Scarlett Posted July 4, 2013 Share Posted July 4, 2013 Has anyone been watching the trial? I don't really think he meant to kill Travon Martin, but he should have never got out of his car. That is the one thing I can't get past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted July 4, 2013 Share Posted July 4, 2013 Has anyone been watching the trial? I don't really think he meant to kill Travon Martin, but he should have never got out of his car. That is the one thing I can't get past. Agree to both, but getting out his car doesn't make him guilty of manslaughter or 2nd degree murder, and also doesn't preclude him from defending himself if Martin did start the physical altercation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppy Posted July 4, 2013 Share Posted July 4, 2013 Why would Martin start the altercation ? Oh right, he was being followed by a hostile and armed adult man. I am pretty sure Zimmerman will get off, because of the insane law that allows deadly force to be used when it has never been legal in the past. Homestly I don't think he meant to kill him either. But he did follow him, with intent to at least scare, with a gun, and killed him. Crazy world we live in that that is apparently legal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slartibartfast Posted July 4, 2013 Share Posted July 4, 2013 I think he belongs in prison. He murdered a kid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pawz4me Posted July 4, 2013 Share Posted July 4, 2013 I haven't been closely following the minute details. My simple take is -- If I was walking along bothering nobody and somebody came out of their house and started following me and then confronted me, I would certainly feel the need to defend myself, and perhaps to go on the offensive. I think Mr. Zimmerman is certainly guilty of something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4kidlets4me Posted July 4, 2013 Share Posted July 4, 2013 I don't care if he meant to kill him or not, he deserves to rot in prison for a long time. No sane man patrols his neighborhood with a gun looking for criminals. Unfortunately with Florida's dumba$$ law I think he will walk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted July 4, 2013 Share Posted July 4, 2013 I think he belongs in prison. He murdered a kid. I agree. I don't think you should be able to chase someone down, start a fight with them, then kill them in "self-defense." That is the trouble with a lack of duty to retreat in the law. But, I think Zimmerman will get off because Florida's gun laws are so lax. My dh's best friend was murdered there and the shooter was never even arrested for it (though he later went to jail for other stuff). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scarlett Posted July 4, 2013 Author Share Posted July 4, 2013 Yes, the kid was clearly uncomfortable with being followed.....and since GZ was already convinced the kid was out to rob someone WHY would he think it a good idea to get out of his car. I do believe he wanted to play the big shot and show the kid he was with the neighbor hood watch.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scarlett Posted July 4, 2013 Author Share Posted July 4, 2013 Agree to both, but getting out his car doesn't make him guilty of manslaughter or 2nd degree murder, and also doesn't preclude him from defending himself if Martin did start the physical altercation. I believe GZ started it.....by following him and getting out of his car. At that point I believe TM feared for HIS safety. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caroline Posted July 4, 2013 Share Posted July 4, 2013 I agree with both Sis and Mrs. Mungo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dirty ethel rackham Posted July 4, 2013 Share Posted July 4, 2013 Yes, the kid was clearly uncomfortable with being followed.....and since GZ was already convinced the kid was out to rob someone WHY would he think it a good idea to get out of his car. I do believe he wanted to play the big shot and show the kid he was with the neighbor hood watch.... I believe GZ started it.....by following him and getting out of his car. At that point I believe TM feared for HIS safety. Especially when he was told by police dispatch to stop following him. If I were being followed like TM was, you bet your sweet bippy I would be afraid for my life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scarlett Posted July 4, 2013 Author Share Posted July 4, 2013 I just listened to the whole 4 min of GZs call to the police. He was in his car....and when TM ran he got out and chased him. No wonder TM felt threatened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted July 4, 2013 Share Posted July 4, 2013 I agree. I don't think you should be able to chase someone down, start a fight with them, then kill them in "self-defense." That is the trouble with a lack of duty to retreat in the law. But, I think Zimmerman will get off because Florida's gun laws are so lax. My dh's best friend was murdered there and the shooter was never even arrested for it (though he later went to jail for other stuff). To your first point, GZ claims that is not what happened here, and the state has been unable to provide (so far) conclusive proof that he started the physical altercation. You are also way off base regarding Florida law, as the "gun" laws have no bearing in this case and the defense has not claimed SYG as a legal defense. When we discussed this last spring, I stated at the time that based on his version of events GZ would have a valid claim of self defense under Florida law (the applicable statute in this case is very similar to the majority of US states btw). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted July 4, 2013 Share Posted July 4, 2013 Especially when he was told by police dispatch to stop following him. If I were being followed like TM was, you bet your sweet bippy I would be afraid for my life. He was actually told "We don't need you to do that." Zimmerman replied "Okay" and you will note he stated he had lost sight of Martin at that time. The belief that he "chased" him has not been proven so far. Based on the timelines it is very probably Martin did turn around to go back and confront Zimmerman. Why? We will never know, although it wouldn't surprise me if there was more to the phone conversation he was having with the young lady than we have been told (pure speculation). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted July 4, 2013 Share Posted July 4, 2013 I believe GZ started it.....by following him and getting out of his car. At that point I believe TM feared for HIS safety. The thing is Martin was far enough ahead that he should have easily covered the distance to his father's house. For some reason he didn't, and to me the reason he didn't remains one of the unanswered questions. Even if GZ did follow Martin, he was at that time engaging in a legal activity and Martin would not have a good claim to self defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppy Posted July 4, 2013 Share Posted July 4, 2013 Re: a fair trial. And he is getting one, which no one objects to, so what is the problem ? I do not understand the claim that TM started the altercation - he was a teenager being pursued by an angry, much bigger, much older man. If he threw the first blow - that is illegal - but understandable. And not worthy of a death sentence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scarlett Posted July 4, 2013 Author Share Posted July 4, 2013 He was actually told "We don't need you to do that." Zimmerman replied "Okay" and you will note he stated he had lost sight of Martin at that time. The belief that he "chased" him has not been proven so far. Based on the timelines it is very probably Martin did turn around to go back and confront Zimmerman. Why? We will never know, although it wouldn't surprise me if there was more to the phone conversation he was having with the young lady than we have been told (pure speculation). I just listened to the tape. You can hear him get out of the car and he is obviously walking and he is commenting that these 'bleeps always get away'. TM did turn around and confront GZ....,I don't see that as evidence that TM started it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted July 4, 2013 Share Posted July 4, 2013 Re: a fair trial. And he is getting one, which no one objects to, so what is the problem ? I do not understand the claim that TM started the altercation - he was a teenager being pursued by an angry, much bigger, much older man. If he threw the first blow - that is illegal - but understandable. And not worthy of a death sentence. I don't even find it that understandable. Assuming it is for a moment, let's follow the story a bit farther. Would getting on top of GZ and continuing the assault still be "understandable"? At that point would it not be reasonable for GZ to think this has become a serious confrontation that could end with serious bodily injury/death? Also, the size difference between the two was minimal (Martin may have been taller) and Martin would have no way to know Zimmerman was "angry" (if he was). If Zimmerman had stayed in his vehicle, the confrontation would not have occurred. However, leaving his vehicle was a legal act, as was moving farther up the street/walkway/whatever it is. Martin's assault on GZ (if it did occur) was not a legal act. Why is GZ being held to a higher standard of culpability? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted July 4, 2013 Share Posted July 4, 2013 I just listened to the tape. You can hear him get out of the car and he is obviously walking and he is commenting that these 'bleeps always get away'. TM did turn around and confront GZ....,I don't see that as evidence that TM started it. The point is we don't really know who started it and never will, but the evidence suggests Martin was on top of GZ when the shot was fired. Martin also did not have physical injuries indicating he had been struck by GZ, which makes GZ's story that Martin struck the first blow and knocked him down more plausible. The issue is that the state has little evidence to disprove GZ's story, which is believable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flowing Brook Posted July 4, 2013 Share Posted July 4, 2013 All I can say about this case is I am glad I am not the one having to make the decision. I am glad I am not on the jury. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scarlett Posted July 4, 2013 Author Share Posted July 4, 2013 The thing is Martin was far enough ahead that he should have easily covered the distance to his father's house. For some reason he didn't, and to me the reason he didn't remains one of the unanswered questions. Even if GZ did follow Martin, he was at that time engaging in a legal activity and Martin would not have a good claim to self defense. My guess is that TM didn't want this man following him and knowing where he lived. And how did TM KNOW GZ was engaging in a legal activity. It was still creepy even if it was legal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppy Posted July 4, 2013 Share Posted July 4, 2013 The thing is Martin was far enough ahead that he should have easily covered the distance to his father's house. For some reason he didn't, and to me the reason he didn't remains one of the unanswered questions. Even if GZ did follow Martin, he was at that time engaging in a legal activity and Martin would not have a good claim to self defense. Doesn't the Stand Your Ground rule allow use of deadly force if you feel threatened? Believe yourself to be physical danger. Which he clearly did based on that phone call. So he could have used any means, including deadly force, against Zimmerman. The fact that he COULD have run home is irrelevant , he didn't have to, that is the whole point of 'stand your ground' (hence the name). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted July 4, 2013 Share Posted July 4, 2013 Doesn't the Stand Your Ground rule allow use of deadly force if you feel threatened? Believe yourself to be physical danger. Which he clearly did based on that phone call. So he could have used any means, including deadly force, against Zimmerman. The fact that he COULD have run home is irrelevant , he didn't have to, that is the whole point of 'stand your ground' (hence the name). SYG is not the applicable law for this case. You also have to have a reasonable belief that you are being threatened, and under SYG you must show why that belief was reasonable (which is actually slightly different than the self defense claim Zimmerman is making). Claiming SYG against a person acting in a legal manner will generally be a non-starter. Even IF Martin was making what he believed to be a move for self defense, that still doesn't remove GZ's right to self defense. If Martin was straddling GZ and striking him, GZ has a valid self defense claim, and one that is legally more sound than one that could be made for Martin that he was "threatened" by someone who was no longer in sight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted July 4, 2013 Share Posted July 4, 2013 My guess is that TM didn't want this man following him and knowing where he lived. And how did TM KNOW GZ was engaging in a legal activity. It was still creepy even if it was legal. He certainly knew. It may have been suspicious to him, but he had seen nothing illegal from GZ at this point. Also, Martin was out of sight of GZ and roughly a 45 second walk to his house. Turning back to confront GZ at that point seems quite strange. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NASDAQ Posted July 4, 2013 Share Posted July 4, 2013 Stand your ground doesn't apply here. He's using garden-variety self defense. Stand your ground averts the trial at all. The prosecution is required to prove behind a reasonable doubt that at the moment he fired, he did not have a reasonable fear for his life or body. Further, they have to prove that he had the intent to kill Martin. I don't see how they do that. Following people in the dark no matter what a dispatcher told you to do remains perfectly legal. If concealed carry were illegal in fl it still wouldn't make him guilty of murder. He'd have committed a firearms violation. This cAse should not have been brought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scarlett Posted July 4, 2013 Author Share Posted July 4, 2013 SYG is not the applicable law for this case. You also have to have a reasonable belief that you are being threatened, and under SYG you must show why that belief was reasonable (which is actually slightly different than the self defense claim Zimmerman is making). Claiming SYG against a person acting in a legal manner will generally be a non-starter. Even IF Martin was making what he believed to be a move for self defense, that still doesn't remove GZ's right to self defense. If Martin was straddling GZ and striking him, GZ has a valid self defense claim, and one that is legally more sound than one that could be made for Martin that he was "threatened" by someone who was no longer in sight. I can very much see the legal reasoning here. Still seems there should be some price that GZ pays for killing a boy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TravelingChris Posted July 4, 2013 Share Posted July 4, 2013 GZ was smaller than TM. Those pictures that have been shown on tv were of a 12 year old TM, but he was now 17. I hope justice is done here and not that the jury gets emotional. I don;t see how anyone could convict GZ beyond a reasonable doubt considering one prosecution witness stated GZ was having his head pounded into the cement by TM. You are allowed to defend yourself from having your head smashed into the sidewalk. GZ's injuries show that he was attacked and TM did not have such injuries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppy Posted July 4, 2013 Share Posted July 4, 2013 SYG is not the applicable law for this case. You also have to have a reasonable belief that you are being threatened, and under SYG you must show why that belief was reasonable (which is actually slightly different than the self defense claim Zimmerman is making). Claiming SYG against a person acting in a legal manner will generally be a non-starter. Even IF Martin was making what he believed to be a move for self defense, that still doesn't remove GZ's right to self defense. If Martin was straddling GZ and striking him, GZ has a valid self defense claim, and one that is legally more sound than one that could be made for Martin that he was "threatened" by someone who was no longer in sight. I'm wondering why you think Martin attacked Zimmerman if he did not feel like he was threatened? It seems like Martin should have been carrying a weapon, then he could have killed Zimmerman. Merely pinching him opened himself up to be shot with impunity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted July 4, 2013 Share Posted July 4, 2013 SYG is not the applicable law for this case. You also have to have a reasonable belief that you are being threatened, and under SYG you must show why that belief was reasonable That is not how the law is applied in Florida in my experience, but I am not going to go into details of the case I am intimately aware of. The friend on phone says GZ *was* following Trayvon and implies that GZ was the initial attacker. >> he said why are you following me for? and then I heard a man saying what are you doing around here? >> I heard Trayvon say get off, get off. We were asked what we thought of the case. I think George Zimmerman is morally culpable for Trayvon's death, *and* I don't think he will be convicted. That is what I think. I also think Florida's laws allow people to get away with murder. Which law is being applied is this way or that or the intricacies of the legal system don't really play into those opinions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NASDAQ Posted July 4, 2013 Share Posted July 4, 2013 I'm wondering why you think Martin attacked Zimmerman if he did not feel like he was threatened? Because he didn't want to be followed? Because he thought Zimmerman was going to hit on him? Because he really was up to no good? Because he felt disrespected? Because Zimmerman called him a name and Martin didn't like it? Who knows? He's not on trial so it doesn't matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted July 4, 2013 Share Posted July 4, 2013 Here is an interesting CNN article on the larger issue: http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/29/us/stand-your-ground?c=&page=3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scarlett Posted July 4, 2013 Author Share Posted July 4, 2013 That is not how the law is applied in Florida in my experience, but I am not going to go into details of the case I am intimately aware of. The friend on phone says GZ *was* following Trayvon and implies that GZ was the initial attacker. >> he said why are you following me for? and then I heard a man saying what are you doing around here? >> I heard Trayvon say get off, get off. We were asked what we thought of the case. I think George Zimmerman is morally culpable for Trayvon's death, *and* I don't think he will be convicted. That is what I think. I also think Florida's laws allow people to get away with murder. Which law is being applied is this way or that or the intricacies of the legal system don't really play into those opinions. Well said. Also in later police interviews GZ claims he got out of the car so he could see the street sign and tell the police where to come to. I believe, based upon the tape of his call to non emergency police, that is a lie. He got out to follow TM because he didn't want him to get away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravin Posted July 4, 2013 Share Posted July 4, 2013 The initial attacker in an altercation cannot claim self-defense for retaliating against the defender. Who started it is as crucial to the self defense claim as whether he reasonably believed he was in mortal danger when he used lethal force. Also, unless Florida law has turned it backwards, self-defense is an affirmative defense, which means the burden of proof is on the defense, not on the prosecutor. The prosecutor can prove Zimmerman killed Martin beyond reasonable doubt. They have his confession. It's up to Zimmerman's attorney to prove it was self defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted July 4, 2013 Share Posted July 4, 2013 My guess is that TM didn't want this man following him and knowing where he lived. I do agree with this. The little brother was home alone while Trayvon went to the store. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted July 4, 2013 Share Posted July 4, 2013 The initial attacker in an altercation cannot claim self-defense for retaliating against the defender. This is true in other states. My understanding is that this is not true in Florida. You can turn on a self-defense claim if you believe your life is in danger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted July 4, 2013 Share Posted July 4, 2013 The initial attacker in an altercation cannot claim self-defense for retaliating against the defender. Who started it is as crucial to the self defense claim as whether he reasonably believed he was in mortal danger when he used lethal force. Also, unless Florida law has turned it backwards, self-defense is an affirmative defense, which means the burden of proof is on the defense, not on the prosecutor. The prosecutor can prove Zimmerman killed Martin beyond reasonable doubt. They have his confession. It's up to Zimmerman's attorney to prove it was self defense. Self defense is not an affirmative defense in most states (Ohio being an exception). The defense must present a prima facie case that self defense applies, which then shifts the burden to the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that self defense does not apply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted July 4, 2013 Share Posted July 4, 2013 This is true in other states. My understanding is that this is not true in Florida. You can turn on a self-defense claim if you believe your life is in danger. That actually is the case in most states. Florida's self defense statutes are very similar to most other states. The SYG statutes are different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted July 4, 2013 Share Posted July 4, 2013 That is not how the law is applied in Florida in my experience, but I am not going to go into details of the case I am intimately aware of. The friend on phone says GZ *was* following Trayvon and implies that GZ was the initial attacker. >> he said why are you following me for? and then I heard a man saying what are you doing around here? >> I heard Trayvon say get off, get off. We were asked what we thought of the case. I think George Zimmerman is morally culpable for Trayvon's death, *and* I don't think he will be convicted. That is what I think. I also think Florida's laws allow people to get away with murder. Which law is being applied is this way or that or the intricacies of the legal system don't really play into those opinions. If Martin threw the first punch, I see his culpability being significantly greater than GZ's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted July 4, 2013 Share Posted July 4, 2013 I'm wondering why you think Martin attacked Zimmerman if he did not feel like he was threatened? It just seems strange to me that he was so threatened that he turned around go go back and punch him. It seems like Martin should have been carrying a weapon, then he could have killed Zimmerman. Merely pinching him opened himself up to be shot with impunity. Well he allegedly did more than just punch him. You seem to ignore that portion of the story for some reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted July 4, 2013 Share Posted July 4, 2013 If Martin threw the first punch, I see his culpability being significantly greater than GZ's. I don't think Martin threw the first punch based on all of the phone calls, GZ's attitude, the fact that he was following him, etc. I think GZ likely pushed him when he asked what he was doing around there. The "get off, get off" from Martin (according to the friend) indicates that Zimmerman may have started out on top. Because you are right, it doesn't make sense for Martin to turn around and go punch Zimmerman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted July 4, 2013 Share Posted July 4, 2013 I don't think Martin threw the first punch based on all of the phone calls, GZ's attitude, the fact that he was following him, etc. I think GZ likely pushed him when he asked what he was doing around there. The "get off, get off" from Martin (according to the friend) indicates that Zimmerman may have started out on top. Because you are right, it doesn't make sense for Martin to turn around and go punch Zimmerman. I don't find the testimony on the "get off" statement particularly compelling, as the witness did not include those words in her original statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppy Posted July 4, 2013 Share Posted July 4, 2013 If Martin threw the first punch, I see his culpability being significantly greater than GZ's. There is no evidence that he did. At all. All we know is that he got some hits in. If he did assault Zimmerman, I am baffled by the idea that he is to blame for his own death. If I were in his shoes - out running an errand when I noticed a 'creepy' guy following me - I don't know what I'd do. Call the police, run, try to get him to back off? But I do know if he ended up SHOOTING me, it would not be my fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TravelingChris Posted July 4, 2013 Share Posted July 4, 2013 If you are pounding the guy's head into the ground like a prosecution witness said he saw TM doing to GZ and GZ has head wounds that colloborate it, it would be reasonable to call it self defense. If you did that, you could be shot too. If I was being followed by some creepy guy, I would be calling the police and trying to get away- not getting into a physical confrontation with the guy, As to the friend of TM, she has basically been discredited as a reliable witness and even if she was not, an eyewitness is worth more than an hearing witness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted July 4, 2013 Share Posted July 4, 2013 There is no evidence that he did. At all. All we know is that he got some hits in. If he did assault Zimmerman, I am baffled by the idea that he is to blame for his own death. If I were in his shoes - out running an errand when I noticed a 'creepy' guy following me - I don't know what I'd do. Call the police, run, try to get him to back off? But I do know if he ended up SHOOTING me, it would not be my fault. If you knocked the person to the ground and starting beating them in the head, then yes, they would be justified in shooting you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlmiraGulch Posted July 4, 2013 Share Posted July 4, 2013 There is no evidence that he did. At all. All we know is that he got some hits in. If he did assault Zimmerman, I am baffled by the idea that he is to blame for his own death. If I were in his shoes - out running an errand when I noticed a 'creepy' guy following me - I don't know what I'd do. Call the police, run, try to get him to back off? But I do know if he ended up SHOOTING me, it would not be my fault. I disagree with you simply because of the position the two were in when the shot was fired. Injuries documented, as well as eyewitness reports, clearly show that TM was on top of GZ and repeatedly slamming his head into the concrete at the time TM was shot. If I had a firearm, and I were in GZ's position, I would likely do the same thing. I do not believe GZ should be convicted of murder, and I don't believe he ever intended to kill anyone. I also believe he had a right to monitor activity in his own neighborhood. BUT.....I believe he had no business getting out of his vehicle (even though it was not illegal to do so). I believe he instigated the confrontation by doing so, even if he was not threatening anyone (there is no indication that he did) but instead was merely questioning him. GZ wanted to stop some thugs and thought he'd found one. That doesn't mean that he made the first physical contact, or that he was not the one attacked. I seem to be contradicting myself, I realize, because I can see both sides of this. I do believe the if GZ had stayed in his vehicle like the dispatcher told him to then TM would still be alive. Still, I don't believe he committed a crime. Poor judgement is not a crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted July 5, 2013 Share Posted July 5, 2013 There are two different conversations going on here. One conversation is about the legal technicalities. The other is about the moral culpability. I don't believe GZ had any business randomly stalking and calling the police on innocent people walking in the neighborhood. Trayvon Martin gave ZERO indication of being a thug or perpetrating any illegal activity. Zimmerman had NO reason to call police, NO reason to follow Trayvon Martin, NO reason to stalk a teenager through the rain, NO reason to confront or question anyone minding their own business. Zimmerman's actions caused the situation. IMO, he is 100% morally responsible for the situation and Trayvon Martin's death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted July 5, 2013 Share Posted July 5, 2013 Nope, I cannot agree he is 100% responsible. I also have no issue with the neighborhood watch taking notice/reporting someone they don't recognize at night, in dark clothing, in a neighborhood with a lot of break ins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppy Posted July 5, 2013 Share Posted July 5, 2013 If you knocked the person to the ground and starting beating them in the head, then yes, they would be justified in shooting you. Good lord, really ?? I once saw two 11 ish year old boys in a fistfight. One was on top of the other. If the one on bottom had shot him would that be justifiable too? I hate Gun culture. I understand that Zimmerman might be legally not guilty. There is no question to me that he caused that boy's death, by his actions BEFORE the shooting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppy Posted July 5, 2013 Share Posted July 5, 2013 Nope, I cannot agree he is 100% responsible. I also have no issue with the neighborhood watch taking notice/reporting someone they don't recognize at night, in dark clothing, in a neighborhood with a lot of break ins. No one had any issue with that part, do they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted July 5, 2013 Share Posted July 5, 2013 Good lord, really ?? I once saw two 11 ish year old boys in a fistfight. One was on top of the other. If the one on bottom had shot him would that be justifiable too? I hate Gun culture. I understand that Zimmerman might be legally not guilty. There is no question to me that he caused that boy's death, by his actions BEFORE the shooting. Yes, really. I find it difficult to believe that you honestly don't believe someone who is pinned down and being punched in the head by a stranger would be in fear for their life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts