**Official** Trayvon Martin thread

[TexanRudeBoy]

Coming into a liberty forum and repeatedly stating that people have no right to confront someone in their neighborhood and that we should cede our right to defend our neighborhood to your beloved government is buying into the agenda of the left.

You even go as so far as to state you believe in the "non-aggression principle" but then say you will use violence against anyone that simply follows or confronts you.

Your responses to anyone that points out your hypocrisy is that they are using baseless hyperbole. If you are not buying into the agenda of the left then it sounds like you are here to start a flame war.

First off, I never once said people don't have the right to confront people in their neighborhoods, in fact I have asserted the opposite several times. Apparently I have to restate myself again.

If I am walking through our neighborhood you have every right to ask me anything you want. But, I have every right to ignore every word you say. Legally and morally you have no right to detain me in any way. Attempting to do so is an act of aggression and warrants violence in my defense. I never said I would use violence for following me, I said I would feel threatened. What ensues when the person following me confronts me decides whether violence is warranted.

This entire thing rests on what happened between Zimmerman's 9/11 call and the fight/shooting. This is what nobody really knows except Zimmerman and any witnesses that actually saw the confrontation.

Have you read any of my posts? You pick the one post where I call hyperbole what it is and say "my response to anyone" is that way? That is the definition of hyperbole.

That you would brand a member as some new leftist brainwashed by the MSM for disagreeing with people on this issue, is again the definition of hyperbole, and quite honestly disappointing. I expect more from RPF.

 

[Ender]

Well to me the most shocking thing is:

1) You've got people who think that Zimmerman even being charged with anything is equivalent to a "lynching".

2) You've got people only looking at Zimmerman's right to self defense and ignoring that based on this inconclusive evidence it could have been the other way.

3) We've got people assuming that Zimmerman, who has a record of being a hothead, must have been "calm and reasoned". (Not talking about you, just adopting your language).

I agree with Trayvon's mom that this might have been an accident. I agree with you that the appropriate charge is probably manslaughter. I agree with everyone who says that both Zimmerman and Trayvon could have handled things differently. Again, even assuming if everything Zimmerman did was legal, and I'm not sure that's the case, it was certainly stupid. An innocent third party could have gotten shot by a stray bullet, and for what? I saw the video of the 13 y/o witness who wondered allowed if his dog hadn't gotten off the leash and he had gone over the the scuffle would Trayvon still be alive. Maybe. Or maybe the 13 y/o kid would have been dead. I'm not sure why we're being presented with this false choice between patrolling your neighborhood in "gunsmoke" fashion, and patrolling your neighborhood in a way that makes everybody safe. Even police are taught to wait for backup if they can when approaching a potentially dangerous suspect. And waiting for backup doesn't have to mean waiting for the police. Why didn't Zimmerman have someone else working with him on patrol? We can't bring Trayvon back. And the damage to community relations will require time to heal. But if folks can get out of "defend my side at all costs" mode there could be a rational discussion about better ways to do what Zimmerman was apparently trying to do.

Amen.

I have maintained from the beginning that Zimmerman's probable crime was "stupidity" and I believe a manslaughter conviction will be the tops, if he is indeed, convicted.

Still, this "right to protect the neighborhood" BS is BS. Zimmerman didn't "protect" the neighborhood, he made it more dangerous by his non-thinking actions. Protecting the neighborhood would have been staying in his car and waiting for the cops. That 13 year old may have very well been part of the sad results, if he had come back.

Zimmerman was not on any official patrol that night, according to the news, but was coming back from the store. He was trained by the Sanford Police Dept in NW which is to "observe and report". Did he do that? No. Zimmerman may have had the right to walk down the sidewalk after Trayvon, but Trayvon also had the right to be afraid and to assess that he might be in danger.

Anyone who started following me at night would be immediately on my danger radar, I don't care what rights he might think he had. Trayvon had the right to walk through that neighborhood unmolested- where did his rights go? He looked "suspicious" but no crime was committed- I imagine that anyone of us could look "suspicious" to the right person under the right circumstances.

 

[AuH20]

Where do you draw this conclusion from? He didn't sound calm on the 911 call, and his prior history doesn't show him as a calm individual. Twist the facts much?

It wasn't my intent to project these qualities on Zimmerman. I was speaking in general terms, in that the consensus was that you can't interact with strange individuals around one's neighborhood.

 

[azxd]

New Black Panthers call for race war — again

 

[farreri]

New Black Panthers call for race war — again

 

[dillo]

Again, if you were walking through your neighborhood and some stranger is following you around, talking on his phone, would you not feel threatened? I don't know what kind of neighborhood you grew up in, but being followed by someone certainly wouldn't sit well with me where I grew up.

All this talk about Zimmerman having the right to defend his neighborhood from someone he felt looked suspicious, what about Martin's right to defend himself from someone he felt looked suspicious?

I would either run or ask them why they were following me

depends on where I am

I still would have no legal right to assault someone because they were following me

 

[Ender]

I would either run or ask them why they were following me

depends on where I am

I still would have no legal right to assault someone because they were following me

Nor do you have the legal right to assault someone because they looks "suspicious".

And, according to Trayvon's girlfriend, she overheard him asking Zimmerman why he was following him.

 

[dannno]

Nor do you have the legal right to assault someone because they looks "suspicious".

And, according to Trayvon's girlfriend, she overheard him asking Zimmerman why he was following him.

...and according to Zimmerman, Trayvon proceeded to attack him.. which would make your comment about "attacking" somebody because they "look suspicious" completely irrelevant.

This is definitely the crux of the incident and what needs to be explored in court.

 

[Ender]

...and according to Zimmerman, Trayvon proceeded to attack him.. which would make your comment about "attacking" somebody because they "look suspicious" completely irrelevant.

This is definitely the crux of the incident and what needs to be explored in court.

I agree-

I am also interested in who would have the most justification for fear- the follower or the followed.

Fear can be a great determiner in the outcome.

 

[jmdrake]

...and according to Zimmerman, Trayvon proceeded to attack him.. which would make your comment about "attacking" somebody because they "look suspicious" completely irrelevant.

This is definitely the crux of the incident and what needs to be explored in court.

Assault is putting someone in fear of immediate contact that is harmful or offensive. If Zimmerman so much as reached out a hand toward Trayvon then Zimmerman assaulted Trayvon first. Of course since it looks like Zimmerman is again working with his lawyers he probably won't say that he did that if he hasn't already. And I agree this needs to be discussed in court. Not sure how far this case will go though. The prosecutor overcharged Zimmerman (2nd degree murder instead of manslaughter) and I don't think that's going to make it past first base. Could be wrong though.

 

[misterx]

Let me make sure I have this right. If someone named George Zimmerman feels threatened he doesn't even have the right to keep an eye on the person until police arrive, he should immediately tuck tail, hide, and wait for police to arrive. If someone named Trayvon Martin feels threatened by someone, he has the right to not only approach that person and ask him questions, he has the right to preemptively assault them. Now it all makes sense. I was under the mistaken impression that everyone had the same rights. Now that I know different, Zimmerman should be hanged immediately.

 

[Sam I am]

For the record, If Zimmerman confronted Trayvon, and ended up walking away without a violent confrontation happening, He wouldn't have done anything illegal.


Zimmerman is charged for following Trayvon.
He is not charged for asking Trayvon what he was doing.

Zimmerman is on trial for KILLING Trayvon.


Putting yourself into a dangerous position is not illegal in any way, but when you do that, you discard all pretense of "self defense".

 

[TexanRudeBoy]

Let me make sure I have this right. If someone named George Zimmerman feels threatened he doesn't even have the right to keep an eye on the person until police arrive, he should immediately tuck tail, hide, and wait for police to arrive. If someone named Trayvon Martin feels threatened by someone, he has the right to not only approach that person and ask him questions, he has the right to preemptively assault them. Now it all makes sense. I was under the mistaken impression that everyone had the same rights. Now that I know different, Zimmerman should be hanged immediately.

You're making assumptions about who initiated the confrontation. We don't know who initiated what. If Zimmerman simply followed him and Martin approached him and assaulted him then Zimmerman was in the right and did act in self defense. If Zimmerman confronted Martin and tried to detain him in any way then Martin was in the right to defend himself. Again I don't believe anyone here is saying people don't have the right to ask who is in their neighborhood, but we simply don't know the facts of who initiated the confrontation.

 

[Madison320]

I think Zimmerman's story is believable. I can't make up my mind whether he had an additional responsibility to avoid possible confrontation since he was carrying a gun.

 

[cajuncocoa]

Putting yourself into a dangerous position is not illegal in any way, but when you do that, you discard all pretense of "self defense".

No. I disagree with this strongly.

There are many examples I could give where someone might put (or find) him/herself in a dangerous situation; in doing so, one does not discard the right, the opportunity, or the "pretense" (as you put it) to defend him/herself.

 

[jmdrake]

Let me make sure I have this right. If someone named George Zimmerman feels threatened he doesn't even have the right to keep an eye on the person until police arrive, he should immediately tuck tail, hide, and wait for police to arrive. If someone named Trayvon Martin feels threatened by someone, he has the right to not only approach that person and ask him questions, he has the right to preemptively assault them. Now it all makes sense. I was under the mistaken impression that everyone had the same rights. Now that I know different, Zimmerman should be hanged immediately.

How exactly did Zimmerman "feel threatened" from the safety of his car?

 

[TexanRudeBoy]

No. I disagree with this strongly.

There are many examples I could give where someone might put (or find) him/herself in a dangerous situation; in doing so, one does not discard the right, the opportunity, or the "pretense" (as you put it) to defend him/herself.

I agree with both of you in that its not a clear cut thing. What would some of these examples be?

 

[Sam I am]

You're making assumptions about who initiated the confrontation. We don't know who initiated what. If Zimmerman simply followed him and Martin approached him and assaulted him then Zimmerman was in the right and did act in self defense. If Zimmerman confronted Martin and tried to detain him in any way then Martin was in the right to defend himself. Again I don't believe anyone here is saying people don't have the right to ask who is in their neighborhood, but we simply don't know the facts of who initiated the confrontation.

I'd like to point out that at this point, whether or not Martin was Right doesn't matter. Trayvon Martin is dead, and he is not on trial.

If Trayvon Martin actually did act as violent as Zimmerman claims, than Trayvon did in fact break the law, whether or not Zimmerman laid hands on him first of not. Self defense doesn't give you the right to use violence against people who happen to be breaking the law. It allows you to use violence ONLY to prevent immediate injury to yourself or others, and ONLY if you're not the instigator.

 

[TexanRudeBoy]

I'd like to point out that at this point, whether or not Martin was Right doesn't matter. Trayvon Martin is dead, and he is not on trial.

If Trayvon Martin actually did act as violent as Zimmerman claims, than Trayvon did in fact break the law, whether or not Zimmerman laid hands on him first of not. Self defense doesn't give you the right to use violence against people who happen to be breaking the law. It allows you to use violence ONLY to prevent immediate injury to yourself or others, and ONLY if you're not the instigator.

If Zimmerman laid hands on him first then Martin had the right to defend himself. If this was the case Martin wouldn't be using violence against him for "breaking the law" but for assaulting or illegally detaining him.

If a stranger follows me, then lays hands on me, I have every right to feel that I am in danger of immediate injury and will use violence to free/defend myself.

If everything happened like Zimmerman said, and Martin attacked him without any physical initiation from Zimmerman, then he had the right to defend himself. If he felt his life was in danger then he had the right to use lethal force.

 

[misterx]

You're making assumptions about who initiated the confrontation. We don't know who initiated what. If Zimmerman simply followed him and Martin approached him and assaulted him then Zimmerman was in the right and did act in self defense. If Zimmerman confronted Martin and tried to detain him in any way then Martin was in the right to defend himself. Again I don't believe anyone here is saying people don't have the right to ask who is in their neighborhood, but we simply don't know the facts of who initiated the confrontation.

If you suspect someone may be planning to harm someone in your neighborhood, you have the right and duty to watch them and make sure that they do not if you believe you can be of assistance when they do or possibly prevent it in the first place. Two things here are key. 1.Who really initiated the confrontation and how? Did Trayvon assault Zimmerman, or did Zimmerman put his hands on Trayvon? 2. Was there still a struggle when Trayvon was shot? If Trayvon was going for the gun then Zimmerman was justified. If Zimmerman had fought Trayvon off and was now over him with the gun, then Zimmerman should not have fired.