Jump to content
"How did Martin know he even had a gun? Zimmerman's gun didn't come into play until Martin already had him on the ground and was punching him."
Again, facts that are not in evidence. We do not know if the gun was well concealed or if, upon nearing, an obvious bulge was visible or George could have exposed the weapon menacingly. Zimmerman may have even placed his hand on the weapon or drawn it. We don't know. The only reason to believe your statement is from Zimmerman's account which had considerable self interest. We do know from his history that Zimmerman did not like to back down, even getting into an altercation with police. You continually make the false assumption that Zimmerman was minding his own business when Trayvon just decided to attack. There is no evidence that Trayvon was not provoked. I believe that if George had not been armed that the he would not have been as aggressive and Trayvon would not have felt threatened to the point of taking self defense action. If Trayvon had attacked with the ferocity as described by Zimmerman, then Zimmerman would have been knocked out cold and unable to draw his weapon. When he lied about claiming his head had been repeatedly slammed into the pavement, he proved his entires account should not be trusted. We had medical experts that examined his "injury" to say it only indicated one bump and that one not too hard. I do realize that sometimes self defense is justified. If someone is following me and pulls a gun without some good explanation, I would have the right to defend myself. Wait!! That would justify Martin for trying to stop Zimmerman from shooting him!
From the crime scene photographs and the charts displayed in court, this is not a matter of a few feet but, estimating from the photograph, a minimum of 50 feet from the nearest street. From the chart displayed in, seems like further than that. We do know that Zimmerman misrepresented some facts and exaggerated others. His lawyer also lied about things not in evidence, for instance the ridiculous claim that Trayvon Martin could run a 4 minute mile. If he could, he would be in the record books since no high schooler in the USA has managed that feat. I see that neither of us has heard the entire 911 recording nor listened to the entire trial which puts us in a position of not having all the facts available and sometimes relying on some press release to fill in the gaps, therefore argueing the exact actions of Zimmerman and Martin are mute. But the fact remains that Zimmerman began the entire problem by getting out of his truck and following Trayvon while armed with a gun for which he should not have been licensed because of his previous arrests for assault. His previous arrests are public record and available on the internet, took me five minutes to find them. To help you, his full name is George Michael Zimmerman arrested in Orange County Fla.
Zimmerman should not have profiled Martin based on his race and clothing choice. Zimmerman should not have followed Martin, espicially since the 911 operator had tole him no to follow. Zimmerman should not have been carrying a concealed weapon. When Martin asked, "Why are you following me" Zimmerman should have apologized and returned to his truck. The "stand your ground" has already tried to be used as justification for murder, sometimes successfully. It should be overturned. Even before the law and in states without the law, self defense was/is an acceptable defense. The law is designed by NRA advocates to encourage gun ownership and is resulting to a return of the old west mentality of shoot first and ask questions later. Any time I see someone carrying a gun that is not wearing a uniform that justifies the weapon, I am fearful of my life. Because of this fear, do I have a right to attack him first? If you are minding your own business, walking back home from the store someone chases you, you choose to find out why then see the gun as they near you, would you run to get shot in the back or hope he gets close enough for you to grab the gun to prevent him from aiming it at you?
Yes, I am aware that you do usually respond without insults. Unfortunately, many respondents seem to think the only way to carry on a discussion is to copy insults that they heard from people like Rush and apply them to other side. It is not my lowly opinion of them but their own ineptness at a true discussion like you and I have. Your scenario has ignored what was heard on the other side of Trayvon's conversation and blindly accepted that described by Zimmerman, who had great self interest in spinning the tale to better justify his actions. His friend testified to hearing Trayvon say "Why are you following me" after she heard him running away. If Zimmerman were no longer following him, the question would not have been the same. I have not seen a layout of the crime scene that showed the location of Zimmerman,s truck but have seen photos and map of the actual point that Trayvon was shot. It was on a walkway between buildings and not near a street where Zimmerman's vehicle could have been parked so he obviously had not "retreated back to his vehicle".
The above comments are indicative of the extremism we have in this country. Repeated implications that Zimmerman had more rights to defend himself because he carried a concealed weapon. The "assault" started when Zimmerman started following Martin in his vehicle. What would you do if a strange vehicle were following you while you walked home? Then Zimmerman osculated the "assault" when he got out of his vehicle and chased Martin. If you were being chased by some unknown person - no uniform - nothing to indicate any type of authority, what would you do? After Martin couldn't successfully hide from him, he then took advantage of the "stand your ground" law and confronted Zimmerman with the question "Why are you following me?" From this point, we can only surmise what happened but it is obvious that Zimmerman did not answer the question appropriately. Too many people above seem to think that Martin, being black and integrated into the wrong black youth culture indicated some possible future law breaking and thus justifies getting shot. That is blatant racism. The "stand your ground" law does not give one the right to preemptive murder because you suspect wrongful activity in the future. Thus, the pictures on the phone should not be admissible evidence, especially since such pictures are often just staged and not factual. Of more consequence would be the former arrests of George Zimmerman illustrating a violent nature. If this had been known by the jury, outcome well could have been different. Yes, I know I will receive multiple childish insults for stating the truth. Try to at least make them something original and entertaining.
Amazing! 6 jurors have declared that I can chase someone, goad them into hitting me then pull my concealed gun and kill them when they do. This is not justice and will result in others thinking they are justified with little provocation. So now, in Florida, we return to the old west concept of the fastest draw wins the day.
Isn't it funny how people fly flags to prove their patriotism then don't exercise their civic duty of voting. But don't vote blindly for a party without doing any research to learn about the issues and the candidates. An uninformed vote is worse than no vote at all.
Zimmerman did plan to be a neighborhood watcher. He did plan to bring a gun, he did decide to load that gun with lethal bullets. He chose to chase someone calmly walking through the neighborhood, minding their own business while talking on a cell phone. All these actions add up to planning to put himself in a potential situation to kill someone. He know he wanted to be a policeman and wanted to prove himself to police friends. He was hunting for a situation that could aid in that endeavor and not thinking rationally. But he did not plead not guilty by reason of insanity. You have made a reasonable argument voluntary manslaughter, but he is still guilty of the original assault. Assume a situation where two people are involved in a fight where number one chased down number 2, a fight ensues and number 2 ends up dead, then this is a crime regardless weapons involved. The only question would be if number one had lethal intent, making it murder, or the death were an accidental consequence of his initial action, making it manslaughter. A drunk driver that hits and kills someone accidentally is guilty of manslaughter because he chose to put himself in a potential situation that increased his chances of the accident.
PS Blind denier, Would you have the same opinion if Zimmerman were black and Martin was white?
Here too, you are relying on Zimmerman's description of events. We only have Zimmerman's account that says Martin ran and the distances involved. As to your statement about the eyewitnesses, the testimony to which I listened had inconsistent accounts, some indicating they say George on top doing the hitting. Assuming for a moment that your scenario is at all accurate, put yourself in the shoes of Mr. Martin. You see a man watching you. You are aware of break-ins in the area and have never seen George or his vehicle in the area. Then you think, "That guy saw me and doesn't want a witness to his crimes" - so you run only to be chased confirming your fears of someone up to no good. You don't want to lead him to where you live, he might ambush you later so confrontation might be better. Then you see the gun and fear for your life and take the steps you think give you the best chance for survival. Still remains that George is the aggressor because he initiated the chase and Trayvon only reacted in self defense.
PS, for the blind denier, You are reading things that I didn't say - no reference to race. You are the one that wants to play the race card for Georges defense. Why do you think it was okay for Zimmerman to murder anyone?
Oh really! So if someone chases you, catches up to you, draws a gun and moves near enough for you to grab the gun, you would just stand there. You do not believe that Trayvon Martin had the right to defend himself by grabbing the gun and yelling for help while he proceeded to push forward, knocking Zimmerman down while continuing to yell for help and trying to get the gun out of Zimmerman's hand. I also note that you are assuming Zimmerman's account is accurate while experts have testified that the injury on Zimmerman's head only indicates a single knock against the ground, consistent with my possible scenario above. Also, witnesses are inconsistent as to whop was on top. Fact remains, Zimmerman was the aggressor. He was the one ordered by police to not go after Trayvon Martin and elected to do so anyway. He is the one that chose the course of action based on his unreasonable profiling. He had no authority to stop Trayvon Martin, thus was in violation of Trayvon Martin's civil rights to attempt to stop him. He's "suspicions" are not sufficient cause. From the uncontested facts, it is obvious that Zimmerman is guilty, the only question is degree: first degree murder, second degree murder, voluntary manslaughter or involuntary manslaughter. Unfortunately, because of his father's influence, he might get away without jail time; however, he will probably be facing a wrongful death lawsuit which is much easier to prove.
Last login: Sunday, August 18, 2013