Trayvon Martin and "Stand Your Ground" in FL

[carlfense]

. . . 0-18 inches away at an upward angle . . .

I disagree that we know the angle of the shot. We know the path of the wound channel.

[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?

 

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.

 

Zimmerman had no reason to interact with Martin. That's where it all stops. Everything after that is instigated by George Zimmerman, not Trayvon Martin. The instant Zimmerman took a disliking to how Martin looked and took it into his own hands - off duty - to follow him, every single thing that happened afterwards is Zimmerman's responsibility.

 

 

If Zimmerman doesn't make that choice to follow Martin:

 

Does Zimmerman get beaten up by Martin?

Does Martin call him a "crazy-ass cracker?"

Do they interact at all?

Does Martin end up shot?

 

The answer to every question is "no." Or, if you want to quibble, the odds of any of them happening are reduced by exponential degrees.

 

That's why Zimmerman should suffer consequences. Morally, not legally - I understand the law in Florida.

 

And let's stop with this "jury knew more than us" stuff. The trial was aired live. We know everything the jury knows.

[Haspula]

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

the last picture is fake. and whats so bad about flipping off a camera? pretty much anyone can do that

 

 

[carlfense]

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

 

 

 

Rule #1 when complaining about inaccuracy in the media should be that you shouldn't use a fake picture.

 

Would that make you the pot or the kettle?

[Landlord]

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?

 

 

The difference being, and it is a key difference, that if TM ignores GZ, it's a reaction to GZ's actions, and not an action in and of itself. Cause still originates with GZ even in that scenario.

[Mavric]

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?

And if Martin wouldn't have been walking through that neighborhood, none of it would have happened.

[carlfense]

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.

+1.

 

To all of it. Particularly the last line.

[Junior]

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?

And if Martin wouldn't have been walking through that neighborhood, none of it would have happened.

 

Walking home through his own neighborhood? Are you being serious?

[sd'sker]

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.

are you talking about zimmerman or martin here? seems like zimmerman thought someone was 'suspicious'. usually i avoid suspicious people, especially if they had been properly reported to the authorities.

[Mavric]

Walking home through his own neighborhood? Are you being serious?

Interesting how people keep saying it was "his neighborhood" or he was "going home" when this is false but that's another point.

 

As long as we're throwing out random things that could have prevented this, that can be on the list.

[Junior]

Walking home through his own neighborhood? Are you being serious?

Interesting how people keep saying it was "his neighborhood" or he was "going home" when this is false but that's another point.

 

 

Explain, with supporting links, please.

[Mavric]

Walking home through his own neighborhood? Are you being serious?

Interesting how people keep saying it was "his neighborhood" or he was "going home" when this is false but that's another point.

Explain, with supporting links, please.

I'm more and more convinced with each of your posts that you haven't researched anything about this case on your own bur are just going by what you've heard.

[Mavric]

Here you go:

 

Martin's father, Tracy, had taken his son with him to Sanford, about four hours away from the boy's home and where the father's fiance lived, after the teen was suspended for 10 days from Michael M. Krop High School in Miami.

 

According to records obtained by the Miami Herald, Martin had been suspended from school three times: once for writing graffiti on a door, another time for school truancy and the last time due to drug residue being found in his backpack.

 

Full Article

[Junior]

I'm more and more convinced with each of your posts that you haven't researched anything about this case on your own bur are just going by what you've heard.

 

All you have to do is provide the evidence that supports your claim.

[knapplc]

I'm more and more convinced with each of your posts that you haven't researched anything about this case on your own bur are just going by what you've heard.

 

Simply support your statement. If you know more than those of us saying "home," then by all means support that.

 

I'm pretty darned sure you can't. Martin was at that house watching the ball game. That place was his base in that neighborhood, where he belonged. Was it his home, as I define my home? No. Trayvon Martin lived in different family circumstances than I. But that doesn't mean he didn't belong there, that doesn't mean that's not where he should have been going.

 

So if that wasn't his "home" by whatever standard of definition you want to use, where should he have been going?