I bolded part of your argument because you appear to be making a blanket statement that all the witnesses are backing up Zimmerman, which is not true. Others say that Martin was the one screaming in fear. Did Martin deserve to be killed for confronting someone who was stalking him?
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2...mmerman-shortly-after-trayvon-martin-shooting Video posted of Zimmerman right after the shooting that shows him not looking beaten and bloody. His lawyer claims that the resolution is too grainy to make any claims based on it, but I do notice that none of the cops handling him are wearing gloves. It seems to me that if he was bloody and had blood on his clothes, they would be wearing some sort pf protection.
Technically I guess when someone attacks you you're allowed to defend yourself. At least in the States. If you have a gun and they don't, that's their bad luck; they shouldn't have attacked you. But again, that isn't the situation here, so yeah. If the incident falls under "homicide/manslaughter/unnecessary killing" why was the subject not arrested? And the witnesses aren't exactly in agreement, either. No one saw Martin throwing the first punch, for one thing. And a struggle means nothing, no matter who was on the ground. It could just as easily have happened that Zimmerman started it, and Martin just happened to gain the upper hand before being shot. And again, none of it falls (or should, imo, fall) under standing your ground, because it wasn't Zimmerman's ground to begin with.
The digusting thing is, he probably will never be arrested. Among all the other things that hasn't been mentioned here, is that Zimmerman's father is a retired judge. So yeah, don't tell me those on the law enforcement side of things don't cover things up to protect their own.
Zimmermann was all up in Trayvon's (RIP ) grill - allegedly. I mean, the guy was askin' to be tought sum respect, ya hear? It was the civic duty of our brother Trayvon (RIP ) to bring that **** to school. **** got nasty when that dirty **** brought out the heat. I'm offering 2x packs of Skittles (Easter colours!) to anyone that finishes the lesson our brother Trayvon (RIP ) started.
I agree with pretty much all of this. Here in Tennessee, there are self-defense laws, mostly pertaining to the home but regardless of what happened you'd be arrested and taken in for questioning. That's the part I'm having a huge issue with, aside from the racial slur and the over-zealousness (which put him "in harm's way" to begin with) - that the police acted as judge and jury right there on the spot. I guess the same could be said for Zimmerman.
There are at least two witnesses backing Zimmerman. The police station video shows an apparent injury on the back of Zimmerman's head. Would you rather Zimmerman have wound up dead? Is that what you are saying? And sorry, if Martin attacked Zimmerman, he would be the one who escalated the situation to a physical confrontation, and thus bore the responsibility for the ultimate result of the confrontation.
From what I've read on this case so far, the main argument for the prosecution should be what gave this Zimmerman guy the right to follow/stalk Martin. His dismissal to the 911 operator is pretty damning. And since -- unless I missed something -- he's not a duly appointed law enforcer officer, how can he claim he had any right to follow and confront Martin? How can he then claim some sort of self-defense if Martin, not knowing who this person who's stalking him is that could be a potential robber, murderer or kidnapper, decided to physically confront him? Down my neck of the woods, even if you're in a heated fistfight, you're pretty much SOL in court if you used excessive force to "defend yourself" against an unarmed opponent. Again, the guy had no authority or any right to follow or intervene with the kid and if there's any justice in Florida (regardless of his retired judge daddy), they ought to throw the book at this Zimmerman loser and lock him away for life.
I'm so glad that some Senate people are integrating into our community! Anyway, Trayvon Martin was obviously a hoodlum. He smoked pot and had gold teeth. And tats! JUST LIKE ONE OF THEM GANGSTA RAPPERS.
By that argument, Zimmerman was the one who escalated the situation from physical confrontation to lethal by bringing a gun into it, so the responsibility reverts to him. Self defence laws are in place precisely because of that, I believe. And for the same reason, they don't, or shouldn't, apply to him, since he disobeyed the first rule of self defence by following a potential threat instead of staying away and letting police handle it. Again, who started or escalated it is irrelevant. The point upsetting people is that Zimmerman provoked the situation to begin with and he killed someone, so he should be arrested, and he wasn't; he was allowed to walk under a law that arguably does not apply to his case. Whether he's guilty of murder, manslaughter, or anything else, or if the circumstances are mitigating enough, is for a proper trial to determine. We could argue that all day; we have neither witness statements nor all the facts. All we have is a few facts, and a lot of ifs and maybes. But one of the facts is that as it stands it's not an entirely clear-cut case of self-defence (hence all the "if"s), so the suspect should be treated as a suspect and it should be investigated. He should not have been allowed to walk free under that Stand Your Ground law.
Here's why I think this is definitely a racial profiling thing. I don't know how many of you remember Sammy Davis, Jr., a black comedian from the 50's & 60's, but he had bought his mother a house in Beverly Hills. He found out that the neighbors (mostly white) were saying that they didn't know who lived in the house because the only person they ever saw coming and going was the black housemaid. i.e. they didn't think a black person could own that expensive a house. Here's how this relates to the Martin shooting: Zimmerman sees a black teen wearing a hoodie, walking in an expensive gated community and figures the kid doesn't belong there, so starts following him and calls 911. Now, if you're a neighborhood watch person, your responsibility is to watch for suspicious activity and call the cops. That is where your responsibility ends. Okay, I saw the post referring to the gold teeth--that picture was not of Trayvon and has been removed and an apology issued by the person claiming the picture was of Trayvon. I've seen the video of Zimmerman being taken into the police station and also want to know where are the bruises and the blood? I don't want this guy lynched or anything of that sort, but a full investigation needs to be done. If he was injured so badly, why are there no obvious signs of injury? How could Martin have attacked him if Martin was talking on his cell to his girlfriend, carrying an iced tea and a bag of Skittles? Martin's hands would have had bruises/cuts if he had punched Zimmerman. Too many unanswered questions for me.
My point exactly. Anything else beyond calling the cops and minding your own damn business is vigilantism, regardless or whichever local laws might "empower" you to step beyond those boundaries.
In how much danger was Zimmerman of dying? Everyone's saying that Martin was slamming his head into the pavement, but even if that shadow in the frame is a scar (which it doesn't seem like) I doubt the veracity of it. I rocked a shaved head for a couple of months and that thing bruises easily, which I don't see from the image. And if Zimmerman doesn't disobey a police dispatcher and go after Martin; Martin is never in the position to hurt anyone (if he even did). In the end, Zimmerman's stalking of Martin provoked the tragedy, no matter what Martin did next.
There is such a thing as use of reasonable force. Shooting someone dead because they punched you is not reasonable force, it's pretty damn excessive force. If he could prove he thought his life was in danger then I guess there is justification for letting him off, but there isn't so he should be tried for murder. Sure it was wrong for Martin to physically assault him, but that it no way justifies killing him. I laugh at any place that thinks shooting an unarmed person counts as justified self-defense. Bad enough the guy was even allowed to walk around carrying a gun like some vigilante, leave justice to the Police and courts.
I've seen them. A few of them are thought provoking, and most of the rest... Well the University of Texas one is revolting, to say the least.
Precisely. As I told a colleague of mine who is upset about the media hype and the "trial of Zimmerman by public opinion", there would be no public trial if he had been arrested and charged for a crime. Bottom line is that a kid is dead. He may not have been an innocent kid, but he was still a kid. By all accounts, that kid was not in the act of committing any crime when he and Zimmerman met--a meeting Zimmerman was primarily responsible for initiating. Trayvon Martin may well have escalated matters. It's possible Zimmerman really was in fear for his life when he pulled the trigger. That doesn't change the fact that but for the actions of Zimmerman, Trayvon Martin, an unarmed kid walking home at night and having committed no crime would be alive today. Zimmerman should be held to account for those actions.
