I agree that they need to look at all the evidence. However, I think it is clear that you are looking for trouble if you start following people around. Another question nobody is asking is this: if Zimmerman had a history of violence, enough to have had a restraining order against him, why was he allowed to legally carry a gun?
1. Specifically he said "late teens." Think Brandon Jennings playing pro ball in Europe. 2. Walking after someone running away is not exactly hot pursuit 3. The gun was not drawn at that point according to ALL reports
1. Then he knew Martin was a minor. 2. The pursuit was hot enough to make Martin fearful enough to initiate a "fight or flight" response. When a human being is aware that they are being followed and does not know the follower's intentions, it creates concern for your well being. Given that situation, that Zimmerman created, Martin at some point had the right to protect himself from the perceived danger. 3. Wether or not the gun was drawn at that point is completely irrelevant. Somebody can pose a threat without having the gun drawn. This case could set a dangerous precedent. If Zimmerman walks, it tells the people of Florida that you can pack a gun, go looking for trouble and when you find the fight you are looking for, you can kill the guy and it is ok. The entire reason for our criminal justice system is to deter crime and deter vigilantes. A walk for Zimmerman on this would turn that on its head. Vigilantes in Florida would be free to act without involving the authorities. It would be a bad precedent to set. Zimmerman packed tht gun knowing that he was doing something he shouldn't and that if he got in too deep, he could just shoot the kid.
1. Late teens could be 17/18/19 and two thirds of those are adult ages. 2. Are you saying TM ran after GZ got out of the car? Not true. The only other thing I think you are saying is TM attacked him. HAHA! You don't get to attack someone who is walking around at night in his own neighborhood even if you are feeling threatened. 3. Your logic is bad. People have the legal right in this country to carry a gun, and each state has different laws on how that works. GZ had a concealed carry permit and if you think TM attacked GZ because he followed him then GZ had every right according to Florida law if he felt his life was threatened to respond with deadly force.
Not really. People drive vehicles at 16. Some places they buy beer at 18 and they certainly fight wars at 18. More important that Martin's age was his size. First, according to GZ Martin was ambling through the neighborhood after dark "checking out houses." That would make any neighborhood watch captain suspicious. If Trayvon was concerned for his safety, he could have ended this in a smarter way than, apparently, surprising GZ. It's a minor point but some people seem to comment as if GZ was in pursuit with gun drawn. According to GZ's testimony, the gun came into play only when Trayvon went for it himself. I daresay EVERYONE here would grapple for the gun at that point.. rather than surrender it to the guy who attacked you. Pithy summation of events there. GZ was on his way somewhere (Target?) when this occurred. He was not out looking for trouble. When GZ packed the gun, I'm not even sure he knew the kid existed. If so, remember he told the dispatcher he saw the kid moving for something in his waistband. GZ never approached Trayvon in the sense of closing the distance on him knowingly. According to reports, he was following him for the purpose of knowing what he was doing and/or where he was going. It was Trayvon that moved on Zimmerman in reality, according to what we've been told.
Him being a minor has nothing to do with the situation. You are again assuming Zimmerman was out for blood. There is absolutely no evidence of this. If Martin was indeed in a "flight or fight" response, he was close enough to "fly home". He had plenty of time to get home and he even approached Zimmerman in his vehicle. Instead, it seems Martin was looking for the confrontation. You have already condemned Zimmerman to the electric chair and you have already forgotten what he's on trail for. You have completely skipped due process because you strongly dislike Zimmerman for whatever reason. You perceive Martin as a poor innocent little kid (maybe you should go visit some of these high schools and see how these "minors" are acting) when Martin was a punk and wanted to be a "gangsta". There is no precedent being set. It is clearly against the law to instigate a confrontation, get in a fight and kill the person in "self defense". This is the very reason why Zimmerman is on trial. If he walks, (and I certainly don't know the evidence at hand to say otherwise) its because a jury of his peers found he did not go looking for trouble and he shot Martin in fear of his own life. I also understand many of you will not accept any verdict that doesn't send him to life in prison, regardless of how the courts find him or the amount of evidence is brought forth. If Zimmerman is indeed guilty, then absolutely yes, he should serve his time, regardless of the character of Martin.
I can respect this. I would like all of the evidence to come to light. However, I can say that if you start following people around while carrying a gun, you are probably looking for trouble.
The "going for something in his waistband" was stated by GZ. That TM went for the gun (which was supposed to be concealed) was stated by GZ. Very convenient since the only other witness is unavailable to testify. It could be that GZ is paranoid. It could be that he saw a kid in a hoodie and assumed the kid was case houses. It has not been conclusively established that TM did anything other than buy some candy and a drink and was walking back to his day's house in the neighborhood. It could be that TM confronted GZ to find out angrily why GZ was following him. If that is what happened, we do not know what GZ said in response which may have escalated hostilities. The bottom line here is that you, as a private citizen, cannot play armchair Columbo and then kill somebody when it gets real.
You can be sarcastic about it if you want I guess, but I think there is something wrong with patently dismissing everything GZ says. The police were satisfied until the brouhaha ensued and second-degree murder charges were later filed under political pressure I would think. Even when he is being interviewed by the police, GZ has no idea whether there were no other witnesses or a dozen. You imply he is lying because he can get away with it. He doesn't know that. Maybe he is telling the truth. From what I remember from reading the transcript, the gun was concealed in GZ's jacket pocket but Trayvon detected it when he had GZ pinned down, sitting atop him, and was whaling on him. That is when Trayvon went for the gun and they began to grapple for it... according to GZ.
If TM really had him pinned down and was beating him severely about the head and decided to go for the gun, there would have been zero chance that GZ would have stopped him from getting the gun. In short, GZ's version of events simply makes no practical sense on that point. Also, GZ could at this point say that TM was throwing racial epithets around while moonwalking and there would not be anybody who could say differently. It's a pretty good position to be in. You call it sarcastic. I call it practical. After all, I am sure that GZ is very trustworthy. I'm sure the restraining order against him was just a misunderstanding.
Sorry but that is patently absurd. There is never a zero chance of anything happening.... :grin: They may have both simultaneously been holding the gun but it came out of GZ's pocket pointed toward Trayvon when it went off. However it happened it is certainly possible for GZ to win a small if monumental struggle like that. There were other witnesses in the area. Most of them auditory I believe. You can go off the deep-end on GZ if you like. You just seem unusually extreme on this when you are usually more balanced in your views
So now Martin the 17 year old is a professional athlete. He said he was following him, that's a pursuit however hot you want to make it. I find it amusing that Martin ran away according to Zimmerman and then according to Zimmerman attacked. Why would a guy run away and then attack? Sounds pretty inconsistent. Logically people run away to get away not to ambush someone. Zimmerman being armed emboldened him to pursue Martin.
He claims to have been pinned down and having the crap beaten out of him. How does somebody who is pinned down and being actively beaten get his arm free to get it into his jacket to reach the weapon? It is extremely unlikely. I have a strong opinion on this because ere is a dead kid and the guy that shot him has a story that appears to be full of logical holes.
Agreed..what should have been a fist fight with some bruises and cuts ended up with someone dead ..im sure both parties are guilty and trayvon wasnt some sort of angel but he sure didnt deserve to get killed...
Exactly. It is kind of like the guy who pokes a bee hive with a stick and is then shocked that he got stung by a bee.
You don't have a right to beat me up just because you don't like me following you in a public place. And I'm not obligated to let you beat me up because you "don't deserve to get killed." IF the situation went the way Zimmerman explains, then he should be found not guilty. Community watch following a guy around because he thinks a crime is about to happen isn't smart, but the reason it's not smart is because if a crime does occur he's the one likely to end up hurt. If Martin decided he didn't like that someone was following him and decided to violently attack that person then he deserved to get killed more than Zimmerman deserves to be in jail. But those are big ifs. That said, people jumping to illogical "precedent setting" theories about this are off base. If a jury finds him not guilty it doesn't mean they think it's ok to start a fight and then kill someone in self defense, it means they don't think Zimmerman was actually looking for a fight.
Your comparison, poking the bee hive, is a direct instigation of a violent reaction which you don't know is the case here. What if the guy is just checking his back yard for pests and an angry hornet decides the guy got to close and attacks? Is the guy a moron? And is justified to use hornet spray to defend himself?
I just want to say one thing about TM apparently going three rounds with someone. If it was rounds then it wasn't a fight but a competition. That might still be dangerous and brutal but it is something organized, and different from a person who goes around attacking people.
sorry I've been out of pocket a while... so Trayvon went from a 12 year old Hollister wearing kid to a self-proclaimed thug gansta who smoked pot and boasted about guns. I've got a big fat "I told you so" to all those duped by the early media bias...
