**Official** Trayvon Martin thread

[The Free Hornet]

As far as I'm concerned?

That works! I should have used Urban Dictionary:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=afaic

 

[emazur]

For those wondering why he was arrested: Are you serious? Shooting unarmed people is bad when the police do it but if I do it I'm in the clear no matter what? I also don't believe that you should be allowed to shoot someone because they are going to steal from your neighbors. It's not your stuff and no object is worth a human life whether it is yours or another persons. If a person breaks into your home or comes on your property trying to harm you then by all means defend yourself but don't follow people around your neighborhood looking for trouble.

Do you think he shot Trayvon before or after they got into a physical fight?

If it was not a critical shot, he could have shot first and then started fighting with a wounded Trayvon (though if Trayvon had the energy to fight, he should have used it to run away. Unless he was shot at point blank range, who the hell would get shot and then fight back w/ their bare hands? But since Trayvon is dead, obviously it WAS a critical shot.

After someone attacks you, isn't that the best time to shoot? Obviously Zimmerman didn't "hunt down" Trayvon like an animal b/c then he never would have gotten close enough to get into a physical fight, otherwise he would have kept a safe distance the entire time and then shot.

 

[TheTexan]

For those wondering why he was arrested: Are you serious? Shooting unarmed people is bad when the police do it but if I do it I'm in the clear no matter what?

Nothing wrong with self defense, even when a cop does it. Rarely does "self defense" and "cop" ever belong in the same sentence, though.

I also don't believe that you should be allowed to shoot someone because they are going to steal from your neighbors. It's not your stuff and no object is worth a human life whether it is yours or another persons.

Burglary is a violent crime. Not just stuff at stake.

If a person breaks into your home or comes on your property trying to harm you then by all means defend yourself but don't follow people around your neighborhood looking for trouble.

If he's patrolling the neighborhood, chances are there's a reason for it. Shouldn't rely on cops to keep your neighborhood safe, because that doesn't work very well [understatement].

 

[DerailingDaTrain]

Do you think he shot Trayvon before or after they got into a physical fight?

If it was not a critical shot, he could have shot first and then started fighting with a wounded Trayvon (though if Trayvon had the energy to fight, he should have used it to run away. Unless he was shot at point blank range, who the hell would get shot and then fight back w/ their bare hands? But since Trayvon is dead, obviously it WAS a critical shot.

After someone attacks you, isn't that the best time to shoot? Obviously Zimmerman didn't "hunt down" Trayvon like an animal b/c then he never would have gotten close enough to get into a physical fight, otherwise he would have kept a safe distance the entire time and then shot.

Shooting unarmed people. It's not your stuff and no object is worth a human life whether it is yours or another persons. If a person breaks into your home or comes on your property trying to harm you then by all means defend yourself but don't follow people around your neighborhood looking for trouble.

//

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Get the riot gear ready ... Zimmerman is gonna walk.

They over-charged him (why would they do that? Appeasing the worked up masses? Or do they want the prosecution to fail?). No way he gets convicted of the current charges. Can they convict of a lesser charge in Florida during the same trial? Even with a lesser charge, it seems very likely he'll walk.

 

[dannno]

//

Your order of operations is all wrong.

Zimmerman wasn't defending anybody's personal property when he shot Trayvon, he was, apparently, defending himself from direct aggression.

Zimmerman may have been following Trayvon with the intention of reporting any specific crimes that he may have witnessed and may have had no intention of trying to stop them himself.. but in the process of following Trayvon he was supposedly attacked.

 

[TheTexan]

Even with a lesser charge, it seems very likely he'll walk.

At the end of the day, it's up to the jury. The bias is certainly not in his favor. Noone is capable of objectivity, the least of which the average juror. I wouldn't be surprised if he's convicted. I also wouldn't be surprised if there is little or no evidence to support that conviction.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

At the end of the day, it's up to the jury. The bias is certainly not in his favor. Noone is capable of objectivity, the least of which the average juror. I wouldn't be surprised if he's convicted. I also wouldn't be surprised if there is little or no evidence to support that conviction.

Absolutely. Like it or not, cases like this are usually decided at jury selection time.

 

[TheTexan]

Two facts:

1) Trayvon can run faster than GZ (assumed to be true on the available evidence; 99% probability)
2) Trayvon physically attacked GZ

If GZ was the aggressor (and therefore guilty of murder) in this physical confrontation, that means Trayvon had two choices

1) Run away from the conflict
2) Stand his ground and defend himself

The Florida Stand Your Ground Law that all these people are outraged about does not specify a "firearm" or even a "weapon". The irony here is that Trayvon clearly chose to "Stand his ground" but I don't hear nary a peep about that. When GZ claims to have stood his ground, there is outrage.

Without making any assumptions about who was the aggressor, the only difference between GZ and Trayvon is that GZ had a weapon which is why he's alive to be demonized for it.

 

[DerailingDaTrain]

Your order of operations is all wrong.

Zimmerman wasn't defending anybody's personal property when he shot Trayvon, he was, apparently, defending himself from direct aggression.

but in the process of following Trayvon he was supposedly attacked.

He followed him because he thought he was "on drugs". He was told not to follow him (unless you think that "we don't need you to" doesn't mean "don't do it, we have it under control") and continued to do so throwing out any excuse of self defense he could have used. And my private property comment was directed specifically at your comment:

Why aren't you allowed to follow somebody who you think might rob one of your neighbors?

Not the Trayvon/Zimmerman situation. I probably should have quoted you to make that clear but I was trying to make a reply to several things people had said in this thread.

Burglary is a violent crime. Not just stuff at stake.

So if I am walking around my neighborhood and someone decides that I don't look familiar and that I pose a threat they can follow me and pull a weapon because they feel like I might harm someone's precious television or their laptop? Doesn't sound like non-aggression to me.

 

[TheTexan]

He followed him because he thought he was "on drugs". He was told not to follow him and continued to do so throwing out any excuse of self defense he could have used.

Technically, the cops didn't tell him not to. Even if they did, doesn't matter. When someone breaks into your home and you call the cops, the standard reply is "don't do anything until we get there." Clearly advice best ignored.

 

[DerailingDaTrain]

Technically, the cops didn't tell him not to. Even if they did, doesn't matter. When someone breaks into your home and you call the cops, the standard reply is "don't do anything until we get there." Clearly advice best ignored.

If Zimmerman killed someone breaking into his home trying to harm him and his property I would be behind him but he didn't. When the police tell you not to follow someone it's for a reason: YOUR safety or at least so they don't have to do the paperwork on your death.

 

[TheTexan]

So if I am walking around my neighborhood and someone decides that I don't look familiar and that I pose a threat they can follow me and pull a weapon because they feel like I might harm someone's precious television or their laptop? Doesn't sound like non-aggression to me.

GZ claims to have pulled the weapon after he was attacked. Do you have evidence to suggest otherwise?

 

[DerailingDaTrain]

It doesn't matter if he pulled the weapon after. He was still the aggressor because he was following someone as they walked down the street. Who wouldn't feel threatened by the strange man in his car following me as I walked down the street minding my own business?

 

[TheTexan]

If Zimmerman killed someone breaking into his home trying to harm him and his property I would be behind him but he didn't. When the police tell you not to follow someone it's for a reason: YOUR safety or at least so they don't have to do the paperwork on your death.

Cops are always going to tell you to do nothing. "Help, 911, I'm sitting on these train tracks and a train is coming straight for me!" "911: Stay where you are, help is on the way!"

The fact that he ignored their advice (that is what it is, after all, just advice, not a lawful order), does NOT create a crime. If you want to arrest him, you should need more than that.

 

[TheTexan]

It doesn't matter if he pulled the weapon after. He was still the aggressor because he was following someone as they walked down the street. Who wouldn't feel threatened by the strange man in his car following me as I walked down the street minding my own business?

Private investigators follow people all the time. Following people is not illegal, nor should it be.

 

[DerailingDaTrain]

Cops are always going to tell you to do nothing. "Help, 911, I'm sitting on these train tracks and a train is coming straight for me!" "911: Stay where you are, help is on the way!"

The fact that he ignored their advice (that is what it is, after all, just advice, not a lawful order), does NOT create a crime. If you want to arrest him, you should need more than that.

Let's look at this my way. Had GZ listened to the dispatcher he would have went home, ate dinner, and went to bed to wake up the next day in his completely normal life. TM would have finished his suspension from school and be back in class by now. The police would have questioned TM and then let him go after realizing that he was doing nothing wrong. People wouldn't be calling for the repeal of a law that I'm actually glad exists because of some moron. This thread of 188 pages wouldn't exist. He shouldn't have followed him.

 

[DerailingDaTrain]

Private investigators follow people all the time. Following people is not illegal, nor should it be.

Stalking IS illegal and it should be.

 

[Danke]

If GZ was the aggressor (and therefore guilty of murder) in this physical confrontation, that means Trayvon had two choices

I don't see getting out of ones car to look around as being the "aggressor."

 

[DerailingDaTrain]

I don't see getting out of ones car to look around as being the "aggressor."

Following someone isn't non-aggression. It's like beating up someone because they might try to beat up me. "Hey, I should follow that guy, because he MIGHT rob a house or he COULD rape someone. That guy COULD POSSIBLY do some harm to something or someone. I've got to keep my eye on him!"

Not to mention how his story doesn't match up to what TM's girlfriend heard him say on the phone ("Why are you following me?") but according to GZ he never spoke to TM and the first words TM said were "Do you have a problem?". Lie #1