds like you already have it planned out how the altercation went down, which is clouding your judgment.


[quote name='Fear the Deer v2.0' timestamp='1335299161' post='3163408']
Not to be an asshole but this is how I see the "pro-Zimmerman" camp (for lack of a better descriptor) thinking it played out.



Zimmerman: Hello, young man. I have been following you because I intend to find out what you are doing in this neighborhood. You see, I am a neighborhood watchman with no criminal record to speak of, so it is my duty to make sure everyone is safe. I have a firearm, but do not intend to use it unless my life is threatened. I only wish to know what it is you are up to. Oh my god, you're assaulting me and I had no time at all to react! My life is in danger! I better shoot you in the chest.
[/quote]

And it seems like your camp has it made up that Zimmerman walked in and said "hello, I'm going to kill you. Gonna stop me?" The truth obviously lies somewhere in between. I have been trying not to speculate as to how the altercation went down up to this point, but don't you think if Martin knew Zimmerman had a gun he would be trying to wrestle the gun from Zimmerman, not punch him in the face and smash his head against the ground?

Either way, why does Zimmerman's right to defend himself change based on whether or not Martin knew Zimmerman had the gun? If you want to claim Martin's response was natural to someone fearing for their life (this assumes the pro-Martin camp's take on how the altercation went down) why does that mean Zimmerman has to lie there and let Martin kill him?

[quote]Zimmerman knowingly got himself into an altercation where he knew he could pull his gun out if worse came to worse. Correct? [/quote]

Zimmerman chased a guy knowing if shit hit the fan he could pull out his gun, yes. Isn't that why civilians are allowed to carry weapons in your country? Martin made it a physical altercation. He is the one who turned it into a situation where Zimmerman has to use his gun.
  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
»orangeeyes    11863
[quote]Zimmerman chased a guy knowing if shit hit the fan he could pull out his gun, yes. Isn't that why civilians are allowed to carry weapons in your country? Martin made it a physical altercation. He is the one who turned it into a situation where Zimmerman has to use his gun.[/quote]
What Zimmerman did goes against the entire concept of self-defense. He was in no real danger until he started stalking Trayvon. It shouldn't be legal to go armed to a party with the intention of talking shit to drunk people and shooting anyone that pins you down. If you don't have a problem with what Zimmerman did, how could you possibly have a problem with such a scenario? What's to stop people from knowingly getting into fights and killing the other person when it gets out of hand? Even if the trial is fair and Zimmerman gets off, it just encourages a form of legal vigilantism.

Also, like I've been saying, you have absolutely zero evidence that Trayvon made the altercation physical. A scenario where he had no choice but to try to disable Zimmerman so he doesn't [i]get shot[/i] is entirely plausible. You say that Trayvon had no right to keep hitting Zimmerman/slamming his head against the pavement, but what would you honestly do if someone had a gun? Punch him a couple times? Stop and call the police? Run away so the gunman has an easy opportunity to shoot you? No, I'm probably going to beat the guy unconscious so he can't shoot me and call 911.

And no, I don't think Zimmerman would have shot Trayvon in the back...but that's with the benefit of hindsight. If you're confronted by a guy stalking you with a gun at night, a rational human isn't going to sit and consider all of the possible reasons the guy has a gun. They're going to do whatever is necessary to not get shot.

Although guns are legal here in America, it isn't normal for neighborhood watchmen to follow people with guns. Not even the most right-wing conservatives encourage that or intend for that to happen. Given the current facts, Zimmerman deserves jailtime to some extent.

EDIT: I get what you're saying and I think most would agree, assuming Zimmerman's life was threatened (with Trayvon beating the shit out of him), he was justified in pulling out the gun to save his life. But that's not what is [i]really[/i] being argued here. I'm arguing that Zimmerman should be held criminally accountable for Trayvon's death (manslaughter or otherwise) due to his role in the altercation. You can't just disregard what happened leading up to it.
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Medb    773
[quote name='Conspire' timestamp='1335394451' post='3164580']
[quote name='Terra' timestamp='1335298552' post='3163404']
I'm just confused as to how at any point in a fight when the other person has a gun (unless you take it away from them), you can not feel threatened, especially when that person had stalked you. I mean, we don't know really any of the details of the fight except that at one point Martin was on Zimmerman assaulting him. But, if Martin found out Zimmerman had a gun (which I imagine he did) its incredibly hard to believe he wouldn't be thinking "This guy was planning to shoot me" since he was being followed by Zimmerman.
[/quote]

You're assuming Zimmerman has his gun out. You're assuming because Zimmerman is armed he's threatening to use that force. I'm not making assumptions as to what happened during the altercation. It sounds like you already have it planned out how the altercation went down, which is clouding your judgment.
[/quote]
If he didn't have his gun out, he couldn't have shot Trayvon... At some point during the altercation, Trayvon must have been able to see Zimmerman's gun. We don't know what happened in the fight, who started it, or anything. All we know is that at some point, Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman. It's pretty safe to assume by that point, Martin new that Zimmerman had a gun. There are a hundred different ways the whole thing could have went down, but pretty much unless Zimmerman had the gun behind his back the ENTIRE time, and somehow managed to pull it out and shoot Trayvon while he was getting beaten, then there's no way Trayvon wouldn't have known Zimmerman had a gun. And, if you find out someone was following you with a gun, you'd try to incapacitate them. If you can give me more scenarios where Zimmerman would have been able to keep his gun concealed from Trayvon until the point that he was shot, then let me know, since I am honestly having a hard time coming up with any.
  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×