I'm waiting on the evidence and results before I can consider it illegal within the laws of the United States. But outside of them? Yeah, I think it's pretty f**ked up that a boy is dead, and people are manufacturing stories about him to justify their belief in whatever principles hold that life is sacred---except when---
GZ may have made some mistakes, but if TM charged him and started beating the crap out of him what do you expect GZ should do? If someone was pounding my head into concrete repeatedly I would probably shoot the jackass as well. GZ has made some huge mistakes that kill his credibility ($), but that doesn't change what went down when TM was killed.
I am just reemphasizing a central part of the evidence we can be 100% sure of---GZ had a gun, TM didn't. You're saying that's "irrelevant" has to be some of the most spacious reasoning I have heard in a while.
Yeah? Show me where I play the race card in this thread, other than pointing out when another user played it. Go for it. I've posted pretty often here.
I have no dog in the hunt. Based on various news reports and the fact that GZ is the only breathing witness, the jury IMO has little recourse but to acquit.
As Trueroxfan already explained.... "Because he never claimed TM had a gun. You can still get your ass beaten to an inch of your life without a gun. That's why it is irrelevant, when you get into a violent altercation and you begin to slam someone's head into concrete, you are using your fists as a weapon."
Actually, I don't think they did a toxicology report on Zimmerman. Seemed that when the tox report came out on Martin, it seemed very unusual and unfair since the victim's results were released and publicized but nothing about the guy that pulled the trigger. Not that anyone suggested Zimmerman was under the influence when he shot Martin... but rather it seemed odd that no testing was done on him. I am sure that evidence will come out in court as well, either way...
Could you clarify? Are you saying you're waiting for the verdict before you consider whether his actions were legal or not? Or are you refering to the other things I mentioned that were legal? I assure it is not illegal to follow someone, it is not illegal to have a gun with a permit either. And in Flor and many other states it is not illegal for you to use your gun to defend yourself in a public place if you feel your life is reasonably threatened. Your issue is with the law. Also, can you clarify the stories being manufactured? Because if you remember, it was the media manufacturing stories that began this thread. I too think it is sad the boy is dead, I hope everyone agrees with that. But sympathy for TM does not go hand-in-hand with hatred towards GZ. This is why I try not to fight and why I will probably never own a gun. You can't take it back once it's fired. You can't bring back whoever you kill. So even if I had a gun, I would be too afraid to use it. Same with fists though, like I said I saw a guy almost die -- maybe he did die, I didn't know how to find out -- in front of me from ONE punch. Concrete and cabezas don't party well together.
You just can't admit you're wrong, can you? He used those fists to attack someone. The point wasn't that he had fists. You bet on the wrong horse, get over it.
What picture are you looking at? http://patdollard.com/2012/04/gma-s...ies-from-trayvon-trying-to-beat-him-to-death/ Wouldn't let me embed the pic, sorry. I've seen far worse beatings, but that isn't a minor cut. And North, I didn't mean to say he had a weapon, but merely point out that GZ never claimed TM had a weapon, he claims TM used his hands as a weapon when he slammed his head into the concrete.
Also, I didn't mean to play the race card. I was actually pointing out that many black males have been sentenced with less circumstantial evidence than this. It was more of a jab at the justice system than this particular case. My apologies if it was confused as anything else
I don't hate GZ. I just think he should be locked up for a pretty long time, if it can be proved that what he did was not in reasonable self-defense. Anyways, to clarify, whether or not it is "illegal" or "legal" is hard to say without the actual court results, especially as I have not been following the case that closely. However, on a personal level, I don't believe something like this should ever be allowed to happen without reprimand. This is me talking outside the law. The judicial system will decide GZ's fate, based (hopefully) on the best evidence. I would not send GZ to jail based on my personal views on what is right or wrong. But I can very much condemn him for doing it.
Based on? The evidence is scant. The judicial system will decide GZ's fate. Hopefully, the jury doesn't jump to conclusions too fast either way, as this thread has demonstrated often.
You can, but you are doing more than that. You are insisting he go to jail, therefore he has already been tried and convicted by the jury of you. And you don't need court results to determine the legality of certain actions. The self-defense claim, yes. The other two are facts. I agree with you on the point that something like this shouldn't go unpunished, but what if GZ is completely truthfull? What if GZ really was scared for his life, what if TM really did slam his head into the ground so hard he thought he could die? Ever gotten your ass beat? I haven't so I can't comment on what it is like to be hit, but I can't imagine it feels very good. Now that certainly isn't a reason to shoot someone, because they hit you, but if they use enough force repeatedly, than yes, you have every right to defend yourself. How can you determine without evidence that GZ was NOT in fear for his life?
