Not in my opinion. If I was being followed, I would have called 9-1-1 and kept moving, probably head towards a populated area, a store, or the police department, which was closer.
You don't know what lead to the melee. Full stop. Therefore you cannot speculate on what you would or wouldn't have done.
The only thing I can figure is that M thought someone was after him for some reason and Rachael egged it on. That's more likely than Z starting the fight, given evidence.
That's ridiculous. You have no idea, and you're filling in the blanks with opinion.
There's nothing wrong with checking out a stranger in ones community.
There's plenty of statutes that prevent you from infringing on another citizens' freedom of movement.
The evidence is clear: Z was attacked and being brutally beaten.
The question is: Why did M fail to call the cops and why did he go to a dark place to deal with his follower?
The answer is: He thought someone had been sent after him for something (fighting, drugs, jewelry, whatever) and Rachael played his paranoia up. Thus her "I didn't think it was deadly serious", typical words from someone who took something too far.
Checking out a stranger in the neighborhood does not and should not negate ones right to self defense.
If Zimmerman didn't make a series of mistakes, Trayvon would have lived and made it home.
Yeah, watch...don't profile and follow. You don't get any special rights above an ordinary citizen.
Evidence he got his ass kicked, no evidence of anything else. You have to assume that he didn't start it, because he's a crappy fighter. Assumptions aren't evidence. You're taking the word of a guy who was following an innocent kid, and was facing jail time for killing him.
There's plenty of statutes that prevent you from infringing on another citizens' freedom of movement.
But I'm not alleging that just watching him was wrong. I'm saying that I don't buy his giftwrapped story that plunks perfectly into the letter-of-the-law of floridas self defence laws. I'm saying Trayvon got convicted for winning a fight - in spite of the fact that he was just trying to walk home and was followed. Zimmerman continued to follow him after he specifically said he wasn't following him, even when Trayvon tried to run away. I would suggest that Trayvon had tried everything reasonable to avoid contact with Zimmerman, and was cornered and confronted and nobody can say for sure what lead to him winning the fight.
I do suggest that the case for self defence in the case of Trayvon would be stronger, had he lived.
This seems to be the lynchpin question that apparently both sides have different answers for.
While I agree that Zimmerman following Martin put him in an uncomfortable situation, an assault on Zimmerman in response to that was not justified. At all. Martin initiated violence where there was none, and thus he made himself the aggressor.
What do you think? Even if you believe it was wrong for Zimmerman to follow Martin, was it wrong for Martin to initiate violence just because he was being followed? Would it be acceptable for anyone and everyone to initiate violence for simply being followed?
Hmmmm. Now who's speculating? :mrgreen:
I'm not speculating, I'm dreaming. Trayvon is dead as a doornail, cuz Zimmerman f-ed up.
Based on what evidence? Surely something more than Zimmerman's word is required to make that assertion.
Zimmerman f-ed up.
Yeah, watch...don't profile and follow. You don't get any special rights above an ordinary citizen.
Evidence he got his ass kicked, no evidence of anything else. You have to assume that he didn't start it, because he's a crappy fighter. Assumptions aren't evidence. You're taking the word of a guy who was following an innocent kid, and was facing jail time for killing him.
There's plenty of statutes that prevent you from infringing on another citizens' freedom of movement.
But I'm not alleging that just watching him was wrong. I'm saying that I don't buy his giftwrapped story that plunks perfectly into the letter-of-the-law of floridas self defence laws. I'm saying Trayvon got convicted for winning a fight - in spite of the fact that he was just trying to walk home and was followed. Zimmerman continued to follow him after he specifically said he wasn't following him, even when Trayvon tried to run away. I would suggest that Trayvon had tried everything reasonable to avoid contact with Zimmerman, and was cornered and confronted and nobody can say for sure what lead to him winning the fight.
I do suggest that the case for self defence in the case of Trayvon would be stronger, had he lived.
I'm not speculating, I'm dreaming. Trayvon is dead as a doornail, cuz Zimmerman f-ed up.
M had not a bump nor bruise, except on his knuckles. Z had no offensive injuries.
Rest assured that I could provoke you (especially as a 17 year old no_limit_nigga) to strike me without leaving any marks on you.
Based on what evidence? The jury has disagreed with you, they found self defense to be plausable based on the evidence presented at the tiral.
M had not a bump nor bruise, except on his knuckles. Z had no offensive injuries.
Zimmermans followed a kid who was walking home. By car and by foot.
This seems to be the lynchpin question that apparently both sides have different answers for.
While I agree that Zimmerman following Martin put him in an uncomfortable situation, an assault on Zimmerman in response to that was not justified. At all. Martin initiated violence where there was none, and thus he made himself the aggressor.
What do you think? Even if you believe it was wrong for Zimmerman to follow Martin, was it wrong for Martin to initiate violence just because he was being followed? Would it be acceptable for anyone and everyone to initiate violence for simply being followed?
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?