Why?Originally Posted by Woof!
|
|
|
|
|
Why?
How much?
Previous brushes with the law...overzealous...lack of good judgement...profane...molestation...confrontationa l... agressive...just to name a few. I'm okay with people that think he's a hero, I'm just stating why I think he's destined to end up in jail.
The highlighted part is the part that I can't wrap my head around (Right Dirty?? :cÞ )
At what point do we say that Zim was the aggressor of the situation and that TM was the one legally defending himself and/or "standing his ground"?? Also, if it was a female, is that point different??
The guest host for Rome (radio) today summed it up pretty nicely. (paraphasing) "I don't see how a ARMED man can follow a boy in his truck, then on foot, chasing him down, they fight, one ends up shooting the other, and that he's not guilty of something. (Manslaughter)."
This!
That version of the story conveniently leaves out the most important part of the story in determining whether the killing was legally justified - the part where Z reasonably feared great bodily injury. Following someone with a concealed gun may be dumb, but it is not a crime if you have the required permit. If he pulled the gun or threw the first punch before getting pummeled, then he would not have acted in self defense, but if that happened, the prosecution did not have any evidence to prove it. If you are "keeping it real" you have to include the part of the story where Z got his nose broken and was held down and beaten while his calls for help went unanswered. Of course including those facts doesn't make the argument sound as persuasive and that is why Z opponents choose to leave it out of their argument.
So, if you are carrying a gun, and someone jumps you and persists in beating you up, do you believe that you should not be able to pull it to defend yourself? Or do you just have to accept your fate because you chose to pack that day?
"Stand your ground" is a red herring in this case. Z never used this law - this case was garden variety self defense with deadly force. Stand yor ground gave Z a right to claim immunity from prosecution by having a hearing before a judge - he never sought this immunity.
Last edited by Guisslapp; 07-15-2013 at 07:59 PM.
According to Zimmerman:
"After telling the police dispatcher that Martin "ran",[185] Zimmerman left his vehicle to determine his location and ascertain in which direction Martin had fled.[179][186] The dispatcher asked if Zimmerman was following Martin, and Zimmerman replied "Yeah." Then the dispatcher said, "OK, we don't need you to do that." Zimmerman replied with "OK" and stated that Martin got away.[185] After a discussion about where Zimmerman would meet police, the call ended, and Zimmerman told investigators he was returning to his vehicle when Martin approached him from his left rear and confronted him.[179][180] According to Zimmerman, Martin then punched him in the face, knocking him down, and began beating his head against the sidewalk.[179][180] Zimmerman said he called out for help while being beaten, and at one point Martin covered his mouth to muffle the screams.[179][180] According to Zimmerman's father, during the struggle while Martin was on top of Zimmerman, Martin saw the gun his son was carrying and said something to the effect of "You're gonna die now" or "You're gonna die tonight" and continued to beat Zimmerman.[178] Zimmerman and Martin struggled over the gun, and Zimmerman shot Martin once in the chest at close range, in self-defense.[179][180][181][Note 8]"
Obviously that is his side, but one of the detectives basically confirmed that account:
"On March 16, Serino told the Orlando Sentinel that his investigation had turned up no reliable evidence that cast doubt on Zimmerman's account, that he had acted in self-defense. "The best evidence we have is the testimony of George Zimmerman, and he says the decedent was the primary aggressor in the whole event, everything I have is adding up to what he says."[122]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin
Regardless of what happened, two families are shattered and a young man is dead. Bad decisions on both their parts and a tragedy all the way around.
Yeah, Michael Vick shoots a dog and gets jail time. Plexico Burress shoots himself and gets jail time. George Zimmerman shoots and kills an unarmed man and nothing happens.
Vick was convicted for operating an illegal gambling operation and racketeering. Plax was convicted forYeah, Michael Vick shoots a dog and gets jail time. Plexico Burress shoots himself and gets jail time. George Zimmerman shoots and kills an unarmed man and nothing happens.
discharging a firearm in a club and not having a valid conceal carry permit. They didn't get arrested because of what/who they shot. Self defense is not illegal, and you are really grasping for straws.
Vick was charged with torturing and killing dogs.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/09/25/vick/
Zimmerman's legal woes are not over yet and as I mentioned earlier, we haven't heard the last from him.
Vick never served any prison time for killing the dogs. The charges against him were far more serious, and then there was the added complication of his failed drug test while out on bail.
Not that it needs to be shown, but here is an example of the flagrant media bias and how they attempt to influence our opinions instead of just covering the facts. Everybody remembers the pictures of Trayvon that was always shown when he was a kid
But here is a photo taken from the video of the 7-11 on the night he was killed.
and the actual video.
http://www.ijreview.com/2013/07/6546...nt-you-to-see/
Makes GZ testimony a bit more plausible knowing that TM wasn't actually a little 11 year old pip squeak like the media would have you believe.
But none of what Vick did and what you mentioned is worse than killing a human being.
Killing a person in self defense is different. You have a right to protect yourself.But none of what Vick did and what you mentioned is worse than killing a human being.
BTW, Anderson Cooper has an interview with one of the jurors on TV right now.
Jordan Mills on choosing Tech:
“It’s a great experience seeing them play. It was a good atmosphere. The fans stood up the whole game and never sat down. They have a great fan base.”
Again from Wiki:
"The Associated Press noted that initially the most widely used media photo of Martin was several years old and showed him as a "baby-faced boy," rather than as a 17-year-old young man. To represent Zimmerman, the media chose a shot of a beefy 21-year-old Zimmerman taken seven years prior to the shooting, whereas recent photos show him as slim-faced and more mature. The two outdated photos chosen by the media may have helped shape the initial public perception of the shooting. The AP quoted academic Kenny Irby on the expected effect, "When you have such a lopsided visual comparison, it just stands to reason that people would rush to judgment," and another academic, Betsi Grabe, as saying that journalists will present stories as a struggle between good and evil "If the ingredients are there."[27]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
