Unarmed boy shot and killed by neighborhood watch captain...

[road2freedom]

Here is the fact.

 

One fact only.

 

A young man is dead, and he shouldn't be.

 

That is probably the one and only undisputed fact, and it is the most important one.

 

I agree with the first half of your fact. The second half will depend on what transpired between the two of them imo. Had you said that "it was a shame" or "it's unfortunate" or something along those lines, I'd completely agree.

[Tigz]

Here is the fact.

 

One fact only.

 

A young man is dead, and he shouldn't be.

 

That is probably the one and only undisputed fact, and it is the most important one.

 

I agree with the first half of your fact. The second half will depend on what transpired between the two of them imo. Had you said that "it was a shame" or "it's unfortunate" or something along those lines, I'd completely agree.

 

Pretty much I agree. However, I will point out that his only reason for being out there was that he had gone to a convenience store. Given that under normal circumstances, he would have returned home from that store....I base the "he shouldn't be" on that. He was legally doing what millions of other people do on a daily basis (walking to or from a store)

[road2freedom]

Understood, and I would only argue the opposite if it was somehow proven that he (Martin) initiated physical contact and created a life-threatening situation for GZ.

 

What really sucks is that even if Martin did start the physical confrontation, losing your life is an expensive price to pay. It's very unfortunate either way.

[mk_378]

You could also argue had his parent been responsible enough to not have let him walk to the store alone in an unfamiliar place in the dark and in the rain that maybe this would not have happened.

Wow. Here you don't just blame the victim, but you blame his parents. How old were you the first time you were allowed alone outside within walking distance from home at 7:30 in the evening? I know for me it was a lot younger than 17. But then maybe it's different when you're black. Or maybe my parents were just awful parents.

Edited May 16, 2012 by mk_378

[road2freedom]

You could also argue had his parent been responsible enough to not have let him walk to the store alone in an unfamiliar place in the dark and in the rain that maybe this would not have happened.

Wow. Here you don't just blame the victim, but you blame his parents. How old were you the first time you were alone outside within walking distance from home at 7:30 in the evening? I know for me it was a lot younger than 17. But then maybe it's different when you're black.

 

I'm not blaming anyone. Re-read the entire post and not a trimmed excerpt. I'm saying those arguments could be made and lack facts, just like some of the other assumptions you will read here.

[Ladybug]

Exactly. Had he stayed in his car as he should have, none of this would have ever happened. Why do people keep conveniently overlooking that fact?

Because it doesn't fit their narrative and overarching life stances.

[Snork Maiden]

Here is the fact.

 

One fact only.

 

A young man is dead, and he shouldn't be.

 

That is probably the one and only undisputed fact, and it is the most important one.

 

I agree with the first half of your fact. The second half will depend on what transpired between the two of them imo. Had you said that "it was a shame" or "it's unfortunate" or something along those lines, I'd completely agree.

The second half hinges on the fact that had someone just stayed in their car, unthreatened as they were, and as told by the cops, the young man wouldn't be dead. And he shouldn't be. Unfortunate is a highway shooting.

 

Like BB said, it is maddening that everyone forgets that dude could have just stayed in his damn car. Like he was told.

[road2freedom]

Again there are a lot if ifs, and those circumstances belong to a lot of different individuals. However, following him on property where he had a right to be is not criminal. If Martin hit him first and was beating him on the ground I don't give a damn about what non-criminal matters led to up to it, it would make it Martin's own fault he was shot. If that's not what happened I would believe differently. I am open-minded enough to realize we don't know though.

[blackberry74]

[Snork Maiden]

Again there are a lot if ifs, and those circumstances belong to a lot of different individuals. However, following him on property where he had a right to be is not criminal. If Martin hit him first and was beating him on the ground I don't give a damn about what non-criminal matters led to up to it, it would make it Martin's own fault he was shot. If that's not what happened I would believe differently. I am open-minded enough to realize we don't know though.

 

Well, that's just stupid.

[road2freedom]

Again there are a lot if ifs, and those circumstances belong to a lot of different individuals. However, following him on property where he had a right to be is not criminal. If Martin hit him first and was beating him on the ground I don't give a damn about what non-criminal matters led to up to it, it would make it Martin's own fault he was shot. If that's not what happened I would believe differently. I am open-minded enough to realize we don't know though.

 

Well, that's just stupid.

 

You wouldn't think so if you were being assaulted.

[Tigz]

So...........

It is OK to get into a ruckus at your local bar, head out to the parking lot, get into a fight....... and then shoot the guy because he sucker punched you?

[road2freedom]

So...........

It is OK to get into a ruckus at your local bar, head out to the parking lot, get into a fight....... and then shoot the guy because he sucker punched you?

 

Sigh... I'd say its different if judgement was impaired with alcohol. In any case, if your life is in danger, then yes, you have a right to use lethal force for self defense in this state. However any smart CCW holder would know you can't carry into a bar anyway.

[Fallon]

So...........

It is OK to get into a ruckus at your local bar, head out to the parking lot, get into a fight....... and then shoot the guy because he sucker punched you?

That's not even close to what happened here. We're talking about a neighborhood watch in a neighborhood that had been having problems with break-ins/theft. Hyperbole much?

 

Waiting for Godwins Law next. :rofl:

Edited May 17, 2012 by Fallon

[blackberry74]

The hyperbole was Zimmerman getting his fat flowers out of his car to follow that boy. Had he stayed in his car, none of this would have happened. I don't know why y'all don't want to address that fact.

[NeverQuietHere]

Again there are a lot if ifs, and those circumstances belong to a lot of different individuals. However, following him on property where he had a right to be is not criminal. If Martin hit him first and was beating him on the ground I don't give a damn about what non-criminal matters led to up to it, it would make it Martin's own fault he was shot. If that's not what happened I would believe differently. I am open-minded enough to realize we don't know though.

 

Well, that's just stupid.

 

You wouldn't think so if you were being assaulted.

 

No, it IS stupid, being assaulted or not. TM knew some creep was following him and I don't see how anyone could NOT feel threatened by that. Plus, he was smaller than GZ. First Creep was following him in the truck and then on foot. I would be defensive, too. Even if TM threw the first punch, I think he was justified.

Edited May 17, 2012 by NeverQuietHere

[Tigz]

So...........

It is OK to get into a ruckus at your local bar, head out to the parking lot, get into a fight....... and then shoot the guy because he sucker punched you?

That's not even close to what happened here. We're talking about a neighborhood watch in a neighborhood that had been having problems with break-ins/theft. Hyperbole much?

 

Waiting for Godwins Law next. :rofl:

 

Tell me how this law would differentiate between the two cases. Let's take out the alcohol and say it was at a football game. two guys get into a fight. One guy shoots (or stabs) the other because he "feared for his life" (because the other guy was serving him up a proper azz beating.)

[Fallon]

Tell me how this law would differentiate between the two cases. Let's take out the alcohol and say it was at a football game. two guys get into a fight. One guy shoots (or stabs) the other because he "feared for his life" (because the other guy was serving him up a proper azz beating.)

Guy who shoots is the one who threw the first punch?

 

*And Blackberry, you're right, if he'd stayed in his car, this wouldn't have happened. But by the sounds of the tape, he was already out of his car and following him before being told to stop. (Perfectly legal, and does not meet the definition of "stalking" and there's a good chance lots of people would do the same thing, especially on a neighborhood watch). If, as GZ has said, he stopped and TM doubled back around and confronted him, did GZ not have a right to defend himself at that point?

Edited May 17, 2012 by Fallon

[NeverQuietHere]

<snip out my mistake>

Edited May 17, 2012 by Fallon

[blackberry74]

Tell me how this law would differentiate between the two cases. Let's take out the alcohol and say it was at a football game. two guys get into a fight. One guy shoots (or stabs) the other because he "feared for his life" (because the other guy was serving him up a proper azz beating.)

Guy who shoots is the one who threw the first punch?

 

*And Blackberry, you're right, if he'd stayed in his car, this wouldn't have happened. But by the sounds of the tape, he was already out of his car and following him before being told to stop. (Perfectly legal, and does not meet the definition of "stalking" and there's a good chance lots of people would do the same thing, especially on a neighborhood watch). If, as GZ has said, he stopped and TM doubled back around and confronted him, did GZ not have a right to defend himself at that point?

 

That's the point - he should have never gotten out of his car in the first place. It was unforgivably stupid. The "lots of people" who purportedly would do the same thing are equally stupid. As for TM confronting him...if I believed anything out of Zimmerman's mouth, which I don't...some creeper following me in his car and then on foot would cause me all kinds of apprehension. I wouldn't be inclined to hold a conversation with some fool who did that to me. I'd be more inclined to crack him in the dome with whatever I could find. And if anybody is seriously trying to sell me the story that Zimmerman believed his life was in danger from some kid that he outweighed by 50 or more pounds - please. You shouldn't run around inviting confrontations if you can't handle them once they start.

[NeverQuietHere]

Shooter threw the first punch, less likely he'd have a self defense case, baring some other escalation.

 

Non-shooter throws first punch, shooter is more likely to have a valid claim of self defense. I'm assuming in this case, the shooter was running his mouth or something similar before being assaulted?

 

I didn't type this. How are you writing under my name?

[NeverQuietHere]

Tell me how this law would differentiate between the two cases. Let's take out the alcohol and say it was at a football game. two guys get into a fight. One guy shoots (or stabs) the other because he "feared for his life" (because the other guy was serving him up a proper azz beating.)

Guy who shoots is the one who threw the first punch?

 

*And Blackberry, you're right, if he'd stayed in his car, this wouldn't have happened. But by the sounds of the tape, he was already out of his car and following him before being told to stop. (Perfectly legal, and does not meet the definition of "stalking" and there's a good chance lots of people would do the same thing, especially on a neighborhood watch). If, as GZ has said, he stopped and TM doubled back around and confronted him, did GZ not have a right to defend himself at that point?

 

That's the point - he should have never gotten out of his car in the first place. It was unforgivably stupid. The "lots of people" who purportedly would do the same thing are equally stupid. As for TM confronting him...if I believed anything out of Zimmerman's mouth, which I don't...some creeper following me in his car and then on foot would cause me all kinds of apprehension. I wouldn't be inclined to hold a conversation with some fool who did that to me. I'd be more inclined to crack him in the dome with whatever I could find. And if anybody is seriously trying to sell me the story that Zimmerman believed his life was in danger from some kid that he outweighed by 50 or more pounds - please. You shouldn't run around inviting confrontations if you can't handle them once they start.

 

+10000000

 

I have seen it mentioned that if TM hadn't been suspended, he wouldn't have been there, blah blah blah. Yeah, so what? I think if someone had stopped GZ before with his past history of altercations etc with girlfriends, cops, coworkers, guys stealing tvs, etc, then he wouldn't have been there, either. I just read an article about how he is on Adderol and some other ADD or ADHD meds, so I am sure that will be brought up in defense for him. Cuz, you know, 10% of people have mood swings, etc with those meds. (side note: I get that some people really do, but this guy has a history so I don't believe that that is a good defense.)

[Fallon]

Shooter threw the first punch, less likely he'd have a self defense case, baring some other escalation.

 

Non-shooter throws first punch, shooter is more likely to have a valid claim of self defense. I'm assuming in this case, the shooter was running his mouth or something similar before being assaulted?

 

I didn't type this. How are you writing under my name?

Heh. Sorry, wrong button. I wondered why the quote tags were messed up. Dang edit button right next to reply.

 

Here's what I meant to post, under mine:

 

Shooter threw the first punch, less likely he'd have a self defense case, baring some other escalation.

 

Non-shooter throws first punch, shooter is more likely to have a valid claim of self defense. I'm assuming in this case, the shooter was running his mouth or something similar before being assaulted?

Edited May 17, 2012 by Fallon

[road2freedom]

Again there are a lot if ifs, and those circumstances belong to a lot of different individuals. However, following him on property where he had a right to be is not criminal. If Martin hit him first and was beating him on the ground I don't give a damn about what non-criminal matters led to up to it, it would make it Martin's own fault he was shot. If that's not what happened I would believe differently. I am open-minded enough to realize we don't know though.

 

Well, that's just stupid.

 

You wouldn't think so if you were being assaulted.

 

No, it IS stupid, being assaulted or not. TM knew some creep was following him and I don't see how anyone could NOT feel threatened by that. Plus, he was smaller than GZ. First Creep was following him in the truck and then on foot. I would be defensive, too. Even if TM threw the first punch, I think he was justified.

 

Following someone in general is not illegal, assuming you have a legal right to be in that place. To assume that person is a threat, is just that, an assumption, until a real threat is presented. To strike that person first is not defense.... that would be offense, which is assault. I think there are potential arguments justifying TM defending himself, assuming he was not the aggressor. If he was the aggressor though and presented a threat to GZ's life, he made a bad and immature decision to beat on the wrong guy and paid for it with his life.

 

Also, please make sure you are paying attention to the facts and not the stories. TM was not the cute kid in the photographs.. more like 6' tall 150+ lbs athletic. GZ is also not the tub-o-lard from his booking photo from years ago. He had lost some of that weight and is around 5'10". Not that I think size changes the justification, but since you do, don't be mislead.

[mk_378]

You don't have to actually strike someone to be guilty of assault. Any threat of violence is assault, for example pointing a gun at someone even though you don't fire it. Following someone, running, closing the gap, with apparent hostile intent, is assault.

Edited May 17, 2012 by mk_378