Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

tarheelpride

Kid is shot, killed by neighborhood association captain

1,122 posts in this topic

He had no right to fire the weapon because his life wasn't in danger.

Here is where you may very well be wrong. There is an eye witness account that Martin was on top of Zimmerman and was slamming his head into the sidewalk. Whether you want to admit it or not, if this is true....Zimmerman's safety and life may very well have been in danger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. You don't arrest someone before you have evidence that he is guilty.

Witnesses saying it was Martin on top or Zimmerman and Zimmerman yelling for help. Another witness saying it was Martin who was yelling for help. I am not sure we will ever know what really happened in this situation. Which is a shame.

Evidence that he is guilty? What are you talking about? So are you saying someone else not named Zimmerman is now responsible for the death of Trayvon Martin?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is where you may very well be wrong. There is an eye witness account that Martin was on top of Zimmerman and was slamming his head into the sidewalk. Whether you want to admit it or not, if this is true....Zimmerman's safety and life may very well have been in danger.

Your neocon preemptive-strike/pre-crime logic is the problem here. I dont see how anyone can justify the murder of an individual who has not yet actually committed any crime. This thought-process lacks any sort of logic or humanity whatsoever. The use of deadly force in this trivial situation by Zimmerman was not warranted in the slightest, and should rightfully land him many many years behind bars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

k...lay out the facts venom as you see them. In a timeline.

Or anyone for that matter.

Base it on the only evidence you have and provable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's talk this out. Let's say a person walk into a grocery store in their neighborhood.That person "thinks" he/she sees shoplifting occur and points it out to an employee. Employee tells the person to ignore it, but he/she calls the police and follows the accused. The accused hasn't shoplifted anything, but thinks he/she saw something. That person confronts the accused prior to police response asking/inquiring on what he/she thinks happened. The accused take offense and acts out violently hitting the accusor. Is that person not allowed to defend his/herself from attack? The level of response to the attack isn't in question here...everyone knows what happened, but would the accusor be criminally liable.

Thing is...I readily admit I don't have enough details about any of this. But I do know that what I know now is probably going to lead to an acquittal in criminal court simply based on lack of evidence that the act was malicious and with intent and not simply an act of self defense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your neocon preemptive-strike/pre-crime logic is the problem here. I dont see how anyone can justify the murder of an individual who has not yet actually committed any crime. This thought-process lacks any sort of logic or humanity whatsoever. The use of deadly force in this trivial situation by Zimmerman was not warranted in the slightest, and should rightfully land him many many years behind bars.

What trivial situation.

There is an eye witness account that Martin was on top of Zimmerman and bashing his head into the sidewalk..

I will tell you this....if some guy was bashing my head in and I had a gun, I would shoot them too.

You can say that Zimmerman should not have followed Martin. Yet, it is not a crime for him to do so.

You have no idea what happened once Zimmerman and Martin came face to face. Was Zimmerman the agressor? Was Martin the agressor? You have ZERO clue...and neither do I.

It suits your own biases to believe that this guy hunted down and innocent black kid and killed him in cold blood.....even if the eye witness testimory and evidence does not support that story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Security, whether in a mall, gated community, hospital, etc, does have the authority to follow a suspicious person. Now he should have backed off once the dispatcher told him to...that's no crime either though. I'm not sure if anyone will ever know, other than Zimmerman, who started a confrontation and who the aggressor was. The kid didn't deserve to die but I don't think he knew he was just a kid. If the kid started the fight and was getting the upper hand on him, then I get why he shot him. If Zimmerman started the fight, if there was one, then he had no right to use a gun. A whole lot of "ifs" with no good outcome for anyone involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question to everyone: this has been brought out a little bit, but I want to center some discussion on it.

Did Martin not had the right to defend himself too? What is the line with self-defense and was his apparent attack (emphasis on apparent) necessitated lethal force?

I keep seeing that word thrown around with Zimmerman, but not contributed that much to Martin, who had every right to defend himself as he saw fit as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Problem is for all these folks that love quoting the 2nd amendment, where is the line and when is it crossed for all our gun toting Amuuurrricuns?

If I'm not mistaken, someone earlier in this thread stated that somewhere within the "stand your ground" law it says you cannot provoke violence in order to use deadly force. This is exactly what Zimmerman did.

If that isn't built into these kind of laws, this case should set the precedent for it, b/c otherwise anyone with a gun can quickly get rid of any nuisances without any consequences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites