Trayvon Martin shooting: Zimmerman says Trayvon decked him, then began hammering him

[NoDak]

Quick question for the board.

Is there any scenario in which Trayvon wouldn't be at fault for what happened that night?

Or to put it another way. What would it take for Zimmerman to be at fault?

If it could be proven Zim started the physical confrontation, I'd say he's guilty. I don't think he did.

Why didn't Martin run home if he was scared? He got away initially, and either waited around or doubled back. Why? If he was as scared as people say he was, why wouldn't he hotfoot it home when he had the chance?

 

[NoDak]

He shouldn't have followed him.

Period.

That's why Zimmerman is at fault.

Following somebody is not against the law.

 

[Iamtdg]

I'm not saying Zimmerman didn't fight for his life, but if he had not followed him, and especially not followed him that closely, this thread wouldn't even exist.

 

[Iamtdg]

Following somebody is not against the law.

Of course it's not, but if I followed you wouldn't you feel a bit threatened?

I'm not taking Zimmerman's side, but damn, he isn't blameless.

 

[NoDak]

I'm not saying Zimmerman didn't fight for his life, but if he had not followed him, and especially not followed him that closely, this thread wouldn't even exist.

Sure. But again, following somebody is not against the law. Somewhere after a perfectly legal act is where it went haywire. Imo, Martin started the physical altercation. Even if he was scared/pissed he was being followed, he didn't have the right to strike out.

 

[NoDak]

Of course it's not, but if I followed you wouldn't you feel a bit threatened?

I'm not taking Zimmerman's side, but damn, he isn't blameless.

Hard telling, unless I was in that situation. But even if I felt threatened, I wouldn't think I had the right to attack you.

As for being blameless, even if he was screaming racial obscenities (in theory, we know he wasn't) Martin still wouldn't have the legal right to lay hands on him. So he followed him. Yep. Still not illegal.

 

[Hoofbite]

If it could be proven Zim started the physical confrontation, I'd say he's guilty. I don't think he did.

Why didn't Martin run home if he was scared? He got away initially, and either waited around or doubled back. Why? If he was as scared as people say he was, why wouldn't he hotfoot it home when he had the chance?

Does he have to be scared? He could have just picked up the pace until he was out of sight, not really expecting someone to chase him.

I don't know why he didn't run home. Just as I don't know why Zimmerman didn't make it back to his truck given the time that had passed.

What happened in the time from when Zimmerman hung up and the fight occurred seems to be pretty cloudy. There seems to be ample time for each to make their way back to their destination; truck and house.

 

[Iamtdg]

Hard telling, unless I was in that situation. But even if I felt threatened, I wouldn't think I had the right to attack you.

As for being blameless, even if he was screaming racial obscenities (in theory, we know he wasn't) Martin still wouldn't have the legal right to lay hands on him. So he followed him. Yep. Still not illegal.

I haven't followed this close enough to know, but didn't Zimmerman get out of his vehicle and approach Martin?

 

[Hoofbite]

Hard telling, unless I was in that situation. But even if I felt threatened, I wouldn't think I had the right to attack you.

As for being blameless, even if he was screaming racial obscenities (in theory, we know he wasn't) Martin still wouldn't have the legal right to lay hands on him. So he followed him. Yep. Still not illegal.

Legality in following someone is a crutch. No rationale person would just follow someone simply because the law allows it. Unless George is some habitual stalker, it kind of begs the question as to why he would exercise such a right in this particular instance which leads back to the entire argument of profiling.

Nobody just follows people for the hell of it and anyone who is being followed likely isn't comfortable with it.

It's a lame reason to give. Also opens the door for people to follow others until that person is provoked enough to retaliate and then you're free to shoot them.

 

[peplaw06]

You honestly think this thing would have received even a fraction of the attention it has if the dead kid was white and the defendant was black? Seriously?

Was what I posted difficult to read?

Where is the public outrage for the white kid set on fire by blacks a short time after this Martin/Zimmerman thing happened? Hell, forget the outrage. Where is the national media coverage?

Any time an adult claims self-defense against a kid after killing him, it's going to draw media attention. I'm not saying every time a person of a minority race kills a white person, the media will latch on. But this is a unique set of facts and circumstances. I highly doubt, however, that the media is all hot and bothered about this cause a black kid got killed and for no other reason.

I'm not really interested in debating this back and forth, cause we're both speculating. Neither of us knows for sure.

And, no. I wouldn't be on opposite sides. The evidence and bias in this case is pretty clear to me. Regardless of color.

Sure thing chief.

 

[peplaw06]

Hard telling, unless I was in that situation. But even if I felt threatened, I wouldn't think I had the right to attack you.

OK, then what would you think when you felt threatened and the person who made you feel that way reached for his pocket?

 

[Hoofbite]

I'm almost positive that social media/networks picked up this story before the mainstream media did.

People act shocked that a mass amount of people online raised some hell and then the traditional media picked up on it.

 

[JBond]

I'm not the one who's dropping stereotypes about George.

Pep, you have made numerous stereotypical comments. There is no reason to lie about it.

Thugs come in every shape and color. Skin pigment matters little to me. You are the self righteous one claiming a person that places his hand in a pocket deserves to die. That was when I realized you lost the ability to consider both sides in a rational manner.

Why do you insist on focusing on race? You sound like the turds the media puts on display that claim anyone that dislikes Obama's policies are racist. You need to rethink your position.

I asked you if the prosecution has proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt. You replied with a bs response. Now you claim there is compelling evidence that supports your theory. Please specify what you are referring to.

PS. I am not trying to make this personal. It is the internet. I would be happy to buy you a beer or cup of coffee if you are ever in KC.

 

[JBond]

OK, then what would you think when you felt threatened and the person who made you feel that way reached for his pocket?

I have asked you several times. I will again. When do you shoot? Should TM, if he had a gun, shoot him then or not?

 

[peplaw06]

Pep, you have made numerous stereotypical comments. There is no reason to lie about it.

Show me one place where I made a comment referring to George in a stereotypical manner because of his race. I'll wait.

Thugs come in every shape and color. Skin pigment matters little to me. You are the self righteous one claiming a person that places his hand in a pocket deserves to die. That was when I realized you lost the ability to consider both sides in a rational manner.

Everyone knows what you mean when you say thug and refer to drug use. You only look silly trying to defend it now.

I didn't once claim Zimmerman "deserved to die."

Your spin job of what my actual posts say tells me all I need to know. One of us has lost the ability to think about this in a rational manner... and it ain't me.

Why do you insist on focusing on race? You sound like the turds the media puts on display that claim anyone that dislikes Obama's policies are racist. You need to rethink your position.

I call em like I see em. I'm only bringing up race because you're clearly focused on the racial side of this case, and your comments evidence that.

I asked you if the prosecution has proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt. You replied with a bs response. Now you claim there is compelling evidence that supports your theory. Please specify what you are referring to.

I don't know what BS response you're referring to... I've told you I haven't heard all of the evidence. If that's a BS response, then I guess the truth is BS.

It's clear to me that George created a dangerous situation and as a result killed another human being. It's up to the jury to decide, but I think he's guilty.... maybe not of murder 2, feels to me more like manslaughter.

 

[peplaw06]

I have asked you several times. I will again. When do you shoot? Should TM, if he had a gun, shoot him then or not?

And I have responded several times. Go find my prior responses if you have forgotten my answer.

 

[Midswat]

Quick question for the board.

Is there any scenario in which Trayvon wouldn't be at fault for what happened that night?

Or to put it another way. What would it take for Zimmerman to be at fault?

If Zimmermann initiated the PHYSICAL confrontation, I'd say he was guilty.

 

[Irving Cowboy]

It doesn't matter if Pep, 2233, Mid, Metalhead, iceberg, myself, or anyone here thinks Zimmerman's life was in danger. The way I understand it, if Zimmerman thought his life was in danger, he was justified. Anyone here who wants to assume what he should have been thinking is just pissing into a fan.

 

[bkeavs]

If Zimmermann initiated the PHYSICAL confrontation, I'd say he was guilty.

Absolutely agree

 

[JBond]

Show me one place where I made a comment referring to George in a stereotypical manner because of his race. I'll wait.

Everyone knows what you mean when you say thug and refer to drug use. You only look silly trying to defend it now.

I didn't once claim Zimmerman "deserved to die."

Your spin job of what my actual posts say tells me all I need to know. One of us has lost the ability to think about this in a rational manner... and it ain't me.

I call em like I see em. I'm only bringing up race because you're clearly focused on the racial side of this case, and your comments evidence that.

I don't know what BS response you're referring to... I've told you I haven't heard all of the evidence. If that's a BS response, then I guess the truth is BS.

It's clear to me that George created a dangerous situation and as a result killed another human being. It's up to the jury to decide, but I think he's guilty.... maybe not of murder 2, feels to me more like manslaughter.

pep.. you are out of your mind on this issue. Your appear to be a racist pig. You are obsessed with skin pigmentation. Why do you hate Jews and Hispanics? Do all backers of TM hate Jews and Hispanics? I have not posted a single comment regarding the color of Trayvon's skin. You are projecting your own racist tendencies onto the rest of the board. I am far more concerned with the ability of people to defend themselves from punks of all colors. The punks/thugs can come in many shapes and colors, as I have stated repeatedly.

Your said Zimmerman should die for reaching into his pocket.

I think the fact that Zimmerman said he reached into his pocket... no matter what he's reaching for... provides Trayvon all the information he needs to use WHATEVER means he needed to defend himself. If that means beating George to death, then that's what it means.

I never said you made a stereotypical comment about GZ regarding race. Your obsession with race is again clouding your ability to converse in a reasonable manner.

You claim you have witnessed compelling evidence of GZ guilt despite that...

I don't know if the state has proven the depraved mind or lack of regard for human life element. I haven't heard all of the evidence

then you say..

Depends on what evidence you find compelling.

What evidence are you referring to? What evidence is there that a drug abusing thief with a violent history is the innocent party?