- Joined
- Mar 7, 2011
- Messages
- 44,814
- Reaction score
- 20,221
- Location
- A very blue state
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
But Zimmerman thought his actions suspicious and call them in, and the police dispatched a car.
That is what maters here.
I don't think people are clamoring that he's guilty.
He's receieved death threats and has had to move out of his home because of it. If that isn't saying he is guilty, then what would YOU call it?
Sorry but we don't know that as fact, unless you were PERSONALLY there to witness it.
All we know is Zimmerman got out, something happened, and Trayvon was shot by Zimmerman.
The horrifying thing is many in the public have already pronounced Zimmerman guilty and probably with a death sentence which is why he had to move out of his house.
I'm not saying Zimmerman isn't guilty, but that is for our legal system to decide.
No, what matters here is that he took it upon himself to play vigilante and a kid is dead as a result.
People could be disregarding whether he is guilty or not in a legal sense. He may have been acting within the law, but in the end, it was an unnecessary killing.
The portrayal of George Zimmerman in the media, as well as the series of events that led to the tragic shooting, are false and extremely misleading," his father, a retired magistrate judge, wrote in a letter published in the Orlando Sentinel. "Unfortunately, some individuals and organizations have used this tragedy to further their own causes and agendas."
If the kid started the scuffle (i.e. attacked Zimmerman first), Zimmerman has every right to defend himself with Lethal force.
Whether or not you like that law, it is the law.
Things that make one go, "Hmmmmmm....." :
If Zimmerman would have let the police do their job, Martin would most likely be alive.
If Zimmerman would have let the police do their job, Martin would most likely be alive.
Let's just assume the kid attacked Zimmerman first for this example.
If the kid didn't attack Zimmerman, the kid most likely would be alive. It works both ways.
The legal ramification right now would be knowing if Zimmerman started the scuffle or the kid did. That's the legal problem right now that would determine guilt or not LEGALLY.
Let's just assume the kid attacked Zimmerman first for this example.
If the kid didn't attack Zimmerman, the kid most likely would be alive. It works both ways.
The legal ramification right now would be knowing if Zimmerman started the scuffle or the kid did. That's the legal problem right now that would determine guilt or not LEGALLY.
EDIT: Morally, I think what Zimmerman did was wrong. I don't think he should have gone looking for the kid. However, we are talking about LEGALLY whether he was in the wrong. What I morally think is wrong, has no bearing on whether LEGALLY he was in the wrong.
There is no doubt in my mind that Zimmerman "started it" -- when he elected to leave his car and follow this kid on foot. Whatever happened then's on him. He was STALKING him!
Why doesn't the SYG law apply to Martin?
Why doesn't the SYG law apply to Martin?
I don't think people are clamoring that he's guilty. I think they're clamoring for a full investigation. Which is exactly what's now happening. And without the general public having gotten up in arms over this event, there'd be no further investigation. There are conflicts in testimony...a witness has come forward and said she told an interviewing officer that she heard the young man scream for help; the LEO said, "That was Zimmerman," and it was so entered in his report. That alone is enough to cause WTF's all over the place.
This is all going to hinge on what this guy said at the time because unless witness testimony contradicts his version of events, it's a done deal.
If this had happened in an up-scale community to a doctor's son, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. And that's the truth.
You are correct that if the public hadn't gotten up in arms the investigation would have ended there on the street that night. That police dept is over its head in this.
It is mostly likely it will take the feds to come in and provide justice. Zimmerman is either a predator or someone with serious mental problems. One can just trace his past history and could see this was going to evolve into someone getting killed.
With his paranoia and reports of death threat against him there could be a real chance of him killing someone else. What happens if he thinks somebody walking by his house glances over at it and he thinks they are out for him? If he were to kill again then you haven't seen anything like the anger that would spread across this country.
some folks seem to think that SYG doesn't apply to young black men wearing a hoody, walking around an upper middle-class area.
It does and if Zimmerman started the scuffle and if Martin would have shot him becuase of it, Martin would be in the right LEGALLY.
However, going up to someone to talk to them doesn't give someone the right to shoot them.
Sorry, but getting out of a car doesn't start something. Just because you are following me doesn't give me the right to shoot you LEGALLY.
And if Martin felt he was being stalked he could have called the police.
Keep in mind, the only way SYG law LEGALLY applies to Zimmerman is if Martin attacked Zimmerman first.
No, the SYG law doesn't say you have to wait to be attacked. If you reasonably fear for your life? That's enough. Who would "reasonably fear for their life" in this situation? The guy with the gun? Or the guy who's being followed -- and then accosted by a strange man?
If someone is talking to you in a threatening manner, you have the right to defend yourself.
Zimmerman's 911 call indicates that Zimmerman was not asking Martin if he lived in the neighborhood or if he was lost. It most likely came across as "Hey, punk, what are you doing in my neighborhood?!?" I would imagine his body language was intimidating and he may have been in his face when asking. If a stranger approaches me that way, I would certainly feel threatened. It is doubtful that Zimmerman was just asking an honest question.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?