Trayvon Martin vs. George Zimmerman ....

I imagine in any state you are allowed to do that, if you get convicted it might be a while before you get to do it again though.

 

Once he pulled his gun you would think Trayvon would have backed off. Why would a kid with skittles keep attacking a guy now pointing a gun at him.

 

Was he not convicted because a crime didn't occur, or was he not convicted because of a first offender law? I'm not sure I follow.

I'm sure some of you are emotionally tied to this case because the threat to gun rights going on right now. If I were anti-carry, I would absolutely use this to show why its a bad thing. Zimmerman's 911 call logs shows multiple calls regarding minor things. "Employee wants check and won't leave." "Roommate has people over he doesn't like." "Loud party". Those things don't strike you as someone who likes to take matters into his own hands. If he doesn't have a gun, I believe he never gets out of that car. So I can see why gun right activist would be emotionally tied to this, and defend Zimmerman's actions.

 

Perhaps we can argue about denying people their rights if they are arrested but not convicted and of course, banishing people we deem paranoid to a distant island.
Reporting things like an open garage door is what neighborhood watch people do. (where's Raceway on this? I know there was a deal like this where he lived)


The stand your ground law doesn't seem to even apply here. If Zimmerman had shot Trayvon while he was just walking along, then surely he would have been arrested and if he tried to use the 'stand your ground' law as defense he'd probably be laughed right into jail and if by some chance he was able to successfully use that law to his defense, we'd have to take a real long, hard look at the law.

But if he shot the kid while he was on the ground getting beaten, that has nothing to do with 'stand your ground'. Heck, even here in the Socialist state of IL, you can use deadly force in that situation. (Even if the official statement of the State police is 'using a weapon is not recommended' and you're just supposed to vomit at them)
The question then is, who started the physical contact?

Somebody can follow you and ask what you are doing. You can ignore them. Run away. Call the cops. Call them an azzhat. But you can't start beating on them. They cannot start beating on you either. Nor can they simply shoot you for walking through the neighborhood.

I served on a jury for a case where two oversized egos clashed in a parking garage. One guy mouthed off to the other guy. The offended guy replied by punching that guy in the mouth. The puncher got in a good swing and broke the mouthee's jaw in two places. No matter how much the mouthee might have deserved getting punched.... once the puncher hit him, he became the criminal. And I bet he's still sitting in jail today.
That's how the law is likely to look at this case. Zimmerman may have instigated the whole thing by following some he described as 'acting suspicious'. But if Trayvon attacked Zimmerman in response to being followed.. Zimmerman's shot probably was 'justifiable'.

Of course, the state would be crazy to not indict Zimmerman for something at the upcoming Grand Jury. They'll come up with something. Even if he went free, he'll always be a marked man. It's a bad, bad situation all the way around and it will get worse before it gets better.

 

I'm still not buying it. Lets just assume Zimmerman's story is 100% true. Martin escalated the situation by making the initial contact, and Zimmerman's gun was still concealed. At what point could he get to his gun? Could it have been while his head was getting bashed? If he could get to his concealed gun, could he have had other options before deciding to pull the trigger? Did he warn Martin before pulling the trigger? Maybe he did, we don't know at this point.

There will be a lot of this if it goes to court. The prosecution will try to show it wasn't self defense, and he had racial motives. That it wasn't a last resort to a situation he could have avoided.

Trigger happy gun toters is what scares the uneducated public. This is terrible timing for gun laws proponents.

 

We'll have to wait for grand jury testimony. Which is what everyone should be doing. (instead looting walgreens or putting out bounties...)

But my point to the anti-gunners would be... if he was trigger happy, the kid would have been dead long before Zimmerman got a broken nose, lacerated lip and bloodied back of scalp.

 

I do like the use of the word "lacerated". I believe he also had an eye contusion.

 

I don't think any of us needed a grand jury to know OJ was guilty, I really don't need one here to see Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter.

Zimmerman gets out of his car and confronts Trayvon, Apparently Trayvon loses Zimmerman and then hunts him down and ask why he is following him. Then lays the smack down on Zimmerman, who was getting pummeled by accounts here by some. Only to rise up get his gun out and shoot the kid.

Something is wrong with the above, and we may never know what happen.

 

Periocular contusion or actual eyeball contusion? Hyphema present?

 

There is a lot wrong with the above, mainly it's speculation. Lets say that while Martin was kicking the crap out of Zimmerman he saw Zimmermans gun and went for it(which is what Zimmerman said happened). What then? Is this possible? Are you sure beyond a reasonable doubt it happened the way you stated Germ based on random news stories? See why that's more than just a little wrong. Not saying I believe everything Zimmerman said just pointing out why the authorities and our legal system should handle it, no matter which way it goes.

 

No one knows for sure. We'll have to wait for all the facts.

 

No no no.....Lynch mob is the only way to handle this.

 

OK ... one more post and I HAVE to get finishing the chicken coop :D

The couple of notches thing simply meant that there are a few people on this thread that surprised me with their responses ....

Let me elaborate a little ... Hooker has probably been the most logical "not taking a side" presenter on here. He has delved in to the idiotic approach that Zimmerman took as wrong without going to where I am on the subject ... definitely a more level headed approach

Then there are the guys like you that are standing deadfast on the "wait for the story" to come out and you refuse to even judge any of it ... I can respect that as well

It's the ones that say that he COULD be justified by Florida state blah blah blah ... almost sounding like they want it to be justified ... those are the ones that I have shocked me ...

This thing is a NIGHTMARE for us gun owners ... I will admit that ... and I hate that part of it ... but so much more do I hate that some irresponsible gun owner shot and killed a teenage boy that was unarmed .... a boy is dead because of an irresponsible gun owner .... back in my day if an adult came up to me and asked me what I was doing ... I would have answered him with the truth, or ran to avoid trouble if I was up to no good... nowadays most kids aren't taught that way ... parents have dropped the ball ... if you are going to approach someone that you feel is dangerous after being told by the police that you shouldn't .... well, you might just end up with your azz kicked ... nothing worse than someone trying to defend THEIR rights by defending the actions of an idiot...

 

If you were in a street fight with a guy and he had a gun would you try and get it away from him? Because you feared for your life?

We can twist the story any way we want to fit our own views.

 

I'm sure others are emotionally attached for other reasons. I don't own any pistols anymore thus I don't conceal carry. The confrontation supposedly didn't happen when he got out of the car but when he was trying to get back in it. I'm not trying to defend Zimmermans actions but I'm also not willing to speculate on his guilt or innocence based solely on the fact that the other person involved was of color and speculation that the shooter was "paranoid".

 

George Zimmerman had felony assault on police officer charge in '05 & 2 domestic assaults

George Zimmerman had felony assault on police officer charge in '05 & 2 domestic assaults

Last edited Sat Mar 24, 2012, 09:48 AM USA/ET - Edit history (2)
From the Orange County, FL Circuit Court Clerk of the Court Records page: [link to myclerk.myorangeclerk.com]
Record Count: 4
Search By: Party Exact Name: on Party Search Mode: Name Last Name: Zimmerman First Name: George Case Status: Closed Date Filed On or After: 01/01/2005 Date Filed On or Before: 01/01/2006 Sort By: Filed Date
Case Number Citation Number Style/Defendant Info Filed/Location/Judicial Officer Type/Status Charge(s)
2005-CF-009525-A-O
ZIMMERMAN, GEORGE MICHAEL
10/05/1983

07/18/2005
Div 10
OKane, Julie H

Criminal Felony
Closed

CR-RESISTING OFFICER WITH VIOLENCE
BATTERY ON LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
2005-MM-010436-A-O
ZIMMERMAN, GEORGE MICHAEL
10/05/1983

07/18/2005
Orlando
Miller, W Michael

Misdemeanor
Closed

CR-RESISTING OFFICER WITHOUT VIOLENCE
2005-DR-012980-O

ZUAZO, VERONICA vs. ZIMMERMAN, GEORGE M

08/09/2005
Div 44
44, TBA

Domestic Violence
Closed - SRS

2005-DR-013069-O

ZIMMERMAN, GEORGE M vs. ZUAZO, VERONICA A

08/10/2005
Div 46
White, Keith F

Domestic Violence
Closed - SRS

You can do your own search here
[link to myclerk.myorangeclerk.com]

 

Well that makes more sense now, after the initial confrontation and Zimmerman ended the questioning and turned to walk away, then Trayvon pummeled him.

 

I'm just saying for the reasons I listed, the anti's will have a field day with this one.

 

Depends on if it was pulled or not I guess. I mean you are fighting with a guy and whipping his butt and you notice a gun on his waist or under his jacket you gonna go for it? Now if that guy has enough wherewithall to pull his gun on you while you are kicking his butt then I'd say you have to control the firearm. Either way we are unsure of exactly the way it went down which means we are guessing, assuming, speculating based on what we want to believe. It's not twisting a story it's a possibility. A possibility neither you or I know is true or false. The burden of proof falls on the prosecutors if they charge him, unfortunately as in many legal cases like this one there will be only one side to this story outside of possible witnesses.

 

Yes Tony we know he had legal issues and if you read what you posted it says they were all closed, even the misdemeanor resisting officer with violence. I know it may not seem right but you can't hold crimes people weren't convicted of against them. Hell in our judicial system sometimes you can't even use the ones they were convicted of against them if their attorney is any good. You know this stuff I'm sure.

See how easy this is:

http://www.wagist.com/2012/dan-linehan/was-trayvon-martin-a-drug-dealer

That's one view of him the other is a "young honor roll high school athlete". The point is neither matter, what matters is what happened that night and hopefully the authorities can make more sense of it than we can.