Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What are you talking about? Trayvon Martin was minding his own business. He wasn't following anyone, he wasn't calling the police about anything, he went to the store and bought some snacks. He had a purpose for being at the condo complex, to watch the game at his Dad's girlfriend's condo; it's not like he was just walking around a strange condo complex for the heck of it. He had a purpose for being out in the rain, he had gone to the corner store to purchase snacks, and that's exactly what he had done. He wasn't causing a disturbance, or doing anything against the law. He was in the neighborhood where he was supposed to be. How was he not minding his own business?
And yet somehow little magical farries came out and attacked Zimmerman which caused Zimmerman to shoot and kill poor innocent bystandard Trayvon..
Even if Trayvon did attack Zimmerman, it wouldn't have been for no reason.
From a legal standpoint, this is complete and total nonsense. Absolutely ridiculous.
You all should probably step back a bit and try to rewrite a large portion of the law to fit your whims before you move forward with these arguments, because as of now they are nothing more than laughable.
You do not attack people because you think they are following you. You need to have a reasonable fear of serious bodily injury or death. That's it.
Would anything have happened if Zimmerman didnt act like an idiot? Maybe. Most unlikely tho.
Let's put it this way. If Zimmerman hadn't spotted Trayvon and followed him in his truck and by foot, would Trayvon have been in a confrontation with Zimmerman? No. Trayvon had no history of jumping out at people from the bushes and proceeding to attempt to beat them to death. He had not history of assaults.
Would anything have happened if Zimmerman didnt act like an idiot? Maybe. Most unlikely tho.
That's hardly the point.
Your argument seems to be that since we don't know what happened, we might as well find GZ guilty because we at least know that he followed TM around the neighborhood. But for all you know, TM was the aggressor in whatever physical alternation took place.
The legal system simply doesn't operate as you suggest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ellemint
Let's put it this way. If Zimmerman hadn't spotted Trayvon and followed him in his truck and by foot, would Trayvon have been in a confrontation with Zimmerman? No. Trayvon had no history of jumping out at people from the bushes and proceeding to attempt to beat them to death. He had not history of assaults.
It doesn't matter.
You have the legal right to be all of the horrible things that GZ may or may not be, short of starting a physical altercation, without being guilty of a crime.
This is a weak attempt to simply satisfy yourselves with some type of solid conclusion in lei of the actual truth, because you know that the truth may never be uncovered. For what reason I do not know, but it seems very self aggrandizing to me. JMO.
And yet somehow little magical farries came out and attacked Zimmerman which caused Zimmerman to shoot and kill poor innocent bystandard Trayvon..
Who mentioned fairies besides you?
The girl friend claims GZ was yelling at TM. Who was the aggressor from the beginning? GZ does have that nasty history of anger problems.
Look I am not a TM fan club member. I think he was a wanna be thug or a thug in the making.
My whole argument in this entire thing is simple.
TM wasn't doing anything wrong. He was walking home from the store. I would like to think he should be able to do that without being harassed. I know I can where I live.
No, GZ did not necessarily provoke the confrontation, you're making a giant leap with that one.
Following someone is perfectly legal; starting a confrontation is an entirely separate act and we don't know who started the confrontation.
Lets try this. You are walking alone in the dark and you noticed that someone is following you. This can go two ways, you can politely ask why are you following me or you can get into a defensive mode demand that he stops doing it. Your pursuer can respond aggressively or back down. If the pursuer backs down in either case the situation is avoided. If he responds with a racial remark or acts aggressively the problem escalates. Now remember you that you are not the one with a loaded gun and therefore he is in the best position to control the situation since at that time his life is not being threatened. Even if Trayvon became upset (rightly so) from someone following him zimmerman still had a gun and Trayvon did not and still could have walked away.
Your argument seems to be that since we don't know what happened, we might as well find GZ guilty because we at least know that he followed TM around the neighborhood. But for all you know, TM was the aggressor in whatever physical alternation took place.
The legal system simply doesn't operate as you suggest.
It doesn't matter.
You have the legal right to be all of the horrible things that GZ may or may not be, short of starting a physical altercation, without being guilty of a crime.
Even if Trayvon was the aggressor, self-defense allows you to defend yourself to a level commensurate with the threat involved. Trayvon wasn't armed. Zimmerman was. There is no evidence that Zimmerman was receiving a life-threatening beating. He's simply not beat up enough. And there was no DNA of Zimmerman's on Trayvon's hands, which there would have to be if he had been holding Zimmerman's head and pounding it on the pavement, punching him in the face, and holding his hand over Zimmerman's mouth and nose, all of which Zimmerman claims happened. All of which occurred when Zimmerman was supposedly screaming for help, yet none of his saliva on Zimmerman's hands. And remember by then Zimmerman's nose was bleeding. Yet no DNA on Trayvon's hands. Explain that.
Also, if Trayvon had seen or felt the presence of Zimmerman's gun, he might have felt his life was in danger, which could explain the "assault", only there's not much evidence that a life-threatening assault even occurred.
Your argument seems to be that since we don't know what happened, we might as well find GZ guilty because we at least know that he followed TM around the neighborhood. But for all you know, TM was the aggressor in whatever physical alternation took place.
The legal system simply doesn't operate as you suggest.
It doesn't matter.
You have the legal right to be all of the horrible things that GZ may or may not be, short of starting a physical altercation, without being guilty of a crime.
No. My argument is that 1 person was the aggressor from the start. A person with anger issues. TM may have been. A witness says otherwise. A weak witness I agree. But them GZ is a weak witness at best. I mean he is the one who killed a man.
I never claimed it was murder or that GZ is absolutely guilty. I am saying just because the law says its legal to follow someone doesn't make it right.
I would be annoyed if someone did it to me and I might confront it as well. Would GZ have even bothered me? I doubt it.
Some people are calling GZ a hero for his actions. Some make him out to be a saint.
He is none of these things
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
