he initiated nothing he walked in the same foot steps of his assailant, not smart on his part , yet he attacked no one. Yet he defended himself when trying to be killed,
Hes claiming self defense.....how he handled the entire situation holds the facts behind whether or not it was self defense Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 4 Beta
The only facts that matter , was martin justified in attacking zimmerman? Did martin feel justified and did he feel his life or well being was in danger, therefore attacking. I have not seen evidence for that justification. I have seen evidence for zimmerman defending his life. Unlike many here, I'm not willing to condemn a person without all the evidence. Whether or not he should have followed is completely irrelevant. Whether or not zimmerman followed the ccw protocol is irrelevant. sent from my samsung note 2
Not if the shooter innitiated the confrontation and put the attacker in attack mode. We have no evidence of this. From what I understand, zimmerman was walking back to his car when attacked. I do not know if this is indeed fact. sent from my samsung note 2
That's the problem, he WASN'T better prepared for a confrontation that he went looking for. That's why he had to use a gun on an unarmed man.
His decisions and actions are relevant and the evidence at the same time.....him following martin is a direct reason for martin to feel insecure about the situation and go into attack mode...same thing you would feel with someone following you even though you might not go to the level he did (out of control) it would put you on your toes for sure......Zimmerman initiated the conflict when he got out of his car to follow him....martin attacked him because he felt threatened by the fact that someone was following him...is that right to do in martins situation....no....but it could have been avoided....not self defense This is exhausting at this point..even though ive had fun in this discussion i have way to much time invested tonight in this thread:banghead:...all of us can agree to disagree on whether or not it was self defense and what is or even (just for the sake of conversation) what should be considered relevant in determining that....I bid you all a good night gentlemen....good talk Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 4 Beta
I can't say with absolute certainty that George Zimmerman was right or wrong in what he did in this situation and in reality no one else can either. At this point it's in the hands of our judicial system. It does seem to me, however, that given the outcome he was adequately prepared for the situation.
He did commit murder in order to defend himself. That's one of the consequences of being able to defend yourself.
Send 10 unwanted people in my front door meaning me or my family harm, they'll be 10 bodies with 12 gauge sabot holes in them. Send ten strange people walking down my driveway, they'll be ten phone calls to authorities. I mean too much to my family to go increasing the odds that I'll be in a self defense situation. The only time I want to be in a self defense situation is when I have zero choice. I consider self defense a situation where I've played no active role in getting to that point.
I don't think Zimmerman has to "man up" and tell his side. He has already told his side. It's up to the prosecution to prove otherwise. I'm certain Zimmerman has wished a couple thousand times that he had stayed home that evening. I'm puzzled by the number of people who have posted that they would feel obligated in their neighborhood to do the same thing Zimmerman did. Didn't you guys notice that it didn't turn out very well? I don't really think Zimmerman is guilty of anything other than being stupid. By the way, shouldn't he have considered that Martin might be armed also and TRULY dangerous? I could be wrong, but based on everything that has come out so far, Zimmerman decided to follow some guy who looked suspicious strolling through his neighborhood. Zimmerman felt secure since he was packing. Martin felt dissed because he was obviously deemed suspicious by this "cracker" following him. Martin decided to turn around and put a hurt on the "cracker." Zimmerman, feeling seriously threatened while being beat on, got to his gun and shot Martin. Unfortunately, Martin did not survive. Whether or not Zimmerman was justified depends on his perception of the threat. It's a subjective test so it doesn't matter if you would have felt justified or not. Both of them suffered or are suffering because they both violated a rule my husband says his stepfather taught him. "Don't mess with people strange to you."
You don't KNOW that's why he attacked him. The evidence does not show that, atleast not yet. Our justice system must prove beyond reasonable doubt. Opionions and I think this or that does not come into it. It's all speculation at this point on our part. If zimmerman was in fact heading back to his car, then it was in fact an unprovoked attack. sent from my samsung note 2
We should take all the emotion out of it. Did Zimmerman break any laws while confronting Martin? It doesn't matter what each of us would do and why some of the members on this board think Zimmerman provoked the attack. Can a free man walk down the road, trailing a suspicious person whom he expects may be breaking into homes, all the while on the phone with the police? I would say the answer is yes. Heck, I have middle aged women in some of the areas in which I work that stand and stare at people committing drug transactions/prostitution and then take down the tags of those vehicles and pass them on to me. The people committing those crimes routinely see those women doing those things, many times in close proximity. Now, if one of those women called the police dispatch and told them they were going to confront the thugs and give them a piece of their mind, and dispatch told them no they shouldn't confront them, should the woman be allowed to confront those thugs? Your darn right she is allowed to even if it is not a smart move. This is America, and should not be considered some wussified country where people have to call the police for every dang thing. People have a right to patrol their own neighborhoods and confront people to apply peer pressure/threats to call the police. Now if those people whom they verbally confront attack them violently, they have every right to defend themselves by the means that are dictated by the situation. I guess a woman who wears a see through short skirt and a thong, and then gets wasted around some horny college kids deserves to get raped. Heck, according to some logic on here based on the Trayvon Martin situation, she provoked the rape. Well I don't agree with that logic.
Brett, I'm following a truck down the highway, I think he's breaking the law, putting my family in danger. Should I wave him over and verbally confront him? Or call you?
My biggest problem here is does Martin not have the right to walk in his neighborhood( i believe he was living around there) without being followed. I have no idea if he had been going thru yards or not, because that is a game changer as far as I am concerned. Either way I do not feel Zimmerman is guilty of murder, maybe guilty of being over zealous, but not murder.
What if you didn't confront him and he ends up killing someone because you didn't take action when you clearly felt he was putting people in danger. As members of society we have obligations to help others when they are in need. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 2
