Nothing TM did was unreasonable if you look at the course of events through his eyes. And yes, you really do have to consider TM's state of mind.
There is no solid evidence that George Zimmerman was the aggressor but let's get this straight, there is no solid evidence that Trayvon Martin was the aggressor either. Some of you are acting like just because George Zimmerman has injuries that he couldn't possibly be the aggressor. There are hundreds of videos online that show even when you are the aggressor you can still get handled if you mess with the wrong person. I'm sure we all know one person or more at one time or another bit off more than they could chew with somebody who got the better of them. That goes for both of the people in this situation as either could have been the aggressor and each is paying or has paid dearly if they were or they were not.
Yes, that's all fine and dandy, but none of that even remotely justifies his actions. It's not his job to catch criminals. It's not his job to detain suspected criminals. He was part of the neighborhood watch. It's his job to notify the police. That's it. Yes, the media. That, GZ's admission that he killed TM, and the evidence that undermines his claim of self-defense. Yes, I was referring to my particular argument about Casey's point. I thought I made that perfectly clear when I stated:
George Zimmerman did NOT pay dearly...he got his butt kicked same as happened to me 4 times in junior high and twice in High School. I probably "feared for my life" (unfounded) at least as much as Men's Wearhouse did here. To me this is a clear reason we should be very careful about who we let walk around with guns on the street...but of course that is so unpopular in Texas I might as well be speaking German and advocating a second Holocaust.....So I will just say....this is going to happen again and again, as long as you let wannabes be just as well armed as the real cops.
Read again I said large assumptions. I can do that as well. I assume after running once he was mad about it and when he saw him again his instinct changed to fight. But I also said even with your assumptions you are outside the boundaries of self defense laws. Being followed has never been considered threatening enough to justify self defense. If we assume Zimmerman didn't make it physical first, he would have had to directly threaten Martin. Asking him rude questions just doesn't qualify under any circumstances. If your course of events involves Martin beating Zimmerman without being threatened or assaulted, it is very unreasonable. That is true. Very possible Zimmerman said "You have to stay here for the police!" and tried to grab him or something and then a beat down is pretty much justified. But there is no evidence of that whatsoever, and no mention of it from the girlfriend who told 911 Zimmerman just asked Martin what he was doing.
Because real cops never shoot anybody unlawfully? Why do I never hear discussion of disarming police but always disarming us? You want cops to be the only one with the guns? Great idea!
He could have, or 101 other things to be the aggressor. Your quick to point out no evidence of Zimmerman being the aggressor but not so quick for the other side. Why is that when there is no evidence there either?
I am lunatic fringe left, with no special love for cops. But most of the people with a great longing for a concealed carry license aren't exactly "fight the power" types...they are cop wannabes without all that aggravating training or background checks. You wanna come back with a couple examples of "wannabe's with guns" being just the ticket please go ahead...but this seems like a typical entry into the dialog of bang-bang-black-guy dead.
If he said anything, Martin's girlfriend never mentioned it. She just said the "old guy" asked what Martin was doing. Outside of physical contact, Zimmerman would have had to overtly threaten violence. So not exactly 101 things.
That GZ approached TM. That TM saw him watching him from the car (I didn't see the girl confirm that TM mentioned he saw him watching from the car). That he ran away, the girl contradicted herself. She said he ran away, but also said she had begged him to run and he wouldn't. Now she says he ran? You don't know what happened that night, stop assuming you do. They may not be unreasonable assumptions, but neither are ours. Assuming doesn't prove anyone is guilty.
OK so actually Zimmerman had a background check. He also had training. Being a "lunatic fringe left" you might not realize MOST gun owners are fight the power types. And no matter your political stance, it seems weird that no one calls to disarm cops after an unlawful shooting, but it is the first solution if the shooter was a concealed carry permit holder.
She said she heard pushing directly after that comment and the phone went dead (according to the comment I read here: http://gawker.com/5894832/trayvon-martins-girlfriend-i-told-him-to-run-seconds-before-he-was-shot). Like I said, many, many things could have happened after that. Again, why are you not quick to point out there is no evidence of Trayvon being the aggressor?
You already pointed it out. You are jumping in on a self defense argument where someone is trying to say Zimmerman simply following Martin makes Zimmerman the aggressor. I am calling that out as asinine.
I didn't say "approached". I said "encountered". There's a difference. Did you listen to Zimmerman's 911 call? He told the dispatcher that TM saw GZ watching him from the car, and that TM ran. What is it you think juries do?
Understood. For the record, I didn't jump into anything just made a post. Just not sure why you took the route of pointing out Zimmerman's side and not both as I did in my initial post.
What's asinine is that I've provided you with some legal context, and since you don't like it, you're simply dismissing it. Either accept it or explain why, based on it's definition, it isn't applicable.
Whether you'd like to believe it or not he has paid dearly. He was beat up, vilified by millions and still is and as far as I know is in hiding and in fear of his life with good reason, he's facing a murder charge and prison time if convicted and so on. He has paid and may pay dearly in the future as well. If he did the crime and gets off he'll still be paying afterward, maybe not as severely as he should bu he'd still be paying and if he's not guilty then he's paid dearly and will continue to do so after.
Because it doesn't fit. You can't justify self defense because you were unreasonably scared. If a few years ago I was "hypothetically" followed by two teenagers in a Benz for staying at the light after it turned green too long and hypothetically they followed me for 3-4 miles with their lights turned off, honking and riding besides my car, I had NO justification to unload on them. It doesn't matter my state of mind. This situation was worse because their obvious motive was to make me scared, which is not the case with Zimmerman. Still doesn't justify "preemptive" self defense. You will never ever win a self defense case if you base it on anything non physical that isn't a direct and intentionally made threat.
So what made it o.k for the Zimmer "man" to pull his trigger. I have had my ass kicked, you probably have had your ass kicked...what put this over the line where GZ was justified in putting a bullet through a young guys heart?
I did listen to the call. The full unedited call, not the one the media played for 3 days. Just want to point that out again, public opinion was on GZ's nuts from the beginning. This case will not result in a guilty verdict, I guar-damn-tee it. Anyways, I listened to the call, It's been a few weeks since, but I will check it out again. I don't recall GZ saying TM seeing him, but if he did it doesn't mean he didn't approach him later. If he ran, while he GZ was in the car, how did GZ catch him? If GZ was the bigger guy, how did he catch up to a 17 yo black kid? And your comment about juries? They are supposed to look at cases fully, without prejudice. Something you clearly aren't doing. If you were you would see that you can't tell whether GZ is guilty or not. The evidence certainly doesn't agree with a murder charge. It's absolutely ridiculous to think that a jury would convict him of murder.
