Trayvon Martin and "Stand Your Ground" in FL

[JJ Husker]

Once again, Zimmerman was tried and found not guilty.

 

So was OJ.

 

Please, please tell me you are not implying that you feel Zimmerman was as obviously guilty as OJ. I can see drawing parallels between the two cases based on race being a primary consideration of the media but, are you also saying that GZ is no different than OJ as far as what was proven in court by the evidence?

 

Please stop reading so much into my posts. You believe I say things that I don't say far too often.

 

You're holding up our court system as something inerrant - "Zimmerman was tried and found not guilty." I'm simply pointing out that trying someone and finding them not guilty does not mean they're innocent. Nobody said OJ = George Zimmerman. Stand down.

 

Sorry but I'm not the one that brought OJ into the discussion. I guess I make some basic assumptions, like I assume we both know our justice system is not perfect or inerrant. Therefore I thought possibly you were trying to make some other point. Give me a little more credit for not being so obtuse and we'll have fewer of these misunderstandings. I'm still curious though, if we strictly stick to what we know 100% about this case and avoid conjecture, how can it be said justice was not served? Sure, Zimmerman may have done many things that could've reduced the likelihood of the same outcome but I don't feel that makes him guilty of anything. It is unfortunate that we do not know more or have more witnesses but, it is what it is.

[knapplc]

I'm still curious though, if we strictly stick to what we know 100% about this case and avoid conjecture, how can it be said justice was not served? Sure, Zimmerman may have done many things that reduces the likelihood of the same outcome but I don't feel that makes him guilty of anything. It is unfortunate that we do not know more or have more witnesses but, it is what it is.

 

Because nothing would have happened if Zimmerman had gone on about his business. Zimmerman was going to Target, Martin was coming back from 7-11. Zimmerman didn't like the way Martin looked, started following him, and ends up killing Martin 200 feet from Martin's back door. How can it be "just" for Martin to be dead? What was wrong with walking to and from 7-11 for some skittles?

[knapplc]

Picture that the media is feeding everybody

 

 

Picture that the media doesn't want you to see

 

Sure looks like the little innocent angel the media is making him out to be

 

 

 

Heres a link of Martins phone records of texts about smoking weed and fighting. I didn't see the texts from his dad aka "Fruit" about buying some guns but again I didn't read everyone because I started getting a headache reading those texts

 

http://www.gzdocs.co...rts/report1.pdf

 

What is your point with any of this? That the media is stupid? Congratulations, you've discovered something the rest of us have known for decades and decades.

 

Are you saying that this kid acted like every other kid in his peer group? OK, what of it?

 

What's special about him smoking weed?

 

How does any of this help us have a rational conversation about this situation? Does anything you've posted mean Trayvon Martin should have been shot dead for running to a convenience store?

[SECHusker]

Picture that the media is feeding everybody

 

 

Picture that the media doesn't want you to see

 

Sure looks like the little innocent angel the media is making him out to be

 

 

 

Heres a link of Martins phone records of texts about smoking weed and fighting. I didn't see the texts from his dad aka "Fruit" about buying some guns but again I didn't read everyone because I started getting a headache reading those texts

 

http://www.gzdocs.co...rts/report1.pdf

 

What is your point with any of this? That the media is stupid? Congratulations, you've discovered something the rest of us have known for decades and decades.

 

Are you saying that this kid acted like every other kid in his peer group? OK, what of it?

 

What's special about him smoking weed?

 

How does any of this help us have a rational conversation about this situation? Does anything you've posted mean Trayvon Martin should have been shot dead for running to a convenience store?

 

Agree with Knapplc.

 

Those pictures aren't relevant to the events that occurred. They only create a media/ public perception bias, that put the victim on trial.

 

@EZ-E the most crucial point of this case, and the precedent that is created, is at what point is it ok to use a lethal weapon in a fight? So forget about the case for a second, is the world you want to live in where if someone feels 'threatened in a fight' that they can pull out a gun and shoot somone?

[zoogs]

Aw, come on jock, have you never flipped off a camera before?

 

EZ, I think they are looking at the racial profiling angle from the federal standpoint, so perhaps that's not out of the cards yet. Seems like that's going to be a tough case to make, though.

[The Dude]

Regardless of your personal beliefs on the outcome, we all should be thankful the justice system does not operate under popular opinion.

[Junior]

Good lord, do you know how many pictures there are of me in college flipping off the camera? I guess I deserve to be shot?

[Junior]

Regardless of your personal beliefs on the outcome, we all should be thankful the justice system does not operate under popular opinion.

 

I don't think anyone is arguing that legally he should have been found guilty. But being legally not guilty and being innocent of a crime are not at all the same thing. What is impossible for me to understand, is this people fighting, scratching, clawing, to protect and stand up for Zimmerman. The guy followed, then shot and killed an unarmed kid who had gone out for skittles. Hell Zimmerman even said he wouldn't change anything about that night. Knowing that he ended up killing a kid, he'd still get out of his truck to follow Martin.

 

To be rather blunt, people's defense of him is extraordinarily disturbing.

[The Dude]

I'm confused by anyone having a strong opinion one way or the other, given the lack of clarity surrounding the actual events. Any feeling other than being conflicted doesn't really register with me.

 

Following Martin was stupid and unnecessary. Something that wouldn't even cross my mind in the same situation. But I'm not sure that in and of itself means he forfeits his right to self-defense. And that seems to be something a lot of people are arguing in a roundabout way. On the other hand we don't know for sure if he acted in self-defense because we don't know if he was attacked or did the attacking.

 

That's an extremely important point I just can't bring myself to gloss over.

[knapplc]

I'm confused by anyone having a strong opinion one way or the other, given the lack of clarity surrounding the actual events. Any feeling other than being conflicted doesn't really register with me.

 

Following Martin was stupid and unnecessary. Something that wouldn't even cross my mind in the same situation. But I'm not sure that in and of itself means he forfeits his right to self-defense. And that seems to be something a lot of people are arguing in a roundabout way. On the other hand we don't know for sure if he acted in self-defense because we don't know if he was attacked or did the attacking.

 

That's an extremely important point I just can't bring myself to gloss over.

 

The strong opinions over Zimmerman end right there. He had no reason to follow Martin, he was told by 911 dispatch not to follow him, and over a minute later he was engaged in an altercation with Martin, which ended in Martin being killed. This isn't rocket science. It's not confusing, you don't need any more "clarity" than that. Don't follow a kid going home after buying candy, and both Zimmerman and the kid are going about their regular lives right now.

 

Nobody is saying Zimmerman forfeits his right to self-defense. What people are saying is he put himself in a situation he didn't need to be in, and a kid died. The decision to insert himself in that situation should have consequences.

[Ziggy]

I'm confused by anyone having a strong opinion one way or the other, given the lack of clarity surrounding the actual events. Any feeling other than being conflicted doesn't really register with me.

 

Following Martin was stupid and unnecessary. Something that wouldn't even cross my mind in the same situation. But I'm not sure that in and of itself means he forfeits his right to self-defense. And that seems to be something a lot of people are arguing in a roundabout way. On the other hand we don't know for sure if he acted in self-defense because we don't know if he was attacked or did the attacking.

 

That's an extremely important point I just can't bring myself to gloss over.

 

The strong opinions over Zimmerman end right there. He had no reason to follow Martin, he was told by 911 dispatch not to follow him, and over a minute later he was engaged in an altercation with Martin, which ended in Martin being killed. This isn't rocket science. It's not confusing, you don't need any more "clarity" than that. Don't follow a kid going home after buying candy, and both Zimmerman and the kid are going about their regular lives right now.

 

Nobody is saying Zimmerman forfeits his right to self-defense. What people are saying is he put himself in a situation he didn't need to be in, and a kid died. The decision to insert himself in that situation should have consequences.

 

My problem with people complaining about Zimmerman being out of his vehicle, is what if Martin wasn't just packing skittles and tea? What if after he shot martin they found drugs, stolen goods, illegal guns, or something else illegal. What if Zimmerman caught a kid in the middle of planning on blowing up his school, or the community center? According to Zimmerman, he had stopped following Martin when he got out of his vehicle, and was getting an address for the police to meet him at, and was confronted by Martin and beat up. Which in recent interviews at least most of the jury also believed that Martin threw the first punch, and that Zimmerman was the one who screamed for help. What if this same situation happened and lead to the break of the Boston Bombing, or prevented Sandy Hook, then no one bats an eye.

 

Following someone is not a threat, for all Martin knows that guy is lost or an off duty cop. Like I have said before, just because someone appears to be following you, doesn't mean they are. And if you have a cell phone and the ability to get home before the threat is real, why would you stay around to be put into a possible threatening situation. If accounts are correct, and Martin got Zimmerman on the ground and began to ground and pound, he is no longer in a defensive position, he is the aggressor, he already won the fight.

[The Dude]

My problem with people complaining about Zimmerman being out of his vehicle, is what if Martin wasn't just packing skittles and tea? What if after he shot martin they found drugs, stolen goods, illegal guns, or something else illegal. What if Zimmerman caught a kid in the middle of planning on blowing up his school, or the community center? According to Zimmerman, he had stopped following Martin when he got out of his vehicle, and was getting an address for the police to meet him at, and was confronted by Martin and beat up. Which in recent interviews at least most of the jury also believed that Martin threw the first punch, and that Zimmerman was the one who screamed for help. What if this same situation happened and lead to the break of the Boston Bombing, or prevented Sandy Hook, then no one bats an eye.

Are you serious? You can't be serious. Please don't be serious.

[knapplc]

My problem with people complaining about Zimmerman being out of his vehicle, is what if Martin wasn't just packing skittles and tea? What if after he shot martin they found drugs, stolen goods, illegal guns, or something else illegal. What if Zimmerman caught a kid in the middle of planning on blowing up his school, or the community center? According to Zimmerman, he had stopped following Martin when he got out of his vehicle, and was getting an address for the police to meet him at, and was confronted by Martin and beat up. Which in recent interviews at least most of the jury also believed that Martin threw the first punch, and that Zimmerman was the one who screamed for help. What if this same situation happened and lead to the break of the Boston Bombing, or prevented Sandy Hook, then no one bats an eye.

 

Following someone is not a threat, for all Martin knows that guy is lost or an off duty cop. Like I have said before, just because someone appears to be following you, doesn't mean they are. And if you have a cell phone and the ability to get home before the threat is real, why would you stay around to be put into a possible threatening situation. If accounts are correct, and Martin got Zimmerman on the ground and began to ground and pound, he is no longer in a defensive position, he is the aggressor, he already won the fight.

 

Please tell me you're joking.

 

EDIT - comment made before reading The Dude's post. Cheers.

[JJ Husker]

I'm still curious though, if we strictly stick to what we know 100% about this case and avoid conjecture, how can it be said justice was not served? Sure, Zimmerman may have done many things that reduces the likelihood of the same outcome but I don't feel that makes him guilty of anything. It is unfortunate that we do not know more or have more witnesses but, it is what it is.

 

Because nothing would have happened if Zimmerman had gone on about his business. Zimmerman was going to Target, Martin was coming back from 7-11. Zimmerman didn't like the way Martin looked, started following him, and ends up killing Martin 200 feet from Martin's back door. How can it be "just" for Martin to be dead? What was wrong with walking to and from 7-11 for some skittles?

 

You are right in that, if Zimmerman had not followed him, he wouldn't have ended up shooting him. But isn't that exactly the same as saying if I hadn't been driving my car last Thursday, I wouldn't have gotten in that car accident? GZ has just as much right to walk down that street and be suspicious as TM has to be walking there. Where we differ in opinion is that I feel Zimmerman could have been justified in following him if he really thought he was up to no good. See, I put the conjecture aside, I don't assume that GZ necessarily inappropriately "profiled" him or was necessarily the "aggressor". I think that probably he saw something he felt was not right and I think he was probably fairly confident he was safe considering he was carrying but, I do not jump to the conclusion that he had to do anything wrong for TM to end up being shot.

 

How can it be "just" that TM is dead? I hate going into hypotheticals here but, GZ asks him what he's up to and TM becomes aggravated and attacks him. GZ feels the assault is getting out of hand, fears for his life and shoots him. That is just one possibility that I would consider "just".

 

What's wrong with walking to and from the 7-11 for skittles? Nothing. What's your point, that GZ knew this was all that TM was up to? This is my problem with this whole issue. Some people want to scramble for somebody or something to blame just because a person is dead. Sure it's a tragedy but I guess I assume that GZ didn't simply gun him down because he looked suspicious or because he felt he could get away with it. Just because it could have been totally avoided doesn't have to mean GZ did anything wrong. My best guess; GZ followed him, asked him what he was up to, and felt confident doing that because he had a gun (having that gun does not mean he ever intended to need to use it). TM probably took offense to being followed and questioned and initiated a physical action that led to the situation escalating out of control. You want to say that if GZ didn't follow him, this never happens. Well how about, if TM ignores GZ and continues walking home, this never happens?

 

I'm guessing the jury, who knows more about this case than any of us, seems to somewhat align with my thoughts otherwise they probably would have convicted him of something. Could it be more like your version? Yes, but where is the proof of that? Could the jury have gotten it all wrong? Yes, but where is the proof of that? Bad sh#t happens every day. It doesn't always have to mean someone is at fault.

[carlfense]

Both parties are equally at fault for the altercation happening.

no.

 

How are you so sure, were you there?

But for Zimmerman following Martin none of this would have happened.

 

Or are you saying that we don't know that Zimmerman followed Martin?