|
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 23 2012 10:26 Wrongspeedy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2012 10:24 Ballistixz wrote:On March 23 2012 10:21 Spicy_Curry wrote:On March 23 2012 10:12 NotSorry wrote:On March 23 2012 10:10 Spicy_Curry wrote:On March 23 2012 10:03 Lockitupv2 wrote:On March 23 2012 09:58 ZeromuS wrote:Look guys it boils down for me like this - Zimmer sees some kid he feels is suspicious, - he calls cops and they say to stay away - he grabs his gun and follows the kid - regardless of any fight, the kid is dead and zimmer shot him - the kid didn't have a weapon The moment you call the cops and they say to stay away, you cannot grab a gun, follow and then shoot a person. Grabbing the gun and following them was clearly intent to harm the kid. There is no way to justify grabbing a gun and following someone when the police said to not do anything and then shooting them. I don't care if they fought, this was after Zimmer grabbed his gun and decided to follow the kid after the police told him not to. On March 23 2012 09:58 Anytus wrote:On March 23 2012 09:54 Ballistixz wrote:
ZIMMERMAN SHOULD HAVE NOT FOLLOWED HIM.
Even if everyone agrees with this statement, what is the point of hammering it home again? Just because he should not have followed doesn't make it illegal that he did. Not using your common sense is often times, not a crime. No, but grabbing a gun, following when told not to clearly show mens rea under the law, Zimmer decided at that moment to be a vigilante. No, keeping a gun on you, especially, when you believe that the other person is armed, actually makes complete sense. I dont get it, the police gave him clear orders to stop following the kid. He violated those orders and he faces no repercussions? no they did not, it was a dispatcher and quote, "you don't have to do that sir" That makes sense. Still, worse case scenario was that the kid tried to beat him up. Does he deserve to get shot for that? This Zimmerman guy sounds like such a tool, getting manhandled by a teenager and then killing him. whats more is, how did a 140lb teen overpower a 250lb grown man in the first place? Thats not really that unbelievable. He was in the prime of his life, a good football player, and probably worked out almost daily. He is also taller (longer reach) and much of Zimmermans weight advantage might not have been muscle. Its also possible that Tray was straddling Zimmerman when he was shot, then Zimmerman would have pushed him off and then could be straddling him. The autopsy will probably tell a lot.
its still pretty hard to knock someone that is near double your body weight off there feet. ive played football before so i know what it takes to accomplish that.
while i do agree it is certainly not impossible, it is still quite hard to believe that he was completely dominant the entire time unless this Zimmerman guy is that physically weak and out of shape.
|
On March 23 2012 10:18 Ballistixz wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2012 10:14 Zaqwe wrote:On March 23 2012 09:54 Ballistixz wrote:
ZIMMERMAN SHOULD HAVE NOT FOLLOWED HIM
Why not? It's his neighborhood, he has every right to walk around there. It's a high crime area, he has every reason to be suspicious of people he doesn't recognize. I really do not like this modern mentality of every man for himself. Zimmerman seems like a really good guy who looked out for his neighbors out of a sense of civic duty. It's sad and unfortunate the way things played out, but the wrong action was when Trayvon decided to commit a preemptive assault instead of continuing to walk away or just talking to Zimmerman to see what was going on. is sad how biased you are. trayvon committed no crime and could have easily been acting in self defense like zimmerman could. if zimmerman could get away with murder on the "stand your grounds" law then martin could have just as easily got away with it if all he did was use his fist to defend himself. someone comes at you pointing a gun that you dont know then of course you will act in self defense. now please, stop trolling. its obvious you made an account purely to troll this thread.
Self defense allows you to defend yourself against an attacker.
I do not know of any jurisdiction where self defense enables you to knock down and beat on people laying supine if they question what you are doing.
|
On March 23 2012 10:31 Wrongspeedy wrote:
But thats the thing, you are approaching someone to accuse them of something. Cops know that this is a very delicate subject, even people lash out at cops for doing this. He knew it was a dangerous situation, he wouldn't carry a gun around if he didn't think what he was doing was kind of dangerous.
Totally, there is a reason that we pay cops to learn and handle this stuff. I still honestly can't say though if his disregard for the danger amounts to criminal negligence. If the definition is too broad, then when a cop stops someone and the cop shoots them because they attack the cop then THAT could be construed as criminal negligence, when it clearly is not. Too narrow though and it becaomes really hard to see what you can't get away with.
Might come down to exactly what Zimmerman did with the gun...
|
On March 23 2012 10:34 NotSorry wrote:
Technically if both of them felt threatened they could both be acting in self defense in which case neither has broken a law. Self defense doesn't mean you have to wait to be attacked first, just feel threatened which is where a lot of gray area comes into the picture
It is impossible though that both of them were acting in self-defense. Someone has to have crossed a line somewhere. A burglar fears for his life when u pull a gun on him, but that doesn't entitle him to self-defense. It seems like someone had to have been outside their rights at some point.
|
On March 23 2012 10:35 Anytus wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2012 10:31 Wrongspeedy wrote:
But thats the thing, you are approaching someone to accuse them of something. Cops know that this is a very delicate subject, even people lash out at cops for doing this. He knew it was a dangerous situation, he wouldn't carry a gun around if he didn't think what he was doing was kind of dangerous.
Totally, there is a reason that we pay cops to learn and handle this stuff. I still honestly can't say though if his disregard for the danger amounts to criminal negligence. If the definition is too broad, then when a cop stops someone and the cop shoots them because they attack the cop then THAT could be construed as criminal negligence, when it clearly is not. Too narrow though and it becaomes really hard to see what you can't get away with. Might come down to exactly what Zimmerman did with the gun...
No because there are laws that protect cops from that ; ). Cops are forced into dangerous situations because its their "duty". This guy is a watchman but its still not his "duty" to take it as far as he did (even thats questionable, but I would say if he tried to confront Tray at all, he was out of his duty). He didn't see Tray do anything wrong.
Actually the dispatcher telling him he didn't need to do that pretty much defines it was outside his "duty".
|
On March 23 2012 10:34 NotSorry wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2012 10:32 Anytus wrote:On March 23 2012 10:27 Ballistixz wrote:
i suppose he got knocked to the ground and beaten in the head because he was chasing a teenager and then pointed a gun at him, and that teenager didnt have anyone come to his aid.
see how this game works? Exactly my point. Someone broke the law first. That person is probably the one who first initiated physical violence. It definitely goes both ways though. Technically if both of them felt threatened they could both be acting in self defense in which case neither has broken a law. Self defense doesn't mean you have to wait to be attacked first, just feel threatened which is where a lot of gray area comes into the picture
And that is exactly why Stand Your Ground laws are inherently flawed.
"Whether it's trick-or-treaters or kids playing in the yard of someone who doesn't want them there or some drunk guy stumbling into the wrong house, you're encouraging people to possibly use deadly physical force where it shouldn't be used.'' - Chief John Timoney, Former Miami Police Chief 2003-2010
|
On March 23 2012 10:39 Anytus wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2012 10:34 NotSorry wrote:
Technically if both of them felt threatened they could both be acting in self defense in which case neither has broken a law. Self defense doesn't mean you have to wait to be attacked first, just feel threatened which is where a lot of gray area comes into the picture It is impossible though that both of them were acting in self-defense. Someone has to have crossed a line somewhere. A burglar fears for his life when u pull a gun on him, but that doesn't entitle him to self-defense. It seems like someone had to have been outside their rights at some point.
Your burglar example is covered on a completely different set of laws.
If you approach me on the street in a threatening manner I am within my rights to use any force I deem necessary to remove said threat. If I approach you on the street and you act back in a threatening manner I am within my rights to use any force I deem necessary to remove said threat. In both situations above I'm able to enact self defense from either position, I don't have to wait for an attack to come, I can strike first and it's still self defense. Two people both in a tense situation feeling threatened quickly turns into a fight with no one breaking the law.
|
On March 23 2012 10:34 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2012 10:18 Ballistixz wrote:On March 23 2012 10:14 Zaqwe wrote:On March 23 2012 09:54 Ballistixz wrote:
ZIMMERMAN SHOULD HAVE NOT FOLLOWED HIM
Why not? It's his neighborhood, he has every right to walk around there. It's a high crime area, he has every reason to be suspicious of people he doesn't recognize. I really do not like this modern mentality of every man for himself. Zimmerman seems like a really good guy who looked out for his neighbors out of a sense of civic duty. It's sad and unfortunate the way things played out, but the wrong action was when Trayvon decided to commit a preemptive assault instead of continuing to walk away or just talking to Zimmerman to see what was going on. is sad how biased you are. trayvon committed no crime and could have easily been acting in self defense like zimmerman could. if zimmerman could get away with murder on the "stand your grounds" law then martin could have just as easily got away with it if all he did was use his fist to defend himself. someone comes at you pointing a gun that you dont know then of course you will act in self defense. now please, stop trolling. its obvious you made an account purely to troll this thread. Self defense allows you to defend yourself against an attacker. I do not know of any jurisdiction where self defense enables you to knock down and beat on people laying supine if they question what you are doing.
having a gun pointed at you is a direct threat on your life and safety. being CHASED after by a stranger is a direct threat on your own safety.
i suggest you take another look at the stand your grounds law, its not so difficult to understand why its a very flawed law.
|
On March 23 2012 10:45 Ballistixz wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2012 10:34 Zaqwe wrote:On March 23 2012 10:18 Ballistixz wrote:On March 23 2012 10:14 Zaqwe wrote:On March 23 2012 09:54 Ballistixz wrote:
ZIMMERMAN SHOULD HAVE NOT FOLLOWED HIM
Why not? It's his neighborhood, he has every right to walk around there. It's a high crime area, he has every reason to be suspicious of people he doesn't recognize. I really do not like this modern mentality of every man for himself. Zimmerman seems like a really good guy who looked out for his neighbors out of a sense of civic duty. It's sad and unfortunate the way things played out, but the wrong action was when Trayvon decided to commit a preemptive assault instead of continuing to walk away or just talking to Zimmerman to see what was going on. is sad how biased you are. trayvon committed no crime and could have easily been acting in self defense like zimmerman could. if zimmerman could get away with murder on the "stand your grounds" law then martin could have just as easily got away with it if all he did was use his fist to defend himself. someone comes at you pointing a gun that you dont know then of course you will act in self defense. now please, stop trolling. its obvious you made an account purely to troll this thread. Self defense allows you to defend yourself against an attacker. I do not know of any jurisdiction where self defense enables you to knock down and beat on people laying supine if they question what you are doing. having a gun pointed at you is a direct threat on your life and safety. i suggest you take another look at the stand your grounds law, its not so difficult to understand why its a very flawed law. Again there is no evidence that the gun was drawn at any point before the shot was fired.
|
On March 23 2012 10:47 NotSorry wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2012 10:45 Ballistixz wrote:On March 23 2012 10:34 Zaqwe wrote:On March 23 2012 10:18 Ballistixz wrote:On March 23 2012 10:14 Zaqwe wrote:On March 23 2012 09:54 Ballistixz wrote:
ZIMMERMAN SHOULD HAVE NOT FOLLOWED HIM
Why not? It's his neighborhood, he has every right to walk around there. It's a high crime area, he has every reason to be suspicious of people he doesn't recognize. I really do not like this modern mentality of every man for himself. Zimmerman seems like a really good guy who looked out for his neighbors out of a sense of civic duty. It's sad and unfortunate the way things played out, but the wrong action was when Trayvon decided to commit a preemptive assault instead of continuing to walk away or just talking to Zimmerman to see what was going on. is sad how biased you are. trayvon committed no crime and could have easily been acting in self defense like zimmerman could. if zimmerman could get away with murder on the "stand your grounds" law then martin could have just as easily got away with it if all he did was use his fist to defend himself. someone comes at you pointing a gun that you dont know then of course you will act in self defense. now please, stop trolling. its obvious you made an account purely to troll this thread. Self defense allows you to defend yourself against an attacker. I do not know of any jurisdiction where self defense enables you to knock down and beat on people laying supine if they question what you are doing. having a gun pointed at you is a direct threat on your life and safety. i suggest you take another look at the stand your grounds law, its not so difficult to understand why its a very flawed law. Again there is no evidence that the gun was drawn at any point before the shot was fired.
In fact, if Trayvon was punching Zimmerman, it's quite likely the gun wasn't drawn at that point because it would have instead been wrestling for the gun, instead of punching.
|
On March 23 2012 10:34 Ballistixz wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2012 10:26 Wrongspeedy wrote:On March 23 2012 10:24 Ballistixz wrote:On March 23 2012 10:21 Spicy_Curry wrote:On March 23 2012 10:12 NotSorry wrote:On March 23 2012 10:10 Spicy_Curry wrote:On March 23 2012 10:03 Lockitupv2 wrote:On March 23 2012 09:58 ZeromuS wrote:Look guys it boils down for me like this - Zimmer sees some kid he feels is suspicious, - he calls cops and they say to stay away - he grabs his gun and follows the kid - regardless of any fight, the kid is dead and zimmer shot him - the kid didn't have a weapon The moment you call the cops and they say to stay away, you cannot grab a gun, follow and then shoot a person. Grabbing the gun and following them was clearly intent to harm the kid. There is no way to justify grabbing a gun and following someone when the police said to not do anything and then shooting them. I don't care if they fought, this was after Zimmer grabbed his gun and decided to follow the kid after the police told him not to. On March 23 2012 09:58 Anytus wrote:On March 23 2012 09:54 Ballistixz wrote:
ZIMMERMAN SHOULD HAVE NOT FOLLOWED HIM.
Even if everyone agrees with this statement, what is the point of hammering it home again? Just because he should not have followed doesn't make it illegal that he did. Not using your common sense is often times, not a crime. No, but grabbing a gun, following when told not to clearly show mens rea under the law, Zimmer decided at that moment to be a vigilante. No, keeping a gun on you, especially, when you believe that the other person is armed, actually makes complete sense. I dont get it, the police gave him clear orders to stop following the kid. He violated those orders and he faces no repercussions? no they did not, it was a dispatcher and quote, "you don't have to do that sir" That makes sense. Still, worse case scenario was that the kid tried to beat him up. Does he deserve to get shot for that? This Zimmerman guy sounds like such a tool, getting manhandled by a teenager and then killing him. whats more is, how did a 140lb teen overpower a 250lb grown man in the first place? Thats not really that unbelievable. He was in the prime of his life, a good football player, and probably worked out almost daily. He is also taller (longer reach) and much of Zimmermans weight advantage might not have been muscle. Its also possible that Tray was straddling Zimmerman when he was shot, then Zimmerman would have pushed him off and then could be straddling him. The autopsy will probably tell a lot. its still pretty hard to knock someone that is near double your body weight off there feet. ive played football before so i know what it takes to accomplish that. while i do agree it is certainly not impossible, it is still quite hard to believe that he was completely dominant the entire time unless this Zimmerman guy is that physically weak and out of shape.
No matter how hard you claim it is, Trayvon manged it just fine according to an eyewitness who saw the altercation.
Man shot and killed in neighborhood altercation"The guy on the bottom, who had a red sweater on, was yelling to me, 'Help! Help!' and I told him to stop, and I was calling 911," said the witness, who asked to be identified only by his first name, John. John said he locked his patio door, ran upstairs and heard at least one gun shot. "And then, when I got upstairs and looked down, the guy who was on the top beating up the other guy, was the one laying in the grass, and I believe he was dead at that point." http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news/seminole_news/022712-man-shot-and-killed-in-neighborhood-altercation
It is pretty much impossible to reconcile this with the claim that Zimmerman was not acting in self defense when he fired, so I understand why you wish it were not true. Perhaps instead of being so emotionally invested in one narrative you should consider adjusting your view to account for any new facts you come across.
|
On March 23 2012 10:47 NotSorry wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2012 10:45 Ballistixz wrote:On March 23 2012 10:34 Zaqwe wrote:On March 23 2012 10:18 Ballistixz wrote:On March 23 2012 10:14 Zaqwe wrote:On March 23 2012 09:54 Ballistixz wrote:
ZIMMERMAN SHOULD HAVE NOT FOLLOWED HIM
Why not? It's his neighborhood, he has every right to walk around there. It's a high crime area, he has every reason to be suspicious of people he doesn't recognize. I really do not like this modern mentality of every man for himself. Zimmerman seems like a really good guy who looked out for his neighbors out of a sense of civic duty. It's sad and unfortunate the way things played out, but the wrong action was when Trayvon decided to commit a preemptive assault instead of continuing to walk away or just talking to Zimmerman to see what was going on. is sad how biased you are. trayvon committed no crime and could have easily been acting in self defense like zimmerman could. if zimmerman could get away with murder on the "stand your grounds" law then martin could have just as easily got away with it if all he did was use his fist to defend himself. someone comes at you pointing a gun that you dont know then of course you will act in self defense. now please, stop trolling. its obvious you made an account purely to troll this thread. Self defense allows you to defend yourself against an attacker. I do not know of any jurisdiction where self defense enables you to knock down and beat on people laying supine if they question what you are doing. having a gun pointed at you is a direct threat on your life and safety. i suggest you take another look at the stand your grounds law, its not so difficult to understand why its a very flawed law. Again there is no evidence that the gun was drawn at any point before the shot was fired.
there is also no evidence as to why or how martin got on top and started beating zimmerman. it had to have been provoked somehow, yet everyone is just assuming he did it out of the blue for no reason.
|
On March 23 2012 10:50 Ballistixz wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2012 10:47 NotSorry wrote:On March 23 2012 10:45 Ballistixz wrote:On March 23 2012 10:34 Zaqwe wrote:On March 23 2012 10:18 Ballistixz wrote:On March 23 2012 10:14 Zaqwe wrote:On March 23 2012 09:54 Ballistixz wrote:
ZIMMERMAN SHOULD HAVE NOT FOLLOWED HIM
Why not? It's his neighborhood, he has every right to walk around there. It's a high crime area, he has every reason to be suspicious of people he doesn't recognize. I really do not like this modern mentality of every man for himself. Zimmerman seems like a really good guy who looked out for his neighbors out of a sense of civic duty. It's sad and unfortunate the way things played out, but the wrong action was when Trayvon decided to commit a preemptive assault instead of continuing to walk away or just talking to Zimmerman to see what was going on. is sad how biased you are. trayvon committed no crime and could have easily been acting in self defense like zimmerman could. if zimmerman could get away with murder on the "stand your grounds" law then martin could have just as easily got away with it if all he did was use his fist to defend himself. someone comes at you pointing a gun that you dont know then of course you will act in self defense. now please, stop trolling. its obvious you made an account purely to troll this thread. Self defense allows you to defend yourself against an attacker. I do not know of any jurisdiction where self defense enables you to knock down and beat on people laying supine if they question what you are doing. having a gun pointed at you is a direct threat on your life and safety. i suggest you take another look at the stand your grounds law, its not so difficult to understand why its a very flawed law. Again there is no evidence that the gun was drawn at any point before the shot was fired. there is also no evidence as to why or how martin got on top and started beating zimmerman. it had to have been provoked somehow, yet everyone is just assuming he did it out of the blue for no reason. "everyone"? There is like 3 people in this thread looking at the facts and saying that we are missing too much of what happened and another 400 screaming for Zimmermann to be hung in the city mall.
|
Just a quick question since I am not that sure about the SYG law. If someone tries to kidnap you, and you resist the kidnap attempt through the use of physical force, does that give the kidnapper the right to shoot and kill you as self defense?
|
As it stands with so much missing information and contradiction from witnesses Zimmermann's reasonable doubt is assured and in the courts that's all you have to prove. Innocent til proven guilty.
|
On March 23 2012 10:52 NotSorry wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2012 10:50 Ballistixz wrote:On March 23 2012 10:47 NotSorry wrote:On March 23 2012 10:45 Ballistixz wrote:On March 23 2012 10:34 Zaqwe wrote:On March 23 2012 10:18 Ballistixz wrote:On March 23 2012 10:14 Zaqwe wrote:On March 23 2012 09:54 Ballistixz wrote:
ZIMMERMAN SHOULD HAVE NOT FOLLOWED HIM
Why not? It's his neighborhood, he has every right to walk around there. It's a high crime area, he has every reason to be suspicious of people he doesn't recognize. I really do not like this modern mentality of every man for himself. Zimmerman seems like a really good guy who looked out for his neighbors out of a sense of civic duty. It's sad and unfortunate the way things played out, but the wrong action was when Trayvon decided to commit a preemptive assault instead of continuing to walk away or just talking to Zimmerman to see what was going on. is sad how biased you are. trayvon committed no crime and could have easily been acting in self defense like zimmerman could. if zimmerman could get away with murder on the "stand your grounds" law then martin could have just as easily got away with it if all he did was use his fist to defend himself. someone comes at you pointing a gun that you dont know then of course you will act in self defense. now please, stop trolling. its obvious you made an account purely to troll this thread. Self defense allows you to defend yourself against an attacker. I do not know of any jurisdiction where self defense enables you to knock down and beat on people laying supine if they question what you are doing. having a gun pointed at you is a direct threat on your life and safety. i suggest you take another look at the stand your grounds law, its not so difficult to understand why its a very flawed law. Again there is no evidence that the gun was drawn at any point before the shot was fired. there is also no evidence as to why or how martin got on top and started beating zimmerman. it had to have been provoked somehow, yet everyone is just assuming he did it out of the blue for no reason. "everyone"? There is like 3 people in this thread looking at the facts and saying that we are missing too much of what happened and another 400 screaming for Zimmermann to be hung in the city mall.
lol, i didnt think you would take "everyone" so literally. i guess i should have used a better choiced word, but im sure you know what i mean....
|
On March 23 2012 10:54 Saryph wrote:
Just a quick question since I am not that sure about the SYG law. If someone tries to kidnap you, and you resist the kidnap attempt through the use of physical force, does that give the kidnapper the right to shoot and kill you as self defense?
Did they really try to kidnap you or did they just follow you for a bit and ask what you were up to, while you invented an elaborate fantasy scenario to excuse why you attacked them?
|
On March 23 2012 10:55 NotSorry wrote:
As it stands with so much missing information and contradiction from witnesses Zimmermann's reasonable doubt is assured and in the courts that's all you have to prove. Innocent til proven guilty.
actually right now they are determining if an investigation is needed. which is dumb since it should have been investigated immediately regardless of stand your ground.
|
On March 23 2012 10:52 NotSorry wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2012 10:50 Ballistixz wrote:On March 23 2012 10:47 NotSorry wrote:On March 23 2012 10:45 Ballistixz wrote:On March 23 2012 10:34 Zaqwe wrote:On March 23 2012 10:18 Ballistixz wrote:On March 23 2012 10:14 Zaqwe wrote:On March 23 2012 09:54 Ballistixz wrote:
ZIMMERMAN SHOULD HAVE NOT FOLLOWED HIM
Why not? It's his neighborhood, he has every right to walk around there. It's a high crime area, he has every reason to be suspicious of people he doesn't recognize. I really do not like this modern mentality of every man for himself. Zimmerman seems like a really good guy who looked out for his neighbors out of a sense of civic duty. It's sad and unfortunate the way things played out, but the wrong action was when Trayvon decided to commit a preemptive assault instead of continuing to walk away or just talking to Zimmerman to see what was going on. is sad how biased you are. trayvon committed no crime and could have easily been acting in self defense like zimmerman could. if zimmerman could get away with murder on the "stand your grounds" law then martin could have just as easily got away with it if all he did was use his fist to defend himself. someone comes at you pointing a gun that you dont know then of course you will act in self defense. now please, stop trolling. its obvious you made an account purely to troll this thread. Self defense allows you to defend yourself against an attacker. I do not know of any jurisdiction where self defense enables you to knock down and beat on people laying supine if they question what you are doing. having a gun pointed at you is a direct threat on your life and safety. i suggest you take another look at the stand your grounds law, its not so difficult to understand why its a very flawed law. Again there is no evidence that the gun was drawn at any point before the shot was fired. there is also no evidence as to why or how martin got on top and started beating zimmerman. it had to have been provoked somehow, yet everyone is just assuming he did it out of the blue for no reason. "everyone"? There is like 3 people in this thread looking at the facts and saying that we are missing too much of what happened and another 400 screaming for Zimmermann to be hung in the city mall.
Yup, we still don't even know anything really about the crime scene itself or the autopsy. It sounds like this happened on someones private property, which makes a difference I think (because if they wanted to press charges for something like Trespassing they could). But if it did happen on public property (like right by the street) maybe it was within Zimmermans rights to follow him and ask him what he was doing.
So much we don't know. Feck nobody has even publically posted the autopsy even though its public information.
|
On March 23 2012 10:56 Ballistixz wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2012 10:52 NotSorry wrote:On March 23 2012 10:50 Ballistixz wrote:On March 23 2012 10:47 NotSorry wrote:On March 23 2012 10:45 Ballistixz wrote:On March 23 2012 10:34 Zaqwe wrote:On March 23 2012 10:18 Ballistixz wrote:On March 23 2012 10:14 Zaqwe wrote:On March 23 2012 09:54 Ballistixz wrote:
ZIMMERMAN SHOULD HAVE NOT FOLLOWED HIM
Why not? It's his neighborhood, he has every right to walk around there. It's a high crime area, he has every reason to be suspicious of people he doesn't recognize. I really do not like this modern mentality of every man for himself. Zimmerman seems like a really good guy who looked out for his neighbors out of a sense of civic duty. It's sad and unfortunate the way things played out, but the wrong action was when Trayvon decided to commit a preemptive assault instead of continuing to walk away or just talking to Zimmerman to see what was going on. is sad how biased you are. trayvon committed no crime and could have easily been acting in self defense like zimmerman could. if zimmerman could get away with murder on the "stand your grounds" law then martin could have just as easily got away with it if all he did was use his fist to defend himself. someone comes at you pointing a gun that you dont know then of course you will act in self defense. now please, stop trolling. its obvious you made an account purely to troll this thread. Self defense allows you to defend yourself against an attacker. I do not know of any jurisdiction where self defense enables you to knock down and beat on people laying supine if they question what you are doing. having a gun pointed at you is a direct threat on your life and safety. i suggest you take another look at the stand your grounds law, its not so difficult to understand why its a very flawed law. Again there is no evidence that the gun was drawn at any point before the shot was fired. there is also no evidence as to why or how martin got on top and started beating zimmerman. it had to have been provoked somehow, yet everyone is just assuming he did it out of the blue for no reason. "everyone"? There is like 3 people in this thread looking at the facts and saying that we are missing too much of what happened and another 400 screaming for Zimmermann to be hung in the city mall. lol, i didnt think you would take "everyone" so literally. i guess i should have used a better choiced word, but im sure you know what i mean....
Well for what it matters no one but Zimmermann knows what really happened, but so far the evidence that we have is far from convincing to be able to try him for murder.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
