|
This is a sensitive and complex issue, please do not make comments without first reading the facts, which are cataloged in the OP. |
On March 22 2012 10:33 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 10:30 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 10:24 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 22 2012 10:23 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 10:20 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 22 2012 10:16 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 10:12 LaM wrote:On March 22 2012 10:00 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:58 Myles wrote:On March 22 2012 09:56 dAPhREAk wrote:
[quote]
that is correct. is zimmerman saying that the kid resisted and thats why he shot him? if thats his self defense argument then he is fucked. however, i dont see where he says that. there are exceptions for citizen arrests though, but i dont know the ins and outs of those. What else could his argument be? That as he watched him the kid randomly lashed out at him? Does that sound like a reasonable scenario? On March 22 2012 09:57 HellRoxYa wrote:On March 22 2012 09:56 dAPhREAk wrote:
[quote]
that is correct. is zimmerman saying that the kid resisted and thats why he shot him? if thats his self defense argument then he is fucked. however, i dont see where he says that. there are exceptions for citizen arrests though, but i dont know the ins and outs of those. So if that's NOT what he's saying then how exactly would he shoot Trayvon in self defense? how should i know? the people in this thread are the ones willing to crucify him without evidence. i am waiting to hear his side of the story. I understand your argument from a purely clinical sake. Sure, people are innocent until proven guilty and the facts have to be fully digested and understood before somebody can be declared guilty or thrown to the angry mob. However, at this point, ALL of the released evidence and knowledge of the case points to a racists vigilante chasing down an unarmed child and killing him in cold blood as the kid begged for help. The bias of the local police is clouding the procession of justice, but I think this attempt to argue self defense will die out quickly when the trial gets under way in a substantial matter (which it had damned well better, this man needs to be brought before a court). It just isn't reasonable. An unarmed, 140 pound 17 year old on foot being chased down by a 200+ ~26/28 (reports conflicting) with a loaded gun leaves very little room for the aggressor (Zimmerman) to be acting in self defense. When you listen to the 9/11 tapes of the boy screaming for help and the eyewitness reports corroborating the tale of the tape, it just becomes ridiculous to claim self defense. At a certain point, it becomes offensive. The purity of our justice system is well and good, but being obtuse and defiant in such a tragic case quickly becomes insensitive and inappropriate. i dont disagree with what you said. but i just want to note that criminal defense attorneys rarely release their evidence before trial. why would they? it gives the other side time to destroy their defense. so, everyone is making assumptions based on limited evidence (if you even want to call it evidence at this stage). if you dont want to wait to hear his side of the story, thats fine, but i think thats a travesty of justice. he should be arrested (apparently people think i dont want to see him arrested) and tried in a court before a jury. then all the evidence could come forward. the jury will decide. yeah, and you also think nobody should be able to claim him guilty until he is convicted by that jury. That is where everyone in this thread disagrees with you. you can claim him guilty all you want. but i think its imprudent to make judgments without hearing all of the evidence. Then no one would ever be able to make an opinion about this besides those who attend his court hearing. If you don't see how this defeats the purpose of having a discussion topic on the internet then there is really nothing else to say. we are discussing it. you say he is guilty. i say he is likely guilty, but i want to understand his side of the story first. i dont know why people are at my throat for wanting to wait. its like "join the fucking lynch mob, or we will lynch you." Then I guess this whole thing is an argument over semantics. Given the current evidence, most people think he's guilty. If new evidence comes out, reasonable people will change their opinion. No one is saying throw him in jail and call him guilty without a trial, we just want to justice process to begin on a case that seems obviously legit.
given the current "evidence," i think he is likely guilty. but the "evidence" i want to see before judgment is what he has to say in this case, and if he is smart, he'll shut the hell up until he is on the stand at a trial. but, i personally feel stupid making a judgment only hearing one side of the story. and yes the justice process should start.
|
On March 22 2012 10:27 dAPhREAk wrote:Here is the provision of the self defense instructions relating to when the defendant is initially the agressor: Show nested quote +However, the use of deadly force likely to cause death or great bodily
harm is not justifiable if you find:
...
2. (Defendant) initially provoked the use of force against [himself]
[herself], unless:
a. The force asserted toward the defendant was so great that
[he] [she] reasonably believed that [he] [she] was in
imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and had
exhausted every reasonable means to escape the danger,
other than using deadly force likely to cause death or great
bodily harm to on (assailant).
b. In good faith, the defendant withdrew from physical contact
with (assailant) and clearly indicated to (assailant) that [he]
[she] wanted to withdraw and stop the use of deadly force
likely to cause death or great bodily harm, but (assailant)
continued or resumed the use of force. thus, under Florida law, even if you are the initial aggressor (e.g., chasing the kid), you can still claim self defense under these circumstances.
So the only justification for Zimmerman in this case is to claim something like this:
"I chased the kid and scared him shitless. We got in a fight and I tried to escape (even though I've got 100 lbs on him), but he continued (even though I have 100 lbs on him). I then feared for my life, so I shot him."
OR
"I chased the kid and scared him shitless. We got in a fight and I tried to escape (even though I've got 100 lbs on him), but he continued (even though I have 100 lbs on him). Then I was like 'Whoa man, time out,' but he kept going. He was so scary that I had to shoot him."
I'd actually like to hear that.
|
|
|
On March 22 2012 10:37 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 10:24 BlackJack wrote:
Wow, OP. How can you leave out that Zimmerman was bleeding from the back of the head and nose when police arrived?
What happened (I believe):
Zimmerman picked a fight with Martin. Martin was getting the better of him. Zimmerman screams for help for nearby neighbors to jump in. Eventually he shoots Martin.
It's still something like manslaughter in my opinion, since he initiated the actions that led to Martin's death, but it was not a cold-blooded murder.
You should really consider updating the OP with the fact that Zimmerman had wounds if you care about being fair and aren't just trying to start a witch hunt. And Zimmerman is from a Spanish speaking minority with black friends and family members. He cared a lot about his community members and was the mentor of a few black youth in it. I'm sure that hes really a white raceist that tried to kill some poor black kid minding his own business. People would use the littleist thing to whip themselves into a fury and get angry at something. It doesn't help anyone and all it does is teach everyone that white people are suppose to hate black people.
So can you explain to me WHY was Zimmerman following this kid? The 911 Dispatcher clearly told him to not follow, but Mr. Zimmerman played hero anyways...
I could say I have black friends and family members too, but does that mean it's OK for me to chase down a black guy and shoot him because I felt threatened?
|
On March 22 2012 10:37 cristo1122 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 10:36 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 10:35 cristo1122 wrote:On March 22 2012 10:16 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 10:12 LaM wrote:On March 22 2012 10:00 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:58 Myles wrote:On March 22 2012 09:56 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:54 Myles wrote:On March 22 2012 09:51 dAPhREAk wrote:
[quote]
[quote]
self defense is not dependent on whether you are a cop or not. the same rules apply. zimmerman does have to prove self defense. the fact that everyone in this thread thinks he is guilty without seeing the evidence is disturbing. A police officer has the authority to give you an order. A civilian does not. If a cop chases you down you don't have the right to resist. You do have the right to resist when a random person does the same. that is correct. is zimmerman saying that the kid resisted and thats why he shot him? if thats his self defense argument then he is fucked. however, i dont see where he says that. there are exceptions for citizen arrests though, but i dont know the ins and outs of those. What else could his argument be? That as he watched him the kid randomly lashed out at him? Does that sound like a reasonable scenario? On March 22 2012 09:57 HellRoxYa wrote:On March 22 2012 09:56 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:54 Myles wrote:On March 22 2012 09:51 dAPhREAk wrote:
[quote]
[quote]
self defense is not dependent on whether you are a cop or not. the same rules apply. zimmerman does have to prove self defense. the fact that everyone in this thread thinks he is guilty without seeing the evidence is disturbing. A police officer has the authority to give you an order. A civilian does not. If a cop chases you down you don't have the right to resist. You do have the right to resist when a random person does the same. that is correct. is zimmerman saying that the kid resisted and thats why he shot him? if thats his self defense argument then he is fucked. however, i dont see where he says that. there are exceptions for citizen arrests though, but i dont know the ins and outs of those. So if that's NOT what he's saying then how exactly would he shoot Trayvon in self defense? how should i know? the people in this thread are the ones willing to crucify him without evidence. i am waiting to hear his side of the story. I understand your argument from a purely clinical sake. Sure, people are innocent until proven guilty and the facts have to be fully digested and understood before somebody can be declared guilty or thrown to the angry mob. However, at this point, ALL of the released evidence and knowledge of the case points to a racists vigilante chasing down an unarmed child and killing him in cold blood as the kid begged for help. The bias of the local police is clouding the procession of justice, but I think this attempt to argue self defense will die out quickly when the trial gets under way in a substantial matter (which it had damned well better, this man needs to be brought before a court). It just isn't reasonable. An unarmed, 140 pound 17 year old on foot being chased down by a 200+ ~26/28 (reports conflicting) with a loaded gun leaves very little room for the aggressor (Zimmerman) to be acting in self defense. When you listen to the 9/11 tapes of the boy screaming for help and the eyewitness reports corroborating the tale of the tape, it just becomes ridiculous to claim self defense. At a certain point, it becomes offensive. The purity of our justice system is well and good, but being obtuse and defiant in such a tragic case quickly becomes insensitive and inappropriate. i dont disagree with what you said. but i just want to note that criminal defense attorneys rarely release their evidence before trial. why would they? it gives the other side time to destroy their defense. so, everyone is making assumptions based on limited evidence (if you even want to call it evidence at this stage). if you dont want to wait to hear his side of the story, thats fine, but i think thats a travesty of justice. he should be arrested (apparently people think i dont want to see him arrested) and tried in a court before a jury. then all the evidence could come forward. the jury will decide. Question: dosent all evidence have to be placed before the court (/provided to defense or prosecution) when it comes light or without unnessceary delay? no. even if the individual has been formally charged and a trial date has been set?
there are limitations on what the defense has to provide to the prosecutor. its the prosecutor's burden to prove its case, its not the defense's job to help the prosecutor. there are obviously some things that have to be disclosed, but you dont have to turn over your whole case to the prosecutor.
|
United States5162 Posts
On March 22 2012 10:37 cristo1122 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 10:36 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 10:35 cristo1122 wrote:On March 22 2012 10:16 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 10:12 LaM wrote:On March 22 2012 10:00 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:58 Myles wrote:On March 22 2012 09:56 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:54 Myles wrote:On March 22 2012 09:51 dAPhREAk wrote:
[quote]
[quote]
self defense is not dependent on whether you are a cop or not. the same rules apply. zimmerman does have to prove self defense. the fact that everyone in this thread thinks he is guilty without seeing the evidence is disturbing. A police officer has the authority to give you an order. A civilian does not. If a cop chases you down you don't have the right to resist. You do have the right to resist when a random person does the same. that is correct. is zimmerman saying that the kid resisted and thats why he shot him? if thats his self defense argument then he is fucked. however, i dont see where he says that. there are exceptions for citizen arrests though, but i dont know the ins and outs of those. What else could his argument be? That as he watched him the kid randomly lashed out at him? Does that sound like a reasonable scenario? On March 22 2012 09:57 HellRoxYa wrote:On March 22 2012 09:56 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:54 Myles wrote:On March 22 2012 09:51 dAPhREAk wrote:
[quote]
[quote]
self defense is not dependent on whether you are a cop or not. the same rules apply. zimmerman does have to prove self defense. the fact that everyone in this thread thinks he is guilty without seeing the evidence is disturbing. A police officer has the authority to give you an order. A civilian does not. If a cop chases you down you don't have the right to resist. You do have the right to resist when a random person does the same. that is correct. is zimmerman saying that the kid resisted and thats why he shot him? if thats his self defense argument then he is fucked. however, i dont see where he says that. there are exceptions for citizen arrests though, but i dont know the ins and outs of those. So if that's NOT what he's saying then how exactly would he shoot Trayvon in self defense? how should i know? the people in this thread are the ones willing to crucify him without evidence. i am waiting to hear his side of the story. I understand your argument from a purely clinical sake. Sure, people are innocent until proven guilty and the facts have to be fully digested and understood before somebody can be declared guilty or thrown to the angry mob. However, at this point, ALL of the released evidence and knowledge of the case points to a racists vigilante chasing down an unarmed child and killing him in cold blood as the kid begged for help. The bias of the local police is clouding the procession of justice, but I think this attempt to argue self defense will die out quickly when the trial gets under way in a substantial matter (which it had damned well better, this man needs to be brought before a court). It just isn't reasonable. An unarmed, 140 pound 17 year old on foot being chased down by a 200+ ~26/28 (reports conflicting) with a loaded gun leaves very little room for the aggressor (Zimmerman) to be acting in self defense. When you listen to the 9/11 tapes of the boy screaming for help and the eyewitness reports corroborating the tale of the tape, it just becomes ridiculous to claim self defense. At a certain point, it becomes offensive. The purity of our justice system is well and good, but being obtuse and defiant in such a tragic case quickly becomes insensitive and inappropriate. i dont disagree with what you said. but i just want to note that criminal defense attorneys rarely release their evidence before trial. why would they? it gives the other side time to destroy their defense. so, everyone is making assumptions based on limited evidence (if you even want to call it evidence at this stage). if you dont want to wait to hear his side of the story, thats fine, but i think thats a travesty of justice. he should be arrested (apparently people think i dont want to see him arrested) and tried in a court before a jury. then all the evidence could come forward. the jury will decide. Question: dosent all evidence have to be placed before the court (/provided to defense or prosecution) when it comes light or without unnessceary delay? no. even if the individual has been formally charged and a trial date has been set?
There's a certain part of the process where evidence is presented. If anything new if found after that then it must be presented before the court without unnecessary delay. Before that nothing has to be released to the public.
|
On March 22 2012 10:34 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 10:26 Omnipresent wrote:On March 22 2012 10:24 BlackJack wrote:
Wow, OP. How can you leave out that Zimmerman was bleeding from the back of the head and nose when police arrived?
What happened (I believe):
Zimmerman picked a fight with Martin. Martin was getting the better of him. Zimmerman screams for help for nearby neighbors to jump in. Eventually he shoots Martin.
It's still something like manslaughter in my opinion, since he initiated the actions that led to Martin's death, but it was not a cold-blooded murder. Witnesses disagree. At least one woman told police that she heard Martin screaming for help, and the police told her she was wrong... If you listen to the 911 calls you will see that the witnesses were pretty useless. Even as they were on the phone with 911 and watching it go down none of them could give a good story at who was screaming what.
I'd have to check (if it's even possible. I don't think they're releasing names, and they shouldn't.), but I believe it was a different witness. In any event, "the witness was probably unreliable" is not justification for asserting the opposite.
|
On March 22 2012 10:39 Omnipresent wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 10:27 dAPhREAk wrote:Here is the provision of the self defense instructions relating to when the defendant is initially the agressor: However, the use of deadly force likely to cause death or great bodily
harm is not justifiable if you find:
...
2. (Defendant) initially provoked the use of force against [himself]
[herself], unless:
a. The force asserted toward the defendant was so great that
[he] [she] reasonably believed that [he] [she] was in
imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and had
exhausted every reasonable means to escape the danger,
other than using deadly force likely to cause death or great
bodily harm to on (assailant).
b. In good faith, the defendant withdrew from physical contact
with (assailant) and clearly indicated to (assailant) that [he]
[she] wanted to withdraw and stop the use of deadly force
likely to cause death or great bodily harm, but (assailant)
continued or resumed the use of force. thus, under Florida law, even if you are the initial aggressor (e.g., chasing the kid), you can still claim self defense under these circumstances. So the only justification for Zimmerman in this case is to claim something like this: "I chased the kid and scared him shitless. We got in a fight and I tried to escape (even though I've got 100 lbs on him), but he continued (even though I have 100 lbs on him). I then feared for my life, so I shot him." OR "I chased the kid and scared him shitless. We got in a fight and I tried to escape (even though I've got 100 lbs on him), but he continued (even though I have 100 lbs on him). Then I was like 'Whoa man, time out,' but he kept going. He was so scary that I had to shoot him." I'd actually like to hear that.
thus, i think his self defense argument is likely kind of silly. this assumes of course that the court considers him the initial aggressor by chasing him with a gun.
|
On March 22 2012 09:30 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 09:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On March 22 2012 09:27 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:26 seiferoth10 wrote:
The takeaway is he was chasing the kid with a loaded gun. Can it really be defense if you're chasing someone with a loaded gun? I don't think so. all police give chase with loaded guns. if the person grabs (or already has) a weapon during the chase and attacks you, it doesnt matter that you were running after them with a loaded gun. Except he wasn't a cop he was a self appointed Neighborhood Watchmen who chased after a kid after being told by 911 operator not to. he sounds like a dipshit to me and most likely guilty. lets get that out there right at the beginning. but that doesnt mean he didn't legitimately feared for his life and shot the kid in self defense. and the fact that he was running with a loaded gun doesnt automatically say that he didnt act in self defense. Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 09:30 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 22 2012 09:27 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:26 seiferoth10 wrote:
The takeaway is he was chasing the kid with a loaded gun. Can it really be defense if you're chasing someone with a loaded gun? I don't think so. all police give chase with loaded guns. if the person grabs (or already has) a weapon during the chase and attacks you, it doesnt matter that you were running after them with a loaded gun. He isn't even remotely close to a police officer. Community watch just reports crimes to the police like he did. They aren't supposed to hunt the people down with loaded guns. If you listen to the 911 call you'll notice the person on the other end tells him to not follow the kid at all. i understand he is not a cop. i was just addressing the point that him running after the kid with a loaded gun somehow presumes it wasn't self defense.
This case illustrates the number 1 problem with the concept of handguns as self-defense.
The fact that zimmerman was carrying a gun means that the gun itself represented a mortal threat to zimmerman.
The fact that any potential assailant may or may not be armed is basically irrelevant, as a single weapon may be used by either party.
Therefore, the fact that you have a gun for self-defense makes it necessary to shoot preemptively, negating any and all less lethal methods of self-defense.
This is Cold War logic, and it is chilling.
The fact that this ideology is so entrenched in the legal system is deeply troubling. I weep for the boy and his family, and, though we may have yet to suffer from it, for the rest of us as well.
|
On March 22 2012 10:42 _-NoMaN-_ wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 09:30 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On March 22 2012 09:27 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:26 seiferoth10 wrote:
The takeaway is he was chasing the kid with a loaded gun. Can it really be defense if you're chasing someone with a loaded gun? I don't think so. all police give chase with loaded guns. if the person grabs (or already has) a weapon during the chase and attacks you, it doesnt matter that you were running after them with a loaded gun. Except he wasn't a cop he was a self appointed Neighborhood Watchmen who chased after a kid after being told by 911 operator not to. he sounds like a dipshit to me and most likely guilty. lets get that out there right at the beginning. but that doesnt mean he didn't legitimately feared for his life and shot the kid in self defense. and the fact that he was running with a loaded gun doesnt automatically say that he didnt act in self defense. On March 22 2012 09:30 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 22 2012 09:27 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:26 seiferoth10 wrote:
The takeaway is he was chasing the kid with a loaded gun. Can it really be defense if you're chasing someone with a loaded gun? I don't think so. all police give chase with loaded guns. if the person grabs (or already has) a weapon during the chase and attacks you, it doesnt matter that you were running after them with a loaded gun. He isn't even remotely close to a police officer. Community watch just reports crimes to the police like he did. They aren't supposed to hunt the people down with loaded guns. If you listen to the 911 call you'll notice the person on the other end tells him to not follow the kid at all. i understand he is not a cop. i was just addressing the point that him running after the kid with a loaded gun somehow presumes it wasn't self defense. This case illustrates the number 1 problem with the concept of handguns as self-defense. The fact that zimmerman was carrying a gun means that the gun itself represented a mortal threat to zimmerman. The fact that any potential assailant may or may not be armed is basically irrelevant, as a single weapon may be used by either party. Therefore, the fact that you have a gun for self-defense makes it necessary to shoot preemptively, negating any and all less lethal methods of self-defense. This is Cold War logic, and it is chilling. The fact that this ideology is so entrenched in the legal system is deeply troubling. I weep for the boy and his family, and, though we may have yet to suffer from it, for the rest of us as well.
It's even scarier if the handgun is visible (I don't know what Florida's concealed carry laws look like). You could concievably pick a fight with someone while using your holstered handgun as an implicit threat, but then be justified in using it if the person you attacked was too vigorous in defending him/herself (out of fear of the gun).
I suspect there's there's a legal mechanism to deal with that, but I don't know what it is.
|
On March 22 2012 10:40 Silentness wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 10:37 Sermokala wrote:On March 22 2012 10:24 BlackJack wrote:
Wow, OP. How can you leave out that Zimmerman was bleeding from the back of the head and nose when police arrived?
What happened (I believe):
Zimmerman picked a fight with Martin. Martin was getting the better of him. Zimmerman screams for help for nearby neighbors to jump in. Eventually he shoots Martin.
It's still something like manslaughter in my opinion, since he initiated the actions that led to Martin's death, but it was not a cold-blooded murder.
You should really consider updating the OP with the fact that Zimmerman had wounds if you care about being fair and aren't just trying to start a witch hunt. And Zimmerman is from a Spanish speaking minority with black friends and family members. He cared a lot about his community members and was the mentor of a few black youth in it. I'm sure that hes really a white raceist that tried to kill some poor black kid minding his own business. People would use the littleist thing to whip themselves into a fury and get angry at something. It doesn't help anyone and all it does is teach everyone that white people are suppose to hate black people. So can you explain to me WHY was Zimmerman following this kid? The 911 Dispatcher clearly told him to not follow, but Mr. Zimmerman played hero anyways... I could say I have black friends and family members too, but does that mean it's OK for me to chase down a black guy and shoot him because I felt threatened?
He saw a guy who looked like a gang member that he didn't know going though where he lives. He goes to confront him and tries to frisk him down looking for drugs or guns and he doesn't like that so he struggles for a bit and the young athletic kid beats on him until hes hurting bad and pulls out his gun and shoots the guy.
|
United States5162 Posts
On March 22 2012 10:46 Omnipresent wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 10:42 _-NoMaN-_ wrote:On March 22 2012 09:30 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On March 22 2012 09:27 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:26 seiferoth10 wrote:
The takeaway is he was chasing the kid with a loaded gun. Can it really be defense if you're chasing someone with a loaded gun? I don't think so. all police give chase with loaded guns. if the person grabs (or already has) a weapon during the chase and attacks you, it doesnt matter that you were running after them with a loaded gun. Except he wasn't a cop he was a self appointed Neighborhood Watchmen who chased after a kid after being told by 911 operator not to. he sounds like a dipshit to me and most likely guilty. lets get that out there right at the beginning. but that doesnt mean he didn't legitimately feared for his life and shot the kid in self defense. and the fact that he was running with a loaded gun doesnt automatically say that he didnt act in self defense. On March 22 2012 09:30 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 22 2012 09:27 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 22 2012 09:26 seiferoth10 wrote:
The takeaway is he was chasing the kid with a loaded gun. Can it really be defense if you're chasing someone with a loaded gun? I don't think so. all police give chase with loaded guns. if the person grabs (or already has) a weapon during the chase and attacks you, it doesnt matter that you were running after them with a loaded gun. He isn't even remotely close to a police officer. Community watch just reports crimes to the police like he did. They aren't supposed to hunt the people down with loaded guns. If you listen to the 911 call you'll notice the person on the other end tells him to not follow the kid at all. i understand he is not a cop. i was just addressing the point that him running after the kid with a loaded gun somehow presumes it wasn't self defense. This case illustrates the number 1 problem with the concept of handguns as self-defense. The fact that zimmerman was carrying a gun means that the gun itself represented a mortal threat to zimmerman. The fact that any potential assailant may or may not be armed is basically irrelevant, as a single weapon may be used by either party. Therefore, the fact that you have a gun for self-defense makes it necessary to shoot preemptively, negating any and all less lethal methods of self-defense. This is Cold War logic, and it is chilling. The fact that this ideology is so entrenched in the legal system is deeply troubling. I weep for the boy and his family, and, though we may have yet to suffer from it, for the rest of us as well. It's even scarier if the handgun is visible (I don't know what Florida's concealed carry laws look like). You could concievably pick a fight with someone while using your holstered handgun as an implicit threat, but then be justified in using it if the person you attacked was too vigorous in defending him/herself (out of fear of the gun). I suspect there's there's a legal mechanism to deal with that, but I don't know what it is.
I definitely think that part of that law needs revision/removal. You should be under extreme scrutiny if you initiate a confrontation and then claim self defense. I understand the intent of that section, so that if you're in a minor altercation, then the other party escalates it, and after you try to run you then use self defense, but there needs to be more burden of proof or something.
|
On March 22 2012 09:39 Mykill wrote:
what the fuck...
how do you get away with this shit.
You cant chase and kill somebody and call it self defense. it wasnt even the guy's property
The laws in Florida regarding "self-defense" are different from the rest of the country. They're a little bit fucked in my opinion.
|
Kind of ridiculous he hasn't been arrested yet based on everything released about this case.
When you pursue an individual after a police dispatcher tells you not to, you instigate a confrontation, you're armed while the other person is not AND you're twice the size of the other individual, claiming self defense should not even be possible.
|
It's a rare occurrence when a news story makes me react like I did for this one. This is fucking disgusting. Oh I see a teenager "talking to himself" with a bag of skittles, oh he must be on drugs and I have to confront him about it. Oh man, I've got 100lb on him, I better bring my gun just in case. Oh I chase him and I PROVOKE the altercation, I better shoot him. Being from Canada, gun laws in the US disgust me. I hope this guy gets as much as he can (which will be a tap on the wrist).
|
Its sad to hear the 911 call where you can hear the kid screaming for help for like 30 seconds until he gets shot  . Sounds like Trayvon was subdued by Zimmerman, no need to be shot.
|
Just unbelievable. Chasing the guy, armed while the other guy was unarmed, stronger than him, not obeying to an order of a police officer, shooting him. Sorry I don't buy the self-defense.
And what's the message of this? You can carry a gun, chase a guy, shoot him but just be sure to not be witnessed and you'll be fine. I remember times when I couldn't sleep I would go walk a few miles during the night just going on circles in the neighborhood. That's suspicious, but not criminal. And obviously the kid wasn't here for any bad.
|
On March 22 2012 09:15 Sniperdadx wrote:
It's sad to see people jump to conclusions. I think many people forget that in this country you're innocent until proven guilty. Not the other way around.
sometimes you need to read inbetween the lines
On March 22 2012 10:52 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 10:40 Silentness wrote:On March 22 2012 10:37 Sermokala wrote:On March 22 2012 10:24 BlackJack wrote:
Wow, OP. How can you leave out that Zimmerman was bleeding from the back of the head and nose when police arrived?
What happened (I believe):
Zimmerman picked a fight with Martin. Martin was getting the better of him. Zimmerman screams for help for nearby neighbors to jump in. Eventually he shoots Martin.
It's still something like manslaughter in my opinion, since he initiated the actions that led to Martin's death, but it was not a cold-blooded murder.
You should really consider updating the OP with the fact that Zimmerman had wounds if you care about being fair and aren't just trying to start a witch hunt. And Zimmerman is from a Spanish speaking minority with black friends and family members. He cared a lot about his community members and was the mentor of a few black youth in it. I'm sure that hes really a white raceist that tried to kill some poor black kid minding his own business. People would use the littleist thing to whip themselves into a fury and get angry at something. It doesn't help anyone and all it does is teach everyone that white people are suppose to hate black people. So can you explain to me WHY was Zimmerman following this kid? The 911 Dispatcher clearly told him to not follow, but Mr. Zimmerman played hero anyways... I could say I have black friends and family members too, but does that mean it's OK for me to chase down a black guy and shoot him because I felt threatened? He saw a guy who looked like a gang member that he didn't know going though where he lives. He goes to confront him and tries to frisk him down looking for drugs or guns and he doesn't like that so he struggles for a bit and the young athletic kid beats on him until hes hurting bad and pulls out his gun and shoots the guy.
LOOKED LIKE A GANG MEMBER? why??? BECAUSE HE WAS FUCKING BLACK. there is no fucking other reason this shithead thought he was up to no good, if it was a white guy i fucking guarantee you he wouldn't think anything of it.
if some dickhead started following me and got up to be and started frisking me and shit and he wasn't a police officer you bet your ass i would be defending myself.
this is why making guns legal is stupid because the vast majority of people who would get into a posistion to defend themselves SHOOT TO KILL which is NOT HOW IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE.
|
On March 22 2012 10:52 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 10:40 Silentness wrote:On March 22 2012 10:37 Sermokala wrote:On March 22 2012 10:24 BlackJack wrote:
Wow, OP. How can you leave out that Zimmerman was bleeding from the back of the head and nose when police arrived?
What happened (I believe):
Zimmerman picked a fight with Martin. Martin was getting the better of him. Zimmerman screams for help for nearby neighbors to jump in. Eventually he shoots Martin.
It's still something like manslaughter in my opinion, since he initiated the actions that led to Martin's death, but it was not a cold-blooded murder.
You should really consider updating the OP with the fact that Zimmerman had wounds if you care about being fair and aren't just trying to start a witch hunt. And Zimmerman is from a Spanish speaking minority with black friends and family members. He cared a lot about his community members and was the mentor of a few black youth in it. I'm sure that hes really a white raceist that tried to kill some poor black kid minding his own business. People would use the littleist thing to whip themselves into a fury and get angry at something. It doesn't help anyone and all it does is teach everyone that white people are suppose to hate black people. So can you explain to me WHY was Zimmerman following this kid? The 911 Dispatcher clearly told him to not follow, but Mr. Zimmerman played hero anyways... I could say I have black friends and family members too, but does that mean it's OK for me to chase down a black guy and shoot him because I felt threatened? He saw a guy who looked like a gang member that he didn't know going though where he lives. He goes to confront him and tries to frisk him down looking for drugs or guns and he doesn't like that so he struggles for a bit and the young athletic kid beats on him until hes hurting bad and pulls out his gun and shoots the guy.
He shouldn't confront him. End of the story. He warned the police very well. But you don't go and confront a supposed "gang member", what was he expecting if it was the case? Go on a gun fight in the middle of the neighborhood?
|
On March 22 2012 10:40 Silentness wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 10:37 Sermokala wrote:On March 22 2012 10:24 BlackJack wrote:
Wow, OP. How can you leave out that Zimmerman was bleeding from the back of the head and nose when police arrived?
What happened (I believe):
Zimmerman picked a fight with Martin. Martin was getting the better of him. Zimmerman screams for help for nearby neighbors to jump in. Eventually he shoots Martin.
It's still something like manslaughter in my opinion, since he initiated the actions that led to Martin's death, but it was not a cold-blooded murder.
You should really consider updating the OP with the fact that Zimmerman had wounds if you care about being fair and aren't just trying to start a witch hunt. And Zimmerman is from a Spanish speaking minority with black friends and family members. He cared a lot about his community members and was the mentor of a few black youth in it. I'm sure that hes really a white raceist that tried to kill some poor black kid minding his own business. People would use the littleist thing to whip themselves into a fury and get angry at something. It doesn't help anyone and all it does is teach everyone that white people are suppose to hate black people. So can you explain to me WHY was Zimmerman following this kid? The 911 Dispatcher clearly told him to not follow, but Mr. Zimmerman played hero anyways... I could say I have black friends and family members too, but does that mean it's OK for me to chase down a black guy and shoot him because I felt threatened?
Or perhaps explain his blatantly racist recorded conversation with the police? Saying "they always get away" and that the kid was a "fucking coon" does not suggest you have no preconceived biases regarding race.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
