General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHow many people have actually considered that Zimmerman is not guilty?
I'll admit that I don't think he's guilty. As soon as I saw the pictures of Zimmerman's injuries, I thought he had a valid case for self defense. It's not like Trayvon Martin was a small kid, and he had no injuries besides the gunshot wound. Zimmerman certainly wasn't beating on Martin.
Why do so many people not care about the circumstances of what happened that night? As far as a lot of people are concerned, Zimmerman was tried and convicted before he was even arrested. It was like the Duke Lacrosse rape case all over again. Look how that turned out.
Zimmerman has been proven to be a douchebag wannabe cop. That doesn't make him a murderer.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Duer 157099
(17,742 posts)Which means, if Z was getting beaten up, he DID NOT EVEN TRY non lethal force as self defense. Think about that.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)How much of an ass kicking was he required to take? What if Martin had beaten Zimmerman to death? Would that have been justified because Zimmerman was following him?
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)beating Zimmerman to death because Zimmerman was following him? Wow.
Hugabear
(10,340 posts)If Trayvon felt he was in fear of his life, then he absolutely would have been justified in killing Zimmerman.
Or does that not apply to black people?
Skittles
(153,169 posts)Zimmerman defenders simply cannot fathom that it was TRAYVON who fighting for (and who ultimately LOST) his life
Notafraidtoo
(402 posts)All those defending Zimmerman or saying there isn't enough evidence don't get this, All they see is a young black male and that is a threat to them so it corrupts their logic.
Skittles
(153,169 posts)there is simply no other logical reason to try to justify the senseless murder of this teenager
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)doors, which could speed him away at 60+ MPH any time him chose. But instead he chose to get out of the vehicle and confront an unarmed pedestrian with a loaded and chambered gun with the safety off.
spin
(17,493 posts)It's a double action only pistol which makes it quite similar to a revolver. Revolvers normally do not have manual safeties. On a DAO pistol or a revolver there is a long and heavy trigger pull which makes an accidental discharge unlikely. The operator is the safety.
There is absolutely nothing unusual about carrying such a pistol with a full magazine and a round in the chamber.
I will agree that if I had been in Zimmerman's shoes, I would have stayed inside my vehicle and having called the police simply went on my way.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)spin
(17,493 posts)avaistheone1
(14,626 posts)NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)someone who is being beaten is justified in using deadly force to defend himself. Incidentally, the law agrees with me.
You're the one who brought up race.
Hugabear
(10,340 posts)He just couldn't stand the idea of some young black male that he didn't know walking around his neighborhood. Zimmerman is the one who had made repeated calls to 911 to complain about black people.
Boudica the Lyoness
(2,899 posts)100% white?
Igel
(35,320 posts)Something like 20% black.
Forget the stats for other categories.
Also don't know anything about age demographics. If there were lots of teens or just TM.
Just Saying
(1,799 posts)To use deadly force a reasonable person must have the reasonable belief that he is in danger of death or great bodily harm.
Zimmerman needed a bandaid so I have trouble believing he reasonably needed to take a life.
Old Codger
(4,205 posts)Reasonable belief by a reasonable person is the key to this whole thing... Z should never have had a permit in the first place...
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)you are allowed to defend yourself. The heat of the moment does not allow the dispassionate inspection of injuries.
burnodo
(2,017 posts)it was because he was stalking this kid that Martin felt he was under threat
Just Saying
(1,799 posts)Might not be verbatim but it's factually correct. Feel free to look it up.
If you're going to pull out your gun and kill someone, then you'd better damn well make good choices.
I'll concede Zimmerman is a pussy, but I don't believe a reasonable person would have believed they were in danger of death or grave injury. The medical expert called his injuries minor and said he needed a bandaid. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.
blm
(113,065 posts)Give in to that adult stranger who just got close enough to grab you, son. I believe he has every right to shoot you if you try to fight.
THAT'S the reality of your absurd view, MrHigh.
dionysus
(26,467 posts)anomiep
(153 posts)a little over 29% of aggravated assaults are, by FBI statistics, committed using 'personal weapons' which means with fist, feet, hands, shoving someone (likely down stairs or off an edge), etc. Basically anything that is bare hands (except that I think the statistic breaks certain things that are not necessarily armed out into separate categories).
Simple assault and battery, sure, it is not reasonable. But aggravated assault includes by definition, for the purpose of those statistics, intent and/or purpose of inflicting 'great bodily harm' - and to me, if their purpose is inflicting great bodily harm, and you can tell their purpose is great bodily harm, it's reasonable to fear it - whether or not they actually managed to inflict it.
So to that extent, it should come down to whether or not people think what Martin did is reasonably an aggravated assault. If someone thinks it was, they will consider it reasonable to fear great bodily injury. If someone thinks it wasn't, then they won't.
Just Saying
(1,799 posts)One of these guys was armed and went chasing after the other who had skittles and a canned beverage.
Sorry but I didn't buy into the defense's bullshit about the sidewalk as a deadly weapon. The gun Zimmeman had (and brought to the situation) is fair more effective as proven by Trayvon being dead. And even by your logic, Trayvon had far more reason to fear for his life as they both had access to hands, fists and even sidewalk, but only one of them had a gun.
anomiep
(153 posts)I'm merely pointing out that by definition an aggravated assault, with a weapon or not, required intent to inflict great bodily harm, and therefore the victim should logically reasonably fear it.
ctaylors6
(693 posts)I would disagree with your subject line, but agree with your first sentence.
In some circumstances, a person being beaten could reasonably believe that he or she that deadly force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself. What if a woman is being beaten and manages to get a hand on a gun she carries for protection? I could come up with a bunch of scenarios in which a person could reasonably believe firing a gun was necessary to prevent great bodily harm or death.
Btw, I'm not at all arguing anything about the Zimmerman case. I'm just disagreeing with the premise of your subject line.
Also, actual injuries are not legally required for a claim of self-defense, even using deadly force. In this case, however, I would assume (without knowing specific evidence) that they would be relevant to the determination of what a reasonable situation in Zimmerman's situation would believe, etc.
In case you haven't seen them, here are part of the jury instructions on this issue:
"A person is justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself.
In deciding whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge him by the circumstances by which he was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing George Zimmerman need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, George Zimmerman must have actually believed that the danger was real.
If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."
deathrind
(1,786 posts)If you wanted to get rid of someone you should follow them, provoke them and let them hit you a few times then shoot them?
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)You can even throw the first punch.
The allowance of who can use deadly force in a struggle can change.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)story to back it up. In this situation, one needs to explain away a lot of info that conflicts with what we are pretty certain.
GZ's story, to me, is complete bullshit and I don;t have any doubts about it. People can make any story up at all but police and juries are forced to accept it.
Why do you assume anyone decided this before hearing his stories and all other facts known? That's a fucked up assumption, you could be making another one swallowing his story too.
lumpy
(13,704 posts)If he was so afraid why didn't he land some blows on Martin, no evidence of that. Most people even women, would leave signs that they put up a fight, scratches, bruising etc. Not a scratch only a bullet hole to show he 'put up a fight'. The bloody nose and face scratches that Martin dealt Zimmerman certainly indicate Martin put up a fight for his life.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)Just because he trained MMA-style (I don't even really know what that means), doesn't mean he actually knows how to fight when it gets real.
As you pointed out, Martin obviously got in some good shots on Zimmerman. Zimmerman apparently never got in a punch. That, to me, makes it seem that it was Martin who initiated physical contact.
CatWoman
(79,302 posts)you know an awful lot about wimps.
Do you think it's ok to shoot paper for giving paper cuts?
lumpy
(13,704 posts)n
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)...would you be reasonably in fear for your life?
Yes or no?
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)After you've gotten away and then come back to confront that person, you have changed the playing field in a legal sense.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)...is that if someone is pointing a gun at you, you believe they are going to shoot you, and you don't have a gun, then your best move is to attack them.
Control-Z
(15,682 posts)Stalking him with a gun.
OregonBlue
(7,754 posts)him to death, would you be defending him? Just because he had a few scrapes on his head? Would you be saying that he was just defending himself. Somehow I doubt it.
spin
(17,493 posts)I do not believe that he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If Zimmerman had been black and Martin white, I would feel the same. The race of the the two individuals is irrelevant to me. I consider only the evidence.
Duer 157099
(17,742 posts)How certain are you, and upon what is that certainty based?
If you say Z was justified in killing Martin, then most certainly that applies to Martin as well. Especially since Z actually (ACTUALLY) possessed a deadly lethal weapon.
Oh, and by the way: Z ACTUALLY used that lethal weapon. So in the end, who ACTUALLY was most justified in fearing for their life? Not theoretically, but ACTUALLY?
Be honest now.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)If Zimmerman had the gun out, I doubt that Martin would have attacked, especially if Zimmerman told him that police were on the way. It might have actually saved his life if Zimmerman had pulled out his gun earlier.
Duer 157099
(17,742 posts)And, if you are honest about: ' It might have actually saved his life if Zimmerman had pulled out his gun earlier." : Consider this: Zimmerman IS ALIVE. His life WAS saved. According to your own logic then, can you conclude that HE DID have his gun out?
Apply some critical thinking skills.
ETA: ok, now I see you meant by "save his life" that you were talking about Martin. Totally disagree that the outcome would have been different if his gun were out earlier.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)If he had, he wouldn't have had those injuries.
Duer 157099
(17,742 posts)One sees the other is armed and a struggle cannot, does not ever ensue?
My belief is that the struggle was EXACTLY of that nature, that Martin was trying to keep the gun from being pointed at his chest, which was why he was staddling Z and using downward motions with his arms, trying to hold Z's arms and point the gun away from him.
A stuggle he ultimately lost.
CatWoman
(79,302 posts)there's bull, and there's shit, and then there's simply bullshit.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)it doesn't matter if you think those injuries are insignificant. Most of the people saying that Zimmerman's injuries were "insignificant" would cry like babies if they experienced them.
CatWoman
(79,302 posts)you wimps are something else.
I'll bet you go to the emergency room for paper cuts.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)Maybe you should take up crime fighting like your nom de guerre.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)have no clue. Pitiful.:
shrug: 
slor
(5,504 posts)fights myself. Zimmerman looks in pretty good condition. I think that was Trayvon screaming for help because he was fighting for his life trying to keep the gun from being used against him by a strange man.
polly7
(20,582 posts)than ..... what was his story? - having his head smashed 25 times into the sidewalk to the extent he was losing consciousness and about that same amount of punches to the face? Either he's made of rubber, or it didn't happen.
and I was beaten up by my sister, not a kitteh 
Hugabear
(10,340 posts)They didn't even require much treatment at all. Why did Zimmerman refuse treatment?
And why does so much of Zimmermans story not add up? Where were the grass stains on Trayvon's pants? Or the grass stains on the back of Zimmermans jacket?
ksoze
(2,068 posts)both presented at trial and pics everywhere.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)I don't even realize I've received such minor injuries until after the fight and I notice that little dribble of blood near the small scratches I didn't even feel at the time.
You reveal one thing quite easily to me, you have never had to actually fight anyone, first good for you, fighting sucks no matter who wins as you either get beaten or you are forced to beat another human causing injury; lacking the experience you have no idea how silly that statement was, in a fight you don't even notice the small shit, too much adrenaline, too much concern of stopping a serious blow. The injuries I have received that caused panic were broken ribs - that feeling when bones are snapping is primal, painful and a very different feeling than caused by small cuts or bruises. Another was when I was punched in the throat, again very primal, it is almost impossible to breath after the trauma of a fractured larynx, oddly enough, my own body was largely responsible for my flying backwards and off of my feet, it was like it made a decision it would find a way all on it's own to withdraw the throat from the force being applied to it (my body didn't bother to ask if I agreed).
In short I realize there are attacks that can cause such complete panic and fear of life, I have experienced a couple, but minor wounds such as revealed by the evidence quite frankly would not likely even be noticed while in the middle of a struggle. You just don't.
Now, on the other hand if someone had such severe mental illness as to feel such panic and fear that he thought a wrestling match with a kid 50 lbs below his weight class was a threat to his life then that person is simply a delusional coward that should not be around sharp objects let alone a gun. Seriously, if such a person was not allowed to react to his irrational fear with a deadly weapon he would find to his surprise after walking away that a bloody nose is not fatal and does not leave one much worse for the wear after all.
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)That isn't what this is about. Never has been.
Nobody but Zimmerman knows the full facts of what happened in those few critical seconds.
Everything else is just fabrication of scenarios out of thin air in order to justify each person's prejudice on the matter.
A better question would be, "How many people have changed their opinion from the opinion they formed shortly after hearing the early reporting in this case?" I am betting almost none.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)When the story first broke, it sounded like Zimmerman just went out and hunted down Martin. I wanted him to get a fair trial, of course, but I figured he was probably guilty.
After I saw the injuries and read more about Martin's background, I realized there was more to the case. After NBC edited some of the audio, it was obvious that the media was playing up the story. The more that I've read about the case and listened to some of the trial testimony, I've changed my mind to believe that Zimmerman didn't actually do anything illegal. Stupid yes, illegal no.
After the first two days of the prosecution's presentation, I had pretty much decided that there was no case. If they actually had any case, surely they could have come up with better testimony than Rachel Jeantel and Dr. Bao (sp?).
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)1) The is no reason to believe that Zimmerman's intentions were to hunt down Martin and shoot him in cold blood. That clearly was not the case. Anybody who believes otherwise is not being objective, IMHO. If he were intent on gunning down Martin, he would have shot Martin before it got to point blank range. That is obvious to any thinking person.
2) But the evidence is that the shot happened at point blank range, and after some kind of struggle. That is not disputed at all. And that basically makes the case right there. The state has no evidence that shows beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman did not feel in danger at that point. In fact, the evidence seems to say that Martin had the upper hand in the fight, regardless of how it started. To believe otherwise, you have to believe that Zimmerman wasn't planning to kill Martin in cold blood (or else he would have done so before the fight started) and that Zimmerman was winning the fight, and only then decided to pull out his gun and shoot Martin dead. Why would Zimmerman shoot Martin if he was winning the fight? Makes no sense.
We were not there, so we can't say for sure, and nobody else saw it clearly. So the only thing a juror can do is look at what makes reasonable sense. And our standard for conviction is "beyond a reasonable doubt'. There is no way a fair juror can find anything beyond reasonable doubt here with regard to murder charges, and unfortunately the "stand your ground" law says that pretty well immunizes Zimmerman.
So, just going by the evidence and the law, they would have to acquit him, or maybe find him guilty of trespassing or some reckless firearms use, if there is such a law in Florida. I think it is more likely that the jury will nullify the law and convict Zimmerman of manslaughter. IMHO, that would be wrong legally, but I'd be OK with it because SYG is such a horrible law.
Duer 157099
(17,742 posts)This man (GZ) knew the law regarding self defense. You really think he wanted to risk shooting "the suspect" without first getting himself into a situation where he might at least be able to claim self defense?
He made his intentions very clear when he muttered: "These fucking punks, they always get away."
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)The jurors obviously saw it exactly as I described it.
In a just world, Zimmerman would be convicted of manslaughter. But we are living under "ALEC justice" now.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)What did he do besides normal teenage bullshit, e.g. smoking pot and making brash, stupid Internet posts?
EOTE
(13,409 posts)Or maybe he needed to become more familiar with Trayvon's skin tone before deeming that his murder was an acceptable one. "Martin's background"?!?! Christ, the racist shit I see here in defense of Zimmerman sickens me. This would be totally expected in places like freepland. I certainly don't expect to see it here.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)
EOTE
(13,409 posts)And perhaps he's having a rather hard time reconciling what he's just found out about himself. That's assuming he's capable of feeling shame, that's certainly not a given.
brush
(53,787 posts)Where are the marks on his hands and zimmerman's dna if he was beating zimmerman? You need to rethink some things.
Consider this:
If zimmerman was having his head bashed against concrete by a straddling Martin, wouldn't Martin's body have blocked zimmy's arm from reaching for the gun under and behind his hip, because that's exactly where Martin's knee and thigh would be if he were the one doing the straddling. If what zimmerman alleges is true (not my belief), his arms may have been free to move in front of a straddler's thighs but that would be it.
He would have had to reach around and under Martin's knee and thigh and under his own hip to get to the gun tucked into the rear attached holster. That would not only take arms about a foot longer but arms of Herculean strength to lift up his big body, weighed down even more by Martin's) enough to get the gun out from under all that weight.
And wasn't wannabe boy also taking MMA classes 3 times a week for a year? Didn't he learn anything about leverage and how to use his weigh advantage instead of just allowing a teen boy who he outweighed by 40 lbs, and who he had superior adult male upper body strength over, to just pummel him like a helpless rag doll without any offering any resistance?
And after all that alleged head bashing on concrete, he just needed a band-aid for treatment, no concussion, no skull fracture, no hemotoma, no blood on the sidewalk, no trip to the ER?
Sounds like he conked himself on the back of the head and nose with his own gun after he realized that he had fucked up big time by killing the kid instead of making the "heroic" citizen's arrest he had envisioned.
That would explain how it was his own blood on his own gun, not Martin's.
Sorry, zimmy's story does not compute. And neither does your support for that killer.
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)EOTE
(13,409 posts)Yet that teen wouldn't have been justified in saving his own life from that murderous bastard? The logical contortions I see Zimmerman defenders get into should be fairly embarrassing. That would be if Zimmerman defenders were capable of feeling any shame or suffering any embarrassment. Sick, racist assholes they are.
tblue37
(65,404 posts)
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Last edited Sat Jul 13, 2013, 08:39 PM - Edit history (1)
kid I had a fight with in fourth grade, according to to them.
tblue37
(65,404 posts)I just posted 2 pics and said Z's boo-boos were minor.
I didn't even mention Skittles.
Besides, my point is that Z's wounds are VERY minor, NOT an "ass-kicking" of the sort that Z's defenders claim justify his use of lethal force.
Are you sure you meant to respond to my post?
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)tblue37
(65,404 posts)Z to kill Trayvon, but I am saying the exact opposite. (You wrote, "According to you. . . .')
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)so sorry. I screwed up. Totally agreeing with you. Sorry!
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)go outside to the sidewalk and ask a stranger
to bash your head, just one time, only once,
into the concrete. Stranger has to bash hard
enough that you are in pain and afraid for
your life.
Then take a look at the back of your head. And
have a friend nearby with an ambulance.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)You'll understand if I decline.
CatWoman
(79,302 posts)and "I" won't understand if you decline.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)They must really be scared of guys who look like Martin. That's the only thing I can figure.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)Which isn't the only hole in his story, by any means, but may be the most important one.
brush
(53,787 posts)I guarantee you won't walk away from it. You'll be lucky to only be knocked cold.
20-30 head bashes on concrete can quite easily kill someone.
That's why many of us know that killer zimmerman is also a liar who made up most of his cock and bull story.
TorchTheWitch
(11,065 posts)belief that he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. His bitty little booboos don't add up to any reasonable person's belief of legitimate fear of imminent death or great bodily harm. No, it isn't legal to pick a fight with someone and when you get a couple of little booboos you can kill them. Even in Florida. The very idea is disgusting not to say terrifying. Besides that he lied about how he got those little bitty booboos claiming his head was slammed into concrete 20 and more times and that he was punched in the face 35-40 times. He's a liar. A very bad liar.
Zimmerman picked a fight with someone who ALSO had a reasonable person's belief in physically defending himself, and it was never proven that he DID physically harm Zimmerman. By his own words, every one of Zimmerman's bitty little booboos were obtained in other ways than being hit at all by Martin. He claimed that Martin punched him in the nose causing it to bleed and then later used both hands to hold his mouth and nose shut to smother him, yet there was not only not one speck of Zimmerman's blood on Martin's hands but not one single cell of his DNA. It could not have been washed away by rain as Zimmerman's OWN bloody injuries were not.
Had Zimmerman been beaten so badly with a legitimate reasonable person's believe that he was in fear of imminent death or great bodily harm and had no other means of defending himself other than killing Martin, sure he'd then be legitimately excused by legitimate self-defense. However, that's not what happened in this case by any stretch of the imagination. You don't get to completely make up other scenarios that didn't happen in order to try to make him not guilty, and the law most certainly doesn't either. So, what the fuck is your point?
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)before defending yourself. Great advice there. 
TorchTheWitch
(11,065 posts)Nobody is saying that had he been getting hit he couldn't defend himself. Of course he could defend himself. But thankfully the law does not allow anyone to KILL someone as a first resort because they got a few little booboos especially in a fight THEY started. He could have defended himself a number of ways yet by his own admission he did NOTHING. The entire time he claimed to have been beaten to within an inch of his life (which is a bold faced lie) his ONLY recourse was to kill Martin - shot him straight through the heart with a gun supplied with expanding bullets therefore knowing that in pointing and pulling that trigger that Martin would die. He didn't even attempt to shoot him in a less vital place just to stop the alleged attack that didn't occur. He did nothing at all to try to stop the alleged beating that didn't happen nor try to flip Martin off of him nor attempt to shield his face and head nor try to threaten him with the gun to stopped the alleged beating that never happened nor tried to shoot him in a less vital place to stop the alleged beating that never happened. All he claim he did to defend himself before shooting Martin was wiggle his head off the sidewalk that neither of them were anywhere near.
Yes, of COURSE a person can defend themselves, but NO they cannot defend themselves by KILLING someone over a few little booboos they got in a fight that THEY started and when that other person had just as much right to defend THEMSELVES. Why on earth would anyone believe that what he did was justifiable? In no reasonable universe is it justifiable unless you're one of those nutters that think it's ok to kill someone just because they pissed you off.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)NEVER try to shoot someone in a "less vital place." There's a reason that shooting lessons always tell you to aim for center mass. Trying to shoot someone in the leg will get you killed.
TorchTheWitch
(11,065 posts)Center of mass makes sense for distance shots. Zimmerman's gun was very close to a contact wound. There's no reason why he couldn't have done ANYTHING else other than shoot him or do a kill shot. That's the fucking point. But then, this beating never even occurred in the first place, so the real point is moot.
Zimmerman LIED. Many times. Contradicted his numerous stories with more lies. He lied about where the gun was located because it was physically impossible in the positions he claimed he and Martin were in for either one of them to have gotten to it. That gun was already out, and MARTIN had every reasonable belief to be in fear for his life and to try to keep that gun away from him. Sadly, he failed. And if somehow Martin DID end up getting in one good punch then GOOD! HE had the right to protect himself from a profiling angry git that followed him in his car, chased him on foot, and confronted him with his big bad equalizer that was the only reason he had the guts to get out of his car in the first place - without it he wouldn't have budged.
Now, maybe if you paid any attention to the trial, the law and basic common sense you wouldn't have such asinine questions and try to blame people for jumping off the cuff when they DO know what they're talking about because they HAVE been paying attention.
Epic fail.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)and if you disagree I challenge you to find the law in any state of this country where shooting to wound is considered anything other then use of lethal force.
Under the law you are either justified in using lethal force to protect yourself or you are not, there is no halfway with a firearm or knife or blunt object.
TorchTheWitch
(11,065 posts)Like, you know, ANYTHING other than shooting him in the heart with an expanding bullet. What, the guy couldn't make a fist? He couldn't try to strangle him? He couldn't do ANYTHING other than lay there with his arms and hands at his sides until he figures out he has a gun?
I guess you also missed the part about what he claimed happened was a fucking LIE anyway and that gun was already out.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)I am pointing out to you that your idea of shooting to wound is illegal
TorchTheWitch
(11,065 posts)For fuck sake, we're arguing about something that didn't even HAPPEN. And if it has nothing to do with the case than go to the gungeon with it where you all can discuss center mass, shoot to wound and all the goodies about using guns that have jack shit to do with this case.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)making sure other people know that you suggesting shooting a person in a "non-vital" area is illegal is the only reason I responded to your post.
TorchTheWitch
(11,065 posts)But Zimmerman didn't care to spare his life, and I doubt he was pondering such various legalities especially when a dead kid tells no tales.
Done with you.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)CatWoman
(79,302 posts)you should make this your avatar
blm
(113,065 posts)who has been following them gets close enough to grab them?
Are you ready to teach your son and daughter that they should give in to whatever an adult stranger wants from them, because if they fight then you believe that adult stranger has the right to shoot them?
Just because a young person isn't old enough to own a gun, they should get the death penalty for doing what they were taught when they are followed by an adult stranger who then gets close enough to grab them?
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)Personally, I teach my kids to get far away from trouble if possible.
blm
(113,065 posts)action as defending himself with all he had and exactly as he was taught?
Igel
(35,320 posts)I don't see why it's either/or, at least at the beginning.
If you are defending yourself against a stalker, you might decide to punch and tackle the guy. TM's self-defense. After all, he knows he's fighting against a creep that might cause him serious harm. Remember the child molesters? And let's not forget the guy that some racist fool tied up and dragged behind it through town!
However, if you think the guy's going overboard and means to do lethal harm when you just wanted to make sure he didn't commit a burglary, you get to fight back. GZ's self-defense. After all, he knows he's fighting against a possible burglar that might cause him serious harm. You've seen on the news what these kids do!
Many of kids just don't get frame of reference. They just can't manage it on demand. They have their truth and can't let go, even to entertain other viewpoints.
But we are so good at adopting the POV of the person we empathize with. We take his position, see his angle, minimize what he does wrong (if anything) and justify what's left over make it as innocent as possible. Our guy, we understand him. He's the person we're interested in. The flip side is that we reject the other view as false or impossible, make what he does wrong as reprehensible as possible, and reject any justification for his actions. He's past understanding, so any motive that's bad works.
We're humans. That's just what we do. My side--including me--is all wonderful and right (except as modesty requires); the other side is all nasty and evil (unless a point has to be conceded to make it seem plausible and not a parody).
This does not lead to lead to truth.
I think it'll go manslaughter. Somebody's little baby was killed and so somebody needs to pay for it. But the evidence doesn't overcome reasonable doubt. So is manslaughter a good compromise or what? It's not, but I suspect that, after some wrangling, emotion will carry the day.
nyquil_man
(1,443 posts)prior to putting a bullet through Martin's heart. He could have shot him in the leg or the arm, for instance.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)if you intentionally shoot someone in the leg or arm or some other "non vital" area and you can not prove reasonable fear of death or grave bodily harm you will go to jail for attempted murder.
Find the law supporting your ridiculous statement
nyquil_man
(1,443 posts)If that's a ridiculous argument, Zimmerman ought to go to jail for shooting Martin in the heart.
By the way, have you still got Zimmerman trying to talk to Martin?
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)My point is to make sure that other people are aware that shooting to wound is illegal.
nyquil_man
(1,443 posts)but he can't wound someone who's trying to kill him?
If Martin had survived his wound, would Zimmerman belong in jail?
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)nyquil_man
(1,443 posts)"if you intentionally shoot someone in the leg or arm or some other 'non vital' area and you can not prove reasonable fear of death or grave bodily harm you will go to jail for attempted murder."
Zimmerman's WHOLE DEFENSE rests on the notion that he fired because he was in fear for his life. Are you claiming that Zimmerman could not prove that he was in fear of death or grave bodily harm?
But go and deny that you meant that. Just like you deny that you really meant it when you said that Zimmerman tried to talk to Martin.
My god. Not only do you not know what Zimmerman has said, you don't even know what YOU have said.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)this is about YOU saying it was legal to shoot someone in a non-vital area.
nyquil_man
(1,443 posts)It's a simple question: Would Zimmerman's defense have been invalid if he'd shot Trayvon Martin in the leg or the arm?
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)a reasonable jury believing Zimmerman was in fear of death or grave bodily harm, then Zimmerman should go to jail for at least aggravated assault or attempted murder.
Making sure other people know that you suggesting shooting a person in a "non-vital" area is illegal is the only reason I responded to your post in the first place.
nyquil_man
(1,443 posts)That's a no-shit proposition. The moment Zimmerman fired a bullet into Martin's body, he put himself in legal jeopardy.
Do you think shooting Martin straight through the heart was a better choice?
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)nyquil_man
(1,443 posts)Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)I don't care what you think about the Zimmerman trial. I am not going to change your mind and you are not going to change my mind and in the end, what either of us thinks doesn't matter. It will be decided by a jury of 6 people who heard ALL of the testimony and saw ALL of the evidence, something no one here can say.
nyquil_man
(1,443 posts)I've never stated an opinion one way or the other as to Zimmerman's legal guilt and I'm not likely to. That's in the jury's wheelhouse.
I do, however, have a definite opinion as to your fondness for misrepresentation. You demonstrated it yesterday with your repeated claims as to Zimmerman's motives (sorry, his theoretical rights) and you've demonstrated it today with your jumping to conclusions about my comment.
I never said that it was legal for someone to shoot a person without justification. That is an outright lie on your part. That you have the gall to continue to make that utterly false assertion speaks volumes to your character. Given your approach, I'm not surprised that you are unable to change anyone's mind. At least you have the integrity to recognize that, if nothing else.
nyquil_man
(1,443 posts)The post to which I replied:
NaturalHigh (5,161 posts)
7. I don't think he is required to.
How much of an ass kicking was he required to take? What if Martin had beaten Zimmerman to death? Would that have been justified because Zimmerman was following him?
The specific context of my comment was in regard to Zimmerman being in fear for his life.
You can pretend all you like that I was recommending that people should go around shooting people in the legs and arms. You'll be wrong. But you seem to enjoy being wrong, so more power to you.
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)Are armed , untrained vigilantes really the way you think society should be going?
treestar
(82,383 posts)Had that not been the case, his fears would be much greater.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)I worked in oncology clinics and patients would say I'm perfectly healthy except for cancer.....no wait that actually made more sense so
+1 to your comment
Control-Z
(15,682 posts)was in office. There were no terrorist attacks under his watch. Well, except for the 911 attacks. But after that.
TheBlackAdder
(28,209 posts)Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)The prosecution has a lot of theories, but they have not convinced me that zimmerman threw the first punch. Even if I was 70% sure it was zimmerman, thats still a lot of reasonable doubt.
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)beyond a reasonable doubt?
Have you watched the trial, in particular
the prosecution closing(s)?
Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)Since I was at work, I had the audio only. I realize that affects my perception.
I do not believe Zimmerman's story beyond a reasonable doubt, but that doesn't make him guilty. Whats important is I can not buy the prosecutions theory beyond a reasonable doubt.
anomiep
(153 posts)Zimmerman doesn't have to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt, so whether anyone believes his story beyond a reasonable doubt is irrelevant.
If the prosecution left reasonable doubt as to whether or not he was defending himself, the jury instructions say to acquit.
Whether anyone thinks that comports with justice in this particular case, or whether anyone thinks they don't believe Zimmerman, is entirely irrelevant if the jury instructions are actually followed by the jury. All that matters at this point is whether or not the jury thinks that the prosecution removed reasonable doubt as to it being self defense (and they certainly may find that).
I've said it before - based on what I've seen, I don't think I could reasonably state that anything happened in any particular way in the two minutes for which there are no witnesses other than Zimmerman. I hope that whatever the jury decides, it matches up with what actually happened - be that a conviction or an acquittal.
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)of sense.
anomiep
(153 posts)The legal standard is, at least in Florida, that they prosecution has to disprove his self defense claim. He has to meet a burden of proof, but that burden is not at all near reasonable doubt.
JanMichael
(24,890 posts)nor any apparent treatment? As far as I can tell, the dude didn't even get a tetanus shot?
You think that's worth a bullet?
tblue37
(65,404 posts)Duckwraps
(206 posts)I hope you have enough bandages and ice to help you get over the beating that is about to occur. But, I'm with yeah.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)Flame suit on. I just thought it was time somebody finally said it. I know a lot of people are thinking it but afraid of getting charred by the crowd.
Skittles
(153,169 posts)you're just going to echo yourself to fellow gun humpers?
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)unless I want to spend my entire weekend trying to keep up. My wife is coming home and might expect me to pay attention to her for a while.
I also don't plan to respond to anyone who has nothing to say other than to insult me, call me a troll, gun nut, etc.
Skittles
(153,169 posts)LOTS of people who start Ops reply to all - and I think someone who starts a thread declaring they think a gun humping racist murdering piece of SHIT did nothing wrong SHOULD respond to all
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)Fortunately, you don't get to decide what I MUST do. Goodbye now.
Skittles
(153,169 posts)this response does not surprise me at ALL
Response to Skittles (Reply #50)
Post removed
Skittles
(153,169 posts)and Zimmerman defenders CERTAINLY qualify
stranger81
(2,345 posts)Duckwraps
(206 posts)Skittles
(153,169 posts)it must suck having to defend the indefensible
kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)NOT allowed to come back under another name, right?
TOS violation. Alerting.
Duckwraps
(206 posts)Please, please don't throw me into that briar patch. I promise I will never diagree with anyone ever again
burnodo
(2,017 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)
frylock
(34,825 posts)
hlthe2b
(102,292 posts)
Good gawd.
stranger81
(2,345 posts)Lives like little Zimmy's are so precious they get to shoot to kill at the slightest provocation.
HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)because he followed him rather than minding his own business. Whether or not he is convicted, he had no right to kill Trayvon. He is morally culpable for taking a life.
If the killer had been black and the victim white, he wouldn't have already been convicted probably on death row by now. Anyone with any awareness of American society and the judicial system knows that.
NightWatcher
(39,343 posts)I keep reading obvious flamebait and troll shit, only to click on the profile which says the user has been on DU for 8-12 years but has a very low post count. I know that trolls don't have that kind of patience, so it has to be rw douchebag asshole hackers, right?
bluedigger
(17,086 posts)Never know when you might need them. 
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)I have seen what you describe, but this is not one of those cases, as offensive as I find the OP.
Moses2SandyKoufax
(1,290 posts)The OP has been an obvious conservative for as long as he's posted here. An advanced search will show you that during his time at DU NaturalHigh has posted nothing but contrarian, RW bullshit. Try to find one issue where this individual has agreed with the majority opinion on this site.
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)and I know of many others like him.
displacedtexan
(15,696 posts)I stopped posting after the 2008dem primary dust up, and when I decided to come back and support the president, for whom I didn't vote in the primary, I thought I would have to register again, but DU knew who I was, based on my IP address. So I still had the same post count as before.
I hope the admins can figure out how to stop sock puppets from creating multiple accounts. It's getting weird in here.
countingbluecars
(4,766 posts)confronting, and shooting an unarmed teen means not guilty to you? Zimmerman is a murderer.
burnodo
(2,017 posts)There is no disputing that. Martin was simply walking down the street. Racist wannabe gun-for-brains Zimmerman directly caused the death of Martin, whether that was his intention or not.
BeyondGeography
(39,374 posts)That needs to be against the law.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)and that bump on his nose and those scratches on his head are not consistent with someone bashing another's head onto cement 20 or 30 times.
GZ had no life threatening wounds! No wound severe enough to cause GZ to fear for his life. and since his life was not threatened and he was not afraid, he had no business taking TM's life.
Ruby the Liberal
(26,219 posts)it was about Stay in Your F'in Car.
Guilty.
Moses2SandyKoufax
(1,290 posts)Guilty.
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)If TM took the first swing, that will very possibly exonerate GZ under Florida law. But in my view, that's an injustice. I think, based on what I know of GZ's actions, that TM had been placed in a position of legitimately fearing for his safety, possibly even his life. He may have elected not to wait for what he considered imminent violence on GZ's part. He may have realized that if he waited for GZ to attack, he'd be giving away his advantage of reach and probably speed, and allowing GZ's advantage in mass and strength to come into play.
I don't believe that scenario, if what happened is anything like that, makes Martin culpable in his own death. Zimmerman initiated the conflict, not Martin. The ramifications of the outcome when that conflict turned physical are on Zimmerman's shoulders.
Sadly, the law probably doesn't agree.
MADem
(135,425 posts)that Zimmerman looked like he had been head-butted by someone who was being held down and didn't have use of his hands.
Since TM didn't have any marks on his hands--that's what the funeral home director said--I'd say that's more likely than a punch.
Either that, or Zimmie had a friend smack him around for the pics...
http://www.loop21.com/life/trayvon-martin-funeral-director-says-no-signs-fight-teens-hands
Nine
(1,741 posts)
Little Star
(17,055 posts)TorchTheWitch
(11,065 posts)Which is why we've been watching the trial and know what the evidence is. The evidence clearly shows that Zimmerman lied about what happened numerous times, and that his insignificant injures do not add up to his having been in fear of imminent death or great bodily harm which is the only legal way his killing Martin is legitimate self-defense.
Maybe if you also paid attention you wouldn't have these questions nor would you think he wasn't guilty. An innocent person has no need to lie about what happened. Zimmerman did lie. Over and over and over again.
LuvNewcastle
(16,846 posts)Sure, I considered that maybe Z wasn't guilty, but when I saw what evidence the prosecution had versus what the defense had, I thought it was pretty obvious the man was guilty.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)"The circumstances" are that a wannabe cop decided to play vigilante and killed a kid doing absolutely NOTHING illegal. Your buddy is a murdering scumbag.
2ndAmForComputers
(3,527 posts)If you know what I mean.
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)Years ago I had a small cut, about a quarter inch long, above my forehead I had on a beige shirt and white pants.
By the time I got to the hospital I had blood all over me - it 'looked' horrible.
The doctor put in ONE stitch.
Take a look at the photos of Zimmerman from the back and front the same night after the blood was wiped away - he had only small scratches.
The 'circumstances of the night are that Zimmerman 'hunted' 'stalked' 'followed' a teenager - he made Trayvon fearful for his life.
Zimmerman never told Trayvon he was the neighborhood watch guy.
Zimmerman pulled the trigger on his gun and shot Trayvon in the heart.
At the very least Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter.
sad-cafe
(1,277 posts)how firkin hard is it to understand that?
Hugabear
(10,340 posts)You know, if he was straddling Zimmerman in the grass, 'raining down blows' - then where were the grass stains on Trayvon's pants?
Or do those facts not matter to you?
Control-Z
(15,682 posts)pants and jacket be covered in mud and grass stains? You know, while he was struggling to get out from under Trayvon.
Hugabear
(10,340 posts)You know, with special nanotechnology, polymers, and other stuff that makes stains impossible
ksoze
(2,068 posts)
Hugabear
(10,340 posts)And the lack of injuries to Zimmerman is a lot more damning to his story.
ksoze
(2,068 posts)Why say they were no stains as "facts" and then when presented with evidence, it now does not matter?
otohara
(24,135 posts)it took 45 days until he was arrested.
I don't feel one bit of sorrow for this man who was looking for trouble to impress the cops and for a while he did.
He impressed you - and many others with his lies.
Just Saying
(1,799 posts)I just don't believe it.
I don't believe Zimmerman's story of what happened that night and believe he lied to cover himself. Did you watch the trial? I thought the prosecution did a good job pointing out many of the lies in his story.
Actually, Trayvon was a skinny, gangly kid. Did you see the picture of him dead? I'm not certain Zimmerman didn't hit or grab Trayvon. I'm also not sure he didn't have his gun drawn already when he followed TM behind those buildings.
Did you know Zimmerman was thinner when this happened? Did you know he was studying MMA fighting a couple times a week for over a year? Did you know it was only about 7PM? Did you know Trayvon had just turned 17 and had no criminal record? Did you know Zimmerman referred to Trayvon as a "fucking punk" and "asshole" even though he didn't know him at all?
You're always welcome to your opinion but please don't assume that those of us who disagree with it haven't considered all the options.
No, being a douchebag wannabe cop doesn't make him a murderer, shooting an unarmed kid does.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)Someone in another thread posted that the jury knows better than us and is a better position to make a decision. I agree with that, but from what I have seen and read, I would vote to acquit if I were on the jury.
Just Saying
(1,799 posts)Guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
handmade34
(22,756 posts)"The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual, is murder in the second degree and constitutes a felony of the first degree....
(3)?When a human being is killed during the perpetration of, or during the attempt to perpetrate, any:...
...(n)?Aggravated stalking,
"...means to engage in a course of conduct, directed at a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress in such person and serves no legitimate purpose.
in other words it is 2nd degree murder when someone kills during the act of aggravated stalking (with gun)... all other points are moot...
Zimmerman's words and actions clearly showed a "a depraved mind regardless of human life" and he was engaged in "aggravated stalking" when encountering Trayvon...
heaven05
(18,124 posts)you would. nuff said.
Control-Z
(15,682 posts)the moment he got out of the car to stalk him. You're the first person I've noticed who has even mentioned the possibility. Z is a cowardly, racist, wannabe cop. I don't believe for a moment that he got out of his car without his gun drawn. And that's how the cops always do it in the movies, isn't it?
Just Saying
(1,799 posts)Problem is, the only witness who could tell us is dead. I certainly don't believe it happened as Zimmerman explained. The prosecution showed he couldn't even get to his gun in the situation he described and how exactly was he screaming for help with Trayvon's hands over his mouth and nose?
Skittles
(153,169 posts)how about Zimmerman stalked Travyon and pulled a gun when he confronted him, in an effort to detain him EVEN THOUGH TRAYVON HAD DONE NOTHING WRONG. Why does Trayvon not have the right to defend himself against a paranoid gun-toting FREAK?
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)But I don't think that the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)I wouldn't trust him with a slingshot, much less a gun. I just don't think he's guilty in this case. Knowing what I know (and granted, I haven't seen everything the jury has), I could never cast a guilty vote in this trial.
ThePhilosopher04
(1,732 posts)He profiled him, chased after him, confronted him and shot him dead cold. His self defense alibi is full of holes, and not just minor ones. There's no way he could have pulled the gun and shot Trayvon Martin had Martin been on top, straddling him, and Trayvon certainly could not have seen nor reached the gun. GAME OVER RIGHT THERE, not to mention he bald face lied when he said he never heard of stand your ground.
And even if we stipulate what he said was true, he's still guilty because he wasn't reasonably in fear for his life. He had fucking BOBOS for injuries and his nose could have easily been broken by himself ... could have been an elbow or could have happened during a tackle.
Regardless of the verdict, he'll be haunted for life and will most certainly rot in hell.
Spirochete
(5,264 posts)avoided the whole mess, but sought it out instead, makes him guilty to me. Self defense refers to someone who fights when he's cornered - not someone who looks for a corner to fight in..
tblue37
(65,404 posts)ThePhilosopher04
(1,732 posts)I get bigger scratches doing my lawn and playing with my dogs than that.
tblue37
(65,404 posts)bandaid on, are worth killing a kid who is unarmed, doing nothing illegal, and just taking candy home to his little brother.
Of course, if the kid is black, then as far as some people are concerned, then he must be a terrifying, relentless killing machine--like the Terminator.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)Hugabear
(10,340 posts)So now anyone who gets a bloody nose during a fight has the right to KILL the other person?
JanMichael
(24,890 posts)long time ago. I thought your screen name was misleading then, and am surprised to see you still around.
As someone who is familiar with "rescue," you should know that head scratches bleed heavily, and you should know why.
This is cleverly disguised flame-baiting. "As soon as I saw those injuries...." please. Too bad you missed the rest of the testimony.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)Please refresh my memory.
Is every OP with which you disagree "flame bait"?
JanMichael
(24,890 posts)You have been on DU a long time; so have I.
tblue37
(65,404 posts)head have a rich supply of blood. The pics taken right after the event show a fair amount of blood because of this, but as every mother knows, just because a face injury looks bloody at first, that doesn't mean it is serious. Most mothers have all had that terrifying moment when we think our precious baby has been mortally injured because his face or head is covered in blood, only to discover after wiping the blood away that the injury is minor indeed.
npk
(3,660 posts)What is so damn hard to understand here. Do you honestly believe that Martin should have just allowed Zimmerman to stalk, and confront him, wrestle him to the ground, and what Martin should just take that. What is this 1950's Mississippi. I guess black people are not allowed to fight back. What a load of crap. Zimmerman was ordered to stay in his vehicle. If he was so damn concerned about what Martin was doing, all he had to do was wait for the police to arrive and let them do their job. The fact is, despite what Zimmerman's delusional little mind told him, he was NOT a law enforcement officer. He had no right to take the law into his own hands that night, and Martin certainly had every right to defend himself against someone who was bigger and more aggressive than him.
otohara
(24,135 posts)I've got two on my head right now that are bleeding
Iggo
(47,558 posts)The fact that he murdered that child is what makes him a murderer.
ellenfl
(8,660 posts)a good offense being the best defense. i believe that whatever tm's actions, they were in defense.
what would you do if someone (bigger than you) was stalking you on a rainy night. he tried running. did he want to bring trouble to his front door? quick thinking doesn't always turn out well, but tm was doing nothing wrong and is dead.
if tm had smashed gz's head against concrete 20 times, as gz claimed, wouldn't his injuries be much worse than they were. i suspect he might have fractured his skull if not at least had a concussion. you don't smash someone's head on the concrete 20 times with so little injury.
bottom line for me is that gz was trigger happy, had no intention to kill anyone but should be held responsible for tm's death.
polichick
(37,152 posts)was stop stalking and get back into his car. He picked a fight with an unarmed kid - it was Trayvon fighting for his life.
polly7
(20,582 posts)He's guilty as hell and belongs in prison for a long, long time.
The Magistrate
(95,247 posts)And knowledge of human behavior accumulated over the course of a long life.
He got out of his car determined to do whatever it took to see to it this 'fucking punk' did not get away with it.
He had absolutely no legitimate reason to believe Mr. Martin was a 'fucking punk' bent on or in the midst of committing a crime.
This is the display of depraved mind necessary for the maximum charge.
He had no reasonable ground for believing he was in danger sufficient that only deadly force could save him. The fact is that his injuries were insignificant, and the man had been in physical altercations before, as well as practiced for them several days a week for a year, and so knew had grounds to know he was not under such threat. He lied in describing the situation; he described the situation in a manner deliberately tailored to meet the requirements of the law, and then he lied about his knowledge of the law, claiming he was ignorant of it when in fact he had studied it and gotten a high grade in the course covering it.
His claim of self defense, making the homicide justifiable, is false beyond reasonable doubt.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)It certainly doesn't feel insignificant. A good hit in the nose is almost panic-inducing.
Skittles
(153,169 posts)
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Hit Zimmerman before Zimmerman called the police.
Then Zimmy has a reason to think Martin is a suspect in a crime and should not be allowed to get away.
But Zimmy decides Martin is a suspect first and he's angry that these punks keep getting away. And he does so prior to any confrontation.
Zimmerman says these things in his call to the police. He actually provides his motive for confronting Martin.
And Martin did not get away.
uponit7771
(90,347 posts)Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)I've read more than watched.
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)Starting with Bernie, finishing with Guy.
Then see if you still think he is not guilty.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)From what I saw in the prosecution's presentation, I wasn't impressed. I didn't see closing statements, though.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)I thought the debate was interesting, but I wasn't sure. However, the more I learned, the more I thought Zimmerman was a creepy dude. I don't know if he followed the proper legal procedures, since I'm not a lawyer, but I do currently believe that he behaved very poorly, and his poor behavior led to the death of Martin, who wasn't doing anything bad when we was being followed.
gulliver
(13,186 posts)And it is possible that the jury will convict him of manslaughter just because they are sufficiently pissed about him causing the whole thing...or because they think he is a liar and possibly secretly wanted to kill one of the people who "always get away." Juries do think like that. I have been on one where it was just the killer and the deceased who knew exactly what happened.
If there were a crime like "doing something assholish that leads to someone else doing something foolish and getting killed," then Zimmerman would be going up the river. There is no such crime.
The family already settled a lawsuit with the homeowner's association for a likely big figure. If Zimmerman walks, they might use that money to punish him in civil court. A judgment for $2-3 million against Zimmerman would probably break him for life.
Unfortunately, there are lawless situations, and they are best avoided.
Duckwraps
(206 posts)other posts on this. If found not guilty he cannot be sued in FL?
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)to murder Trayvon, when he was clearly instructed to do the
exact opposite by law enforcement authorities.
noamnety
(20,234 posts)And zimmerman's not a murderer - except for the one person he stalked, shot and killed.
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)whose opinions are the only ones that matter at this point.
Many places have laws that reflect the idea that sometimes people battle it out to the death, and that there is not necessarily a need to find the winner of the fight guilty of anything. I would find that with the ways the laws are written in Florida, it's one of those places.
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)Every choice he made was the wrong one.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)guilt to a moral certainty and beyond a reasonable doubt. But the facts simply do not point toward innocence in this case. He had no reason to provoke an incident with the young man and it escapes reason to suggest that he had an reason to believe that he was in such danger that deadly force was his only option. The young man is dead because Zimmerman shot him and killed him. He had no reason to do that.
Jim__
(14,077 posts)For instance, Zimmerman said he got out of his car because the non-emergency police operator asked him to get an address. But, when the operator asked for an address, Zimmerman eventually gave his home address and the operator accepted that. The operator never asked him for another address. Why did Zimmerman get out of his car? Why is he lying about it? His lies about very simple things - he could have said he got out of the car to follow Trayvon (which he did) - lead me to believe he's lying about more important things. I don't accept the case he's trying to make for self-defense - and he did shoot and kill Trayvon Martin.
ctaylors6
(693 posts)to decide his fate. It bothers me greatly when criminal cases are tried in the media. On DU alone, I've read so many incorrect versions of and assumptions about the law.
Having seen criminal cases from the legal side, including death penalty cases, I very strongly believe that the judicial system needs to go through its process.
Our judicial system is set up so that the government has to prove beyond a reason doubt that someone is guilty of a crime. Does it yield perfect "results"? Of course not. Does that let some guilty people go free? Should it be the other way? That the burden isn't as high and maybe more innocent people are convicted?
Self-defense cases have traditionally been very difficult for the judicial process. Consider the duty-to-retreat issue specifically (although not really a point of contention in this trial from the little I've read). If there's a duty to retreat, theoretically more people back away from confrontations so there are fewer uses of force, especially deadly force, so fewer people die. The prosecution could usually say the defendant didn't retreat and that might carry the day almost by itself. Without a duty to retreat, the prosecution's job is harder. Facts in self-defense cases are often unclear, and with deadly force cases by definition the only person left is the defendant. But when a person legitimately is using self-defense, that person doesn't have to retreat "to the wall" before defending himself or herself. (Notably, the duty retreat is a major issue in cases of domestic violence and battered woman syndrome.) There are, IMHO, valid arguments on both sides of this particular issue.
I have no idea how the jury will decide this case, and I wouldn't even begin to evaluate the evidence presented to the jury. I do however believe that when a defendant is represented by an appropriately experienced lawyer, I'd rather leave his fate to the judicial process.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)btw, I don't think there is duty to retreat in Florida.
ctaylors6
(693 posts)I just think it's an interesting issue to look at when considering the balance of justice in criminal matters. As an academic matter, I find that self-defense law has an interesting history both in theory and application.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Wtf alternate univerese do you live in??? He KILLED AN UNARMED TEEN IN COLD BLOOD, AND YOU'RE SAYING HE AINT A MURDERER???
Grrrrrrrr!!!!
MFM008
(19,816 posts)at least.
katmondoo
(6,457 posts)Trayvon as much as you and others try to paint him as a thug will become a martyr. A young man gunned down for no reason.
dorkzilla
(5,141 posts)So if you knew someone personally who lied about everything; small details, big stories and everything in between, would you give them on iota of credibility? Probably not.
GZ is a LYING SACK OF RACIST SHIT who murdered a child in cold blood.
Anyone who believes him does so because they want to, not because the fair preponderance of the facts support his story. And if you're basing it on the scratches, several witnesses FOR THE DEFENSE conceded that he exaggerated the extent of his injuries.
ecstatic
(32,712 posts)and then that person has the right to kill you if you try to get away or defend yourself?
all american girl
(1,788 posts)Many, many, many moons ago, I thought I was being followed. I was wrong, but I had my keys in between my fingers, my shoulders back, and I was ready to hit. I was wrong, I wasn't being followed. Trayvon was. Even JUST thinking you are being followed is scary, let alone, realizing that it is happening. Trayvon was scared and nervous (Rachel's testimony attests to that), what do you think a person should do in that situation? Remember, Cleveland and Jeffery Dahmer.....or any scary thing that can happen to a person, no matter what your age is. Why is this so hard for people to understand?
kentuck
(111,103 posts)...chances are they will lie about another.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)"Not guilty"?
Certainly, Zimmerman's behavior resulted in a dead teen. The rest is legalese.
Response to NaturalHigh (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
RBInMaine
(13,570 posts)You need to consider all the evidence. Key points are: That he profiled Trayvon preducially and maliciously, pursuing him with tremendous negligence and recklessness, with the mindset that Trayvon was an "asshole" and "fucking punk", in complete violation of his training as a neighborhood watch captain and in violation of the advice given him by the police dispatcher. He followed Trayvon and confronted him, inciting that confrontation. HE was the pursuer. HE was the aggressor. When he confronted Trayvon, who has the right to defend HIMSELF, did he identify himself as a neighborhood watch captain? Did he ask Trayvon if Trayvon needed help or just what he was doing and if he could help him? No. Why? Because he had in his mind and heart that Trayvon was an "asshole" and was "up to no good" and was a "fucking punk." HE tried and convicted Trayvon not even knowing him or taking the time to ask.
Then after the verbal confrontation which escalated into a physical confrontation, Zimmerman shoots and kills him. Some of these details are sketchy. But remember, Zimmerman was the ANGRY MALICIOUS PROFILER who pursued Trayvon. HE was the general aggressor. HE initiated this incident. Then after he shot Trayvon, what did he do then? HE spun a MASSIVE WEB OF LIES to justify what he did. IRREFUTABLE LIES. And too many to be mere "inconsistencies."
This was negligent and reckless behavior driven by malice that resulted in the kid's death. It can not be condoned. It was not necessary to shoot that kid dead. The kid was unarmed and weighed 158 pounds. Common sense says AT LEAST MANSLAUGHTER.
Dreamer Tatum
(10,926 posts)Used to convict GZ via message board wasn't emphasized at the trial, I have to wonder why certain posters here didn't prosecute him.
Oh wait...I know: they are making the evidence fit the opinion instead of building opinion based on evidence. That's what all smart prosecutors do.
If it wasn't discussed by the prosecution at trial, I don't give a shit what anyone on a message board has to say about it.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)displacedtexan
(15,696 posts)"Sorry, we didn't mean to shoot your kid" isn't gonna fly as a state tourism motto.
ksoze
(2,068 posts)Six Floridians will have made that decision and Florida's tourism won't drop at all either way. There will be a new shiny object for the slow summer media circus and all eyes will be on that.
cynatnite
(31,011 posts)Murder? I don't know about that.
I also think it's likely that Zimmerman will walk. He will not serve any time for the killing of Trayvon Martin.
I don't like it, but it's the system we've got. Guilty people will walk away and the innocent will be convicted.
What makes it worse, IMO, is that if he is found not guilty, he will go on TV as if he's been fully exonerated and celebrate.
His parents will suffer the loss of their son all over again.
MrScorpio
(73,631 posts)Good luck with that.
Moses2SandyKoufax
(1,290 posts)Did you happen to see who rec'd this piece of garbage OP?
Response to Moses2SandyKoufax (Reply #144)
devilgrrl This message was self-deleted by its author.
arthritisR_US
(7,288 posts)believe that cows fly.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)after Zimmerman tried to disengage, but Zimmerman is still at fault.
1. He is an adult and should have shown better judgement.
2. He had a gun, which brings with it certain responsibilities.
3. He initiated the confrontation.
Martin was a kid (albeit a hotheaded one) who wasn't doing anything wrong. Adults bear greater responsibility for their judgement and behavior.
Zimmerman might get off on reasonable doubt, but he's responsible for what happened.
polly7
(20,582 posts)rrneck
(17,671 posts)But I read it here, so I could be wrong. In any event his youth would have made him more susceptible to Zimmerman's obnoxious behavior. It takes a measure of maturity to keep a cool head when somebody's messing with you.
polly7
(20,582 posts)It's hard to know what's right or not with all the information that's been put out there.
Response to NaturalHigh (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Nevernose
(13,081 posts)Because in this particular case, there was lots and lots of evidence. Physical facts and testimonial facts.
Believe it or not, even though I'm rooting for Zimmerman to serve a prison sentence, I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. Then I looked at all the evidence, noticed the lies, and came to my own personal conclusion that he's obviously guilty.
I withheld my personal judgment about the Duke case, too, and said that people should wait for more evidence before condemning them.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)In comparing this to the Duke case, I mainly meant that the majority were convinced of guilt before the case had even unfolded.
We've apparently looked at the same evidence and come to different conclusions. That's okay. That's why we have jurors. I hope people will accept their verdict, no matter what it is.
MjolnirTime
(1,800 posts)It's that simple.
Zimmerman has no remorse.
He doesn't think it would have been better if he had never gotten out of his car.
He thinks it was God's Will for him to kill Trayvon Martin.
Will he think it's God's Will when he is incarcerated?
ksoze
(2,068 posts)Evidence presented said T on top when shot (even prosecution demonstrated that) and closest witness saw T on top right before shot.
TheBlackAdder
(28,209 posts)They showed the picture of Trayvon without his shirt, trying to portray that the kid was larger and stronger than Zimmerman.
This just makes me think:
If you're a smaller and weaker person, why would you try to interfere in a person's business knowing that a larger person might use their physical strength and size to get you out of the way?
Why would you risk a physical altercation with a larger person?
===
The only reason why a person would do that was they were not afraid to use their firearm as a backup.
The darkness was not Trayvon's friend and was used as cover for whatever Zimmerman did.
Response to TheBlackAdder (Reply #167)
Name removed Message auto-removed
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)That's one of those annoying fact things that most don't seem to care about.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)He killed a boy who Zimmerman thought looked suspicious.
He fantasized about being a cop or even a Neighbourhood Watch organiser.
He ignored - despite the instructions given in the Neighbourhood Watch training - the preference that he be unarmed and that following a suspected person was forbidden.
He ignored the specific instruction on the night not to follow.
He was the one who had had MMA training.
He was the one with a prior record of aggressive behaviour.
Guilty
yardwork
(61,650 posts)Those injuries? The injuries that Zimmerman declined to go to the hospital to have treated, that the EMTs on the scene wiped off and didn't even bandage? Those injuries were enough in your mind for Zimmerman to shoot and kill an unarmed kid?
I'm going to be rude. I'm going to say that you would have the opposite opinion if Zimmerman was black and Trayvon Martin had been Hispanic and Anglo.
Ruby the Liberal
(26,219 posts)for his walk-through video the next day.
Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)He acted like a wannabee cop and a kid died. A kid who was doing nothing but walking home. A kid who he pursued for no other reason then that he was young, black and had his hood up in the rain.
lumpy
(13,704 posts)convinced Zimmerman caused the death of Martin by his own reckless actions and he should have to pay an appropriate price. Trayvon Martin didn't cause his own death that rests on Zimmermans shoulders even if Martin fought against Zimmerman. Hard to believe that Zimmerman was beaten on his head as he claimed, scratched or nicks to his head and face doesn't indicate that he had his head bashed as many as 20 or more times as he claimed. No concussion, no cracked scull no contact bruises ?
Perhaps the jury doesn't know about Zimmerman's personal life, arrests and violent history, but that enters into my take on the case.
KansDem
(28,498 posts)Then use it when you're getting clobbered.
Generic Brad
(14,275 posts)He stalked Trayvon Martin, provoked him and killed him. That does make him a murderer.
Response to NaturalHigh (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Ilsa
(61,695 posts)Besides shooting him in the heart. He could have shot a warning shot, he could have told him, "I have a gun. Let me go or I'll shoot you." But he didnt even tell TM that he was a member of Neighborhood Watch on patrol. He wanted to shoot someone that night, and he got out of his car to go confront him when he shouldn't have. This guy promoted himself to god for one night.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)He's the one who followed/stalked Martin. He's the one who ignored advice (not a command, granted) from the dispatcher to lay off. He's the one who had a weapon. His injuries, as I just said above, were quite minor and didn't match his account of having his head slammed repeatedly on the pavement. And finally, he's the one who made it out of the encounter alive.
I guess my main question is, why are you so quick to believe Zim's account of things? He certainly hasn't shown himself to be honest or trustworthy thus far - lying, changing his story, etc. He's also the one with a criminal record and demonstrated anger issues (domestic violence etc.) - Martin, to my knowledge, never did anything worse than smoke weed or (allegedly) film a fistfight between two friends. He certainly doesn't strike me as a violent criminal in any way, whereas I can't say the same of Zimmerman.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)Is that you, Sean?
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)The same could be said for you. What was the point of your arrogant and obnoxious reply?
Nine
(1,741 posts)Your Op asked
Why do so many people not care about the circumstances of what happened that night?
That's a loaded question. You are presuming that many people not care about the circumstances of what happened that night. And you made it clear that you think the "many people not care about the circumstances" are the people who feel Zimmerman is guilty. I care very deeply about the circumstances and I think Zimmerman is guilty, and this is true of many others as well. But you are making the two things mutually exclusive - in essence saying that anyone who disagrees with you must simply not care about the truth. That is an arrogant and obnoxious thing to say.
flvegan
(64,408 posts)I won't be surprised at the verdict either way. And no matter the verdict, nobody wins here. A kid is dead, no matter the outcome. He lost, and his family and loved ones will continue to be at a loss. Zimmerman's enjoyment of life is as good as over as well, no matter the outcome. No matter the outcome, he also has to live with ending a 17 year old kid's life. Justified or not, he has to live with that.
That said, if the evidence were overwhelming (or even convincing) I'd be in the "let him rot in prison" crowd as well. It just isn't from what I've seen (and I'm not following this that closely...sue me). Well, at least not to me. I've seen a lot of armchair lawyers with the legal sense of turnips here on DU waxing endlessly about this. Oh, and the eyewitnesses here. Don't know how so many DUers just happened to be there at the time (or so it seems, from what they say).
I just Googled if Zimmerman had a concealed carry permit, and it turns out he did. Tough case for the prosecution.
*On edit, changed "do" to "have" to better answer the actual question.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)"And no matter the verdict, nobody wins here."
That's the saddest thing about the whole case. I can't imagine what it would be like to lose one of my kids.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)then we have a f'kd up legal system.
Response to DCBob (Reply #227)
Name removed Message auto-removed
KT2000
(20,583 posts)Zimmerman caused the whole incident to happen. What right did he have to stalk and even approach someone like he did. Trayvon had a right to defend himself, which he did without shooting anyone, and if Zimmerman never considered that, it is his fault.
Never thought Zimmerman was not guilty.
Rex
(65,616 posts)I have no idea why since it is pretty obvious he killed the kid.
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)and his resort to fatal violence which makes him guilty of a crime. Zimmerman made no effort to make Trayvon feel at ease, but he maintained his hostile behavior.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)by the media all along. It's always "Zimmerman" and "Trayvon." A strange-sounding last name and a cute little first name. I see it all the time here too. It's almost a reflex.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)I have considered whether he's not guilty. I don't see evidence of murder. As for manslaughter....I'm not sure. I find it hard to believe GZ was in fear of great bodily harm to the extent that he had to shoot TM. Maybe.
I would have to discuss this at a roundtable with other jurors. It's a close call, for me.
There's no doubt that TM approached GZ, sucker punched him, and knocked him to the ground and pounded his head a few times. But...how serious was that? GZ's injuries weren't serious. And GZ's actions preceding the event instigated the whole thing...altho I'm not sure to what extent that comes into play.
The key question is...was GZ in fear of great bodily harm? I can't say.
avebury
(10,952 posts)kicked back because he was probably not positioned like one would when normally firing a gun and he was not a real experienced shooter.
I 100% think that Zimmerman already had the gun out when he approached Trayvon. It was dark, raining, poor visibility, Zimmerman would not have known if he was approaching an armed person, and he was determined that this was an a**hole who wasn't going to get away. I then think that when Trayvon realized that some nut (and TM had no reason to believe that GM was not a nut) was coming at him with a gun. A reasonable person would have made every effort to get away from the armed nut and this is when the scuffle took place. Trayvon Martin fought for his life --- and lost.
I actually believe that, had the police done a more thorough investigation from the start, Zimmerman would have faced ever more serious charges then 2nd Degree Murder.
Zimmerman was playing vigilante that night.
pacalo
(24,721 posts)And a teenager wouldn't have been MURDERED. All of this due to Zimmerman's paranoid assumptions.
One either has common sense or not.
Sienna86
(2,149 posts)Guilty of not following neighborhood watch rules, getting out of his car, having an poor sense of self-esteem wherein carrying a loaded gun made him feel powerful, being responsible for starting an altercation which, when it didn't go well, caused him to shoot and kill Trayvon Martin, a minor.
This horrible loss of Trayvon Martin's young life will, I hope, to serve as a catalyst for our society. We can't take owning and carrying weapons lightly. It presents a huge responsibility. It also makes us look at our ourselves and how we profile others of different skin color.
Owl
(3,642 posts)Apophis
(1,407 posts)I can't believe anyone would defend him. You'd have to be some of the worst scum on earth to defend a piece of shit like Zimmerman.
Response to Apophis (Reply #264)
Name removed Message auto-removed
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)I just don't think the facts in this case (that I know) justify a conviction.
Apophis
(1,407 posts)I can't stand people who defend Zimmerman.
Quixote1818
(28,946 posts)But I keep coming back to him being negligent and a person who so badly wants to be a hero he killed someone trying to reach his dream.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)Zimmerman killed him with that gun. Zimmerman is guilty of killing him.
The rest is rationalization.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)If it did, victims of rape attempts would be jailed for using deadly force to prevent rape.
polly7
(20,582 posts)NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)LWolf
(46,179 posts)I also know that the law is not always aligned with right; it's not a perfect vehicle.
I also know that the person with the gun killed the unarmed person. Regardless of what the law calls it, the person with the gun IS guilty of killing the guy without the gun.
No matter how one tries to rationalize or justify the killing.
I don't believe Martin was raping Zimmerman; that's not comparable.
brettdale
(12,382 posts)If Martin is alive, hes not alive is he? For Zimmerman to be not guilty of second degree murder or manslaughter,
martin has to be alive?
Is he? is he in hiding somewhere?
If Martin is dead, Zimmerman goes to jail.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)Deep13
(39,154 posts)Unarmed kid is dead an GZ shot him.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)How they came about is very much in dispute.
musical_soul
(775 posts)There's no way it could second degree murder when you consider the fact that Zimmerman was on his back yelling for help. I have considered manslaughter since Zimmerman was clearly bigger than Martin. Did he have to kill Martin? However, I think I'd let him go due to reasonable doubt.
You don't have to believe in putting Zimmerman away to like black people and to want them to be safe. It's okay to have a mind of one's own on this.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Zimmerman's superficial "wounds" are nothing, a start of a fight(a fight we know he instigated by stalking Martin), not a beat down, Martin was rightfully defending himself, his failure in bashing in Zimmerman's skull was his only crime, because only one person had deadly intent that night and it wasn't Martin, as was proven by the end result.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)All people have the right to defend themselves.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)duffyduff
(3,251 posts)If you want to look at how somebody was utterly trashed by the media but had an extremely flimsy state case against the defendant, look no further than the recent Jodi Arias case.
I used to buy the Legal Shield/Mormon narrative that was peddled by the media, but I completely changed when I watched the trial. Prosecution had NO evidence of premeditation or evidence against self-defense, which it clearly was given the violence of the scene of the crime. It was kill or be killed.
Unfortunately, that jury also watched the media despite instructions, and they monumentally screwed up. Fear for their lives may have played a factor, as defense witnesses were also threatened. The anger over Zimmerman nowhere approaches the 24/7 smear against Jodi Arias.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)But they had made up their mind within hours after the story broke. They didn't need a trial, it was obvious, etc.
Well, here it is. Personally I thought he should get manslaughter, but that he would walk.
anobserver2
(836 posts)If Trayvon Martin had jumped Zimmerman's vehicle with Zimmerman in it, and Trayvon had a gun ...
then I would say: Gee, this is clearly a case of self defense on the part of Zimmerman.
But when Trayvon Martin is not jumping any vehicle, and is walking alone en route from a store to go to a residence, and has no gun,
then: I am having a tough time concluding Trayvon is the one who is instigating anything here.
Also, I remember what happened to Bernie Goetz on the NYC subway many years ago, but that was four guys ganging up on
one guy, with the very obvious intention of robbing Goetz.
Goetz took out a gun and shot them, leaving one guy paralyzed. I think all four of those guys had criminal records. Just the fact it was four guys cornering Goetz was very different than what happened in this case, even though some people tried to make it sound like the same situation.
Pisces
(5,599 posts)Engaged Zimmerman he did not have to kill a 17 yr old. Reverse the situation a 32 yr old black man shoots and kills a 17 Harold white boy.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)is not required to take an ass kicking. That's some very narrow thinking.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)At the least this should make him culpable for manslaughter.
RedCappedBandit
(5,514 posts)Reasonable doubt, though, I suppose could exist.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Did you see the picture of Trayvon on the ground... he had neatly pressed khaki's rolled perfectly at his ankles. They were light khaki's with no dirt/stains/splotches from what I could tell. It was a rainy night in FLorida and grass loves to stain khaki... there was no fight, they were not on the ground. This man killed this kid in cold blood... and he got away with it.
It's "okay" they will get him the next time he kills someone, hopefully he doesn't but this is usually a pattern behavior.
Delete your horrible OP is my advice.
tiny elvis
(979 posts)according to florida law
wherein the preeminent stand your ground statute shifts identity with every alternating response to a threat
until the final blow is its last application
so that might is right and the outcome of a fight is god's plan
mstinamotorcity2
(1,451 posts)investigation from the start this would all be under the rug. And when you start approaching peoples children with guns at night without identifying who you are your injuries should have been more severe then those few scratches on his head.
