He wouldn't have been trying to kill him if GZ had not thought he was "billy bad-ass" and a wannabe cop.
Zimmerman made no effort to apprehend Trayvon so he wasn't playing cop. He was however asked by the 911 operator to continue providing information about Trayvon.
The problem here is that this and other statements claiming how the indicent started are all conjecture. People have latched onto the notion that TM started a confrontation simply based on the injuries to GZ and lack thereof to TM. But what if GZ showed TM his gun and said "don't move"? What if TM was verbally threatened/intimidated by a man armed with a gun on his side? What if GZ grabbed TM or pushed him to the ground (before proceeding to get beat up)? What if GZ started reaching for his gun (or appeared to be doing so), and that caused TM to attack him? None of these would necessarily leave physical marks and TM would potentially be justified in beating the crap out of GZ. I'm not saying any of these things happened. My point is that the problem here is that there's a key period of time that we know NOTHING about except what GZ has stated. Dead men tell no tales, so there's no "other side" to the story, and there were no witnesses, so there's no objective information on what happened to initiate the confrontation. Everything relating to that period is pure conjecture.
Again he wasn't charged with any crime. If he was charged with a crime there would have to be a trial for him to actually be guilty. You can make up your mind without a trial all you want, but I'm not going to do that.
But before you were claiming it was all made up ? When actually it's well documented .. You were shown the proof and then come back with some bs about having several screwdrivers in your possession .. Yea I probably have around 50 screwdrivers but I'm not in high school and carrying one around in my backpack along with a pile of womens jewelry that doesn't belong to me . I'm not saying he is guilty but there is enough evidence for a reasonable person to think he might have been up to something that night . There is much more to suggest that travyon was on the wrong path , then there is evidence of martin being a racist out to kill some innocent skittle buying cherub .
Franchise Blade this is why your credibility sucks on this subject. DARockets totally blew you out of the water when he provided evidence that Trayvon had stolen property in his possession and you put up this bull**** response.
FranchiseBlade was proven dead wrong by the trial's outcome, now he's just trying to stay relevant in this thread. His opinion and name are mud at this point in this thread. He lost.
Maybe you have a problem with reading comprehension. I was not talking about the trial. I am taking about whether he should have the continued privilege of having a CHL, which would be a much lower standard. As a gun owner and somebody who has been trained properly, I believe that he lacks the judgment to have that privilege. As for why he walked, it is because the state did not prove its case to the burden of proof...nothing more. A civil trial in a wrongful death suit would be much more telling regarding who was at fault.
And I disagree... I'm not a gun guy but the reason GZ used his gun that night is why he should have the right to carry one. The 17 year old was trying to kill him.
If the 17 year old were trying to kill him, he was doing a piss poor job given the nature of Zimmerman's injuries, but I digress... Having a CHL and being armed is a privilege that comes with responsibilities. If Zimmerman really thought that Martin was a crime suspect and may be dangerous, he had a responsibility to not follow him and put himself in a situation where there is substantial likelihood that he would have to use it. It is is lack of judgment and common sense that is the reason he should not have a license. All of this also ignores his past issues with violence and anger management. The restraining order for domestic violence alone may be enough to disqualify him in some states. The proper use of a CHL would be as follows...I am leaving a restaurant and gong back to my car. I am assaulted by somebody in the parking garage and I shoot them. An improper use would be to go into a mall and yell insults at random people until one of them decides to beat some sense into me and then I shoot my way out of it. If the latter were a proper use of a CHL, then we would create a scenario where it is legal to pick a fight and then kill the person that took me up on it. That is clearly not what CHL laws were designed for.
This has been beaten to death but I'm interested in your answer . Where in your mind should you become fearful for your life ? If having your nose broken , your head pounded into the concrete AND your assailant still in a dominant position isn't enough to cross the line into deadly force , what is ? Should I wait until my head is smashed into the concrete a 4th time , 5th time ... 6th .. ?
Zimmerman's story that Martin repeatedly bashed his head into the concrete seems very implausible to me. Having the back of your head repeatedly slammed into the concrete would do a lot more damage than what Zimmerman had. Anytime your skull hits the concrete, there is a substantial risk of a fracture and/or brain bleed. Based on the superficial injuries he had, he was evaluated for neither. In short, the physical injuries do not appear to support that assertion. That is all immaterial, because the jury did not find beyond a reasonable doubt that his story was false. Therefore, he was acquitted. You have to look at why the situation occurred to determine whether he should continue to be licensed to carry a deadly weapon. In such an inquiry, his poor judgment becomes very relevant.
