Trayvon Martin

[Balta1701]

By all accounts, it sounds as if the prosecution is putting on a pretty terrible case.

They had a terrible case to begin with.

[Jenksismyhero]

The only time they physically approached each other was during the seconds of the confrontation. Prior to that Zimmerman was in his vehicle. Unless he was waving the gun out of the window, the first time Martin could have seen that he was armed was during the confrontation, and by all accounts there were only a few seconds in there. There was never time to say "oh s*** this guy has a gun and is chasing me", by the time the gun could have been seen they were already right next to each other. He may well have seen that the guy was armed or realized during the confrontation, but only 2 people knew that...one who won't tell you and one who is dead.

 

OK great, so he couldn't have simply attacked Zimmerman with his own gun prior to the confrontation as you originally claimed because he was not under fear of imminent death. I agree.

 

And if you choose to pick a fight with someone you should be prepared for the worst. I'm glad that we get more and more examples of people having guns. Maybe people will stop f***ing with each other if they know there's a serious consequence waiting for them.

[Soxbadger]

Is there evidence that Martin was aware of the gun?

 

Martin is dead, dead men tell no tales.

 

Thats why Zimmerman will maybe go free, because if you kill the only witness, no one can discredit your story.

[zenryan]

The only witness to that is dead.

 

 

 

Well then we can think that Martin had every intention on smashing Zimmerman's skull into the ground in attempt to kill him. Since he's not here to dispute that then who is to say it wasnt the case?

 

 

It can go both ways.

[Balta1701]

Well then we can think that Martin had every intention on smashing Zimmerman's skull into the ground in attempt to kill him. Since he's not here to dispute that then who is to say it wasnt the case?

 

 

It can go both ways.

If I realized I was in a fight with a guy who did have a gun, bashing his skull into the ground until he's at least unconscious seems like a reasonable move to me.

[MexSoxFan#1]

Its gonna get really ugly if Zimmerman walks scot free, especially considering the jury racial make up.

[Jenksismyhero]

If you think this statement is fair game...then show me some evidence that it wasn't?

 

It would be your burden counselor. Otherwise we can make s*** up all day.

[Soxbadger]

And if you choose to pick a fight with someone you should be prepared for the worst. I'm glad that we get more and more examples of people having guns. Maybe people will stop f***ing with each other if they know there's a serious consequence waiting for them.

 

But the guy with the gun picked the fight.

 

Martin was running away, Zimmerman chased him. You keep conveniently forgetting that Martin tried to run away to start and Zimmerman escalated a simple situation by chasing.

 

Had he just done nothing, no one gets hurt, no one goes to jail, no taxpayer money is wasted.

 

There is literally no situation where what Zimmerman did, ends in a fairy tale. Its not like he saw Martin even breaking into a house or car, he literally was walking down the street.

 

In no world does that give a normal citizen the right to follow with a gun. The second Zimmerman decided he was going to be a vigilante, is the second that someone was likely going to get seriously injured. And that decision occurred days/weeks/months before Martin stepped out of his house.

 

Its time to be serious and live in a serious world. You are lying if you really want random people running around your neighborhood chasing teenagers with guns. Flat out lying, because you wouldnt accept it for a second.

[Balta1701]

It would be your burden counselor. Otherwise we can make s*** up all day.

Hence why the only reasonable option is to keep nuts like Zimmerman and you from walking around the streets with guns.

[StrangeSox]

Then I must be a racist every M-F by your definition.

 

For my job, there are times I visit accounts in areas that arent the greatest. There is one particular store where I get hit up for spare change quite often. They all have the same story, just got out of jail, dropped off at the bus stop across the street and doesnt have any money. They also all look the same even though I've been hit up by white,black and hispanic people. They are usually wearing jorts or worn down pants, a t-shirt, for the most part tatted up and usually appears to be wandering around the parking lot with no certain direction. So when I'm headed back to my car and see a guy atleast looking respectable and neat then I have no worries. But when I see someone as I described between my car and looking around then I get my excuses ready. And I'd say the overwhelming majority I'm correct on my assumptions.

 

 

It's easy to just call it racist. I think its more along the lines of profiling.

You're adding in a bunch of context that isn't present in this case or in my statement. You are judging them by their shoddy clothing, their tattoos, their aimless wandering, asking you for change. You're not judging them solely because they're black and some crimes are committed by black people. Profiling based on demeanor or actions isn't the same thing as profiling based on skin color.

 

If you read the summaries of the crimes reported in that neighborhood, you'll find that there were 8 burglaries reported in 14 months. In four, there were no suspects. In three, the suspects were black males. In one of those cases, it turned out to be a neighbor and his friend. In another case, it was three black kids and a white kid. It wasn't one person or one group going around committing these crimes. It wasn't solely black people. In 50% of the cases, the perpetrator is unknown. In 25% of the cases, the suspects were different people and were caught. That's the background against which George Zimmerman decided any black kid in his neighborhood that he didn't know was probably a criminal and called the police on them. Martin wasn't the first.

[MexSoxFan#1]

But the guy with the gun picked the fight.

 

Martin was running away, Zimmerman chased him. You keep conveniently forgetting that Martin tried to run away to start and Zimmerman escalated a simple situation by chasing.

 

Had he just done nothing, no one gets hurt, no one goes to jail, no taxpayer money is wasted.

 

There is literally no situation where what Zimmerman did, ends in a fairy tale. Its not like he saw Martin even breaking into a house or car, he literally was walking down the street.

 

In no world does that give a normal citizen the right to follow with a gun. The second Zimmerman decided he was going to be a vigilante, is the second that someone was likely going to get seriously injured. And that decision occurred days/weeks/months before Martin stepped out of his house.

 

Its time to be serious and live in a serious world. You are lying if you really want random people running around your neighborhood chasing teenagers with guns. Flat out lying, because you wouldnt accept it for a second.

Only in Jenks neighborhood

[Soxbadger]

It would be your burden counselor. Otherwise we can make s*** up all day.

 

Why is it my burden?

 

There is no evidence to suggest Zimmerman didnt kill Martin. So doesnt that mean its Zimmermans burden to prove that his actions were self defense and reasonable under the circumstances?

 

(Discounting SYG) Isnt the burden on the party claiming an affirmative defense?

[StrangeSox]

But the guy with the gun picked the fight.

 

Martin was running away, Zimmerman chased him. You keep conveniently forgetting that Martin tried to run away to start and Zimmerman escalated a simple situation by chasing.

 

This cannot be pointed out enough.

[Jenksismyhero]

But the guy with the gun picked the fight.

 

Martin was running away, Zimmerman chased him. You keep conveniently forgetting that Martin tried to run away to start and Zimmerman escalated a simple situation by chasing.

Had he just done nothing, no one gets hurt, no one goes to jail, no taxpayer money is wasted.

 

There is literally no situation where what Zimmerman did, ends in a fairy tale. Its not like he saw Martin even breaking into a house or car, he literally was walking down the street.

 

In no world does that give a normal citizen the right to follow with a gun. The second Zimmerman decided he was going to be a vigilante, is the second that someone was likely going to get seriously injured. And that decision occurred days/weeks/months before Martin stepped out of his house.

 

Its time to be serious and live in a serious world. You are lying if you really want random people running around your neighborhood chasing teenagers with guns. Flat out lying, because you wouldnt accept it for a second.

 

He could have run after him and still maintained 20-25 feet of distance. That's not escalating anything, that's just keeping your eye on someone you think is suspicious.

 

I totally agree this should have all been avoided and that it's a sad story. But that doesn't equate to a guy going to jail for a long time over a mistake of trying to play cop a little too much.

 

[zenryan]

Its gonna get really ugly if Zimmerman walks scot free, especially considering the jury racial make up.

 

 

 

it'll be ugly because of the media. The media has been very irresponsible in this case when it comes to flaming this fire.

 

 

 

I drove by the courthouse this afternoon around noon. There were a decent amount of tents and media trucks out there but was a little surprised to see that it was nowhere near the amount of tents/trucks for the Casey Anthony trial.

[Balta1701]

He could have run after him and still maintained 20-25 feet of distance. That's not escalating anything, that's just keeping your eye on someone you think is suspicious.

 

I totally agree this should have all been avoided and that it's a sad story. But that doesn't equate to a guy going to jail for a long time over a mistake of trying to play cop a little too much.

But it is a great reason for why random people shouldn't be carrying guns down the street.

[Jenksismyhero]

Hence why the only reasonable option is to keep nuts like Zimmerman and you from walking around the streets with guns.

 

Suspension for name calling please.

 

 

[MexSoxFan#1]

This cannot be pointed out enough.

......................

[StrangeSox]

Its gonna get really ugly if Zimmerman walks scot free, especially considering the jury racial make up.

I hope not.

[Soxbadger]

He could have run after him and still maintained 20-25 feet of distance. That's not escalating anything, that's just keeping your eye on someone you think is suspicious.

 

I totally agree this should have all been avoided and that it's a sad story. But that doesn't equate to a guy going to jail for a long time over a mistake of trying to play cop a little too much.

 

The bolded is where we have an extreme disagreement. I think that you need to bury guys who play pretend cop and put innocent people's lives in danger.

 

Police officers go through training and even they make mistakes. But Im much more willing to accept the mistake of a police officer killing an innocent, then a person who literally had no training/experience etc to take care of a situation like that.

 

The truth is, this situation could have been far far worse. What if Zimmerman had shoot 4 times and 1 of them killed a child in a house next door.

 

Would we still all be saying "Well you know what zimmerman did is reasonable", the answer is no. Because shooting guns in residential areas should be a last resort.

[MexSoxFan#1]

Suspension for name calling please.

You do come off as a "gun nut" though

 

No offense

[StrangeSox]

Trying to 'play cop' resulted in an innocent person being shot to death. Zimmerman shot 1 time and killed a child who had been doing absolutely nothing wrong.

[Jenksismyhero]

Why is it my burden?

 

There is no evidence to suggest Zimmerman didnt kill Martin. So doesnt that mean its Zimmermans burden to prove that his actions were self defense and reasonable under the circumstances?

 

(Discounting SYG) Isnt the burden on the party claiming an affirmative defense?

 

You can't say Zimmerman was pointing his gun at Martin when you have no evidence to support that. If you're making the claim that Zimmerman had his gun out and created a fear in Martin of imminent death (giving a basis for him to use his own gun if he had one, which is what Balta originally claimed), it's your burden to prove it. I don't have to prove that he DIDN'T have the gun out.

 

And yes, it absolutely is Zimmerman's burden to prove his actions were in self defense.

[Balta1701]

You can't say Zimmerman was pointing his gun at Martin when you have no evidence to support that. If you're making the claim that Zimmerman had his gun out and created a fear in Martin of imminent death (giving a basis for him to use his own gun if he had one, which is what Balta originally claimed), it's your burden to prove it. I don't have to prove that he DIDN'T have the gun out.

 

And yes, it absolutely is Zimmerman's burden to prove his actions were in self defense.

This is false.

 

He had a legitimate fear because an unknown man followed him for 20 minutes then came after him on foot.

 

That's not a reason to take a shot by any reasonable standard, but in the world where "I'm glad that we get more and more examples of people having guns. Maybe people will stop f***ing with each other if they know there's a serious consequence waiting for them", you probably ought to assume the guy coming after you is armed and just take the shot.

[MexSoxFan#1]

Trying to 'play cop' resulted in an innocent person being shot to death. Zimmerman shot 1 time and killed a child who had been doing absolutely nothing wrong.

He was young, black and had a hoodie, doe