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.
Right here in northeastern PA, a young African American, 14 y.o., was shot to death in front of his house on Thursday. He was on his way home from playing basketball at the CYC, which he did a couple of evenings a week. This young man was an honor roll student, played b-ball and football. Sang in his church choir. Didn't hang on any corners, or run the streets with a gang. He has been praised by everyone who knew him. (I didn't). The shooting was a drive-by. There are no suspects at this time.
There was a community vigil in his memory. Our local papers are covering the story.
So far, the national media, the Rev.Jackson and Mr. Sharpton have not been heard from. Maybe it's because the race of the shooter is not yet known? Is his death less important or less horrifying than Trayvon Martin's?
And even if Zimmerman were making an accurate assessment by his observations, what part of this dictates that GZ gets to play cop wanna' be one confront TM in any way. Or, I'll ask where's the hard evidence that TM actually jumped and assaulted GZ for no reason apart from Zimmerman's questionable assertion? The preponderance of evidence says otherwise or at leaves sufficient doubt.
You're right. But it's our justice system. He doesn't need hard evidence. The burden of proof is on the prosecution. For example, in the case of Casey Anthony, there was no evidence linking her directly to the crime. In my personal opinion, the jury used reasonable doubt incorrectly. I wasn't in the jury room, so I don't know if the judge didn't explain it to them, the prosecution did a lousy job, or she was, in fact, innocent of the charges (which I doubt) I suppose someone who is missing a baby might just go out and party instead of reporting it to the police for over a month. Sure. However, the law specifically states that "reasonable" means based on evidence, reason and common sense and not what we think might or might not be possible.
I'm on your side and am sad that this happened. It's not anything new, however. Justifiable homicides aren't uncommon, and it's my opinion that in this case we have even less evidence than in other cases where the person on trial was acquitted. Only if the Federal Investigation reveals facts not currently known to the public (which is very possible) and experts can show undisputed evidence that proves Martin was yelling for help, or eyewitness testimony can positively state Zimmerman was the aggressor, it's always going to be a "he said-she said" kind of case.
If I ran the world, I would charge him with involuntary manslaughter or negligent homicide, just something that would give the Martin family some justice. But I don't run the world, and I think he will either not be arrested or charged or be tried and acquitted of all charges. Keep in mind that this man went free in Florida. This is why I keep saying the crime isn't necessarily racially motivated.
[youtube]AE8piVt_mIw[/youtube]
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AE8piVt_mIw]Another 'Stand Your Ground' case in Florida - YouTube[/url]
AND his condition (broken nose, bloody, beaten, head gash/welts) AND the eye witness.
No proof of broken nose, no proof of welts, one gash on his head which could of happened any time. Plus it was dark, how could any witness tell what was going on since they only saw seconds before the shot went off. Admit it sanrene, all of you Zimmerman fans don't have nothing to back up his story.
IF he did physically assault Zimmerman, it was likely out of frustration and concern of his own well being, so people have to stop acting like this is just a guy beating up on another guy for no reason.
If someone is aggressively following you, it's probably smart to call the police. Here's the thing: you don't expect a 17-year-old kid to make smart decisions, but you should be able to expect that from an adult, which is why I'll always blame Zimm. for this. It simply isn't fair.
.
Frustration is not a reason to attack someone. At 17 he is almost an adult and should have made better decisions if he did assault GZ.
Fifteen years ago my spouse and I were held up at gunpoint in Crystal City, VA, by two black men. They held the gun to my spouse's chest and took anything of value from us. For years my spouse felt violated and afraid. She refused to go to anywhere, except work, alone. I traveled extensively for business and she was afraid to stay alone. The incident took away her freedom. We didn't know if they planned to use the gun or not. Thankfully they chose not to use it, but it took a tremendous emotional toll on my spouse.
I can't place blame in this case as I don't know all the facts, except to say that Zimmerman had a choice..to use the gun or not. He obviously knew Martin was not armed. Zimmerman does not look like her couldn't hold his own in a physical altercation. Zimmerman chose to pull the trigger knowing full well that he would kill Martin, an unarmed man. A jury should decide what Zimmerman should be charged with.
"Unarmed" does not mean he was not a lethal threat. Juries decide convictions/acquitals, not charges. Charges are required for arrest and any attempt to prosecute.
To answer the OP, does it matter legally? Maybe. Until all the facts are presented no one will know. Nothing but speculation at this point. There has already been way to much, IMO.
The bottom line is simple: if the cops tell you to leave someone alone, then DO IT!! He was told not to confront the kid and he did, and now we have a mess.
So yea, it does matter.
So when did the cops tell someone to leave someone alone.
The DISPATCHER said, "We don't need you to do that".
There were NO instructions telling him to leave anyone alone, and no one said ANYTHING about confronting anyone, and this kind of misinformation is ridiculous.
Now I am NOT saying what he did was right, but of you are going to tell someone the bottom line, make sure it is the truth, not the truth as you think it is.
I think most people can agree that George Zimmerman was the cause of Trayvon Martin's death. He's the one that started the ensuing confrontation by following a kid who was just walking home from the store. Many are now of the opinion that Zimmerman should be arrested and charged with murder because he started stalking this innocent kid and then killed him as he was armed only with Skittles and Ice Tea. Most of these people believe that Zimmerman was the aggressor in the altercation and that it was Martin who was heard calling for help on the 911 tape. Fact is that we don't know what happened in the minutes leading up to the shooting and since the only person who can tell has a huge incentive to lie chances are good that we will never know for sure.
I'm curious if people think it matters though. Does it matter if it was Zimmerman or Martin that started the physical altercation and if it was Zimmerman or Martin who was calling for help on the tape? Do you think Zimmerman is less guilty, or not guilty at all, if things did go down the way he claims - that Martin punched him in the nose knocking him to the ground and then got on top of him and started to slam his head on the pavement until Zimmerman pulled out his gun and shot? If, hypothetically, it could be conclusively proven that Zimmerman's account of the incident is 100% correct would that change your view of him and the situation? Or do you think it's irrelevant if Martin attacked Zimmerman or not?
I'm really curious what people think about this and I'd love to hear your thoughts and opinons on this.
Thanks
Going on what is pretty much assumed to be fact, you are correct in that Zimmerman is at least partly to blame for Martin's death. I do not think Zimmerman can be charged with murder, given the current known facts. I'm no lawyer so it could be possible that he could be charged with manslaughter, but frankly, I doubt it. I think if Zimmerman is going to be punished at all, it might be something like a "wrongful death" lawsuit. Keep in mind that if any additional information comes to light, all of these theories go out the window.
Since I have this page up and running, I might as well keep typing... This has nothing to do with the shooting per se, but I am wondering why this particular case got legs and became such a big thing nationally. It is a curiosity. I know some of the C-D goofballs (I was going to say "wackjobs" but I held back) would proclaim that violent white-on-black crimes are prime fodder for the liberal media. I wish those goofballs would give it a rest. Fact is, murders are committed in big and small cities every day. Some of these murders involve people of different ethnicities. Why did this one take hold nationally? I for one don't really know, and like all C-D posters, I think I know everything.
no, they are going by police report. we didn't hear zimmerman's testimony yet. but we did recently hear about his father's testimony.
stalking is not an act of provocation. hitting someone in the face is provocation. i can legally follow anyone i wish to on public streets and ask them a question.
Isn't stalking someone a form of harassment? It causes distress to the victim.
Frustration is not a reason to attack someone. At 17 he is almost an adult and should have made better decisions if he did assault GZ.
People get into fights all the time. I'm not condoning violence, but witnesses heard shouting. We don't know what was said. We also don't know if Zimmerman's gun was concealed or in plain view. Just because a gun is called "concealed" doesn't mean others can't tell you are wearing one around your waist.
[url=http://myweaponspermit.com/top-five-concealed-carry-mistakes/]Top Five Concealed Carry Mistakes[/url]
"Even though concealed weapon holders are peaceful and law-abiding citizens, we have to go out of the way to avoid conflict. Just because we can legally carry a concealed weapon does not make us police officers. The same holds true for situations where deadly force would be justified. Just because we can legally shoot does not mean we must ALWAYS shoot."
Keep in mind that this quote isn't from some liberal blog. It's from a school that promotes guns and even offers incentives to join the NRA.
Edit: I want to add that after reading what actual gun schools tell people, it makes me realize even more how wrong Zimmerman was when he followed Martin with a gun. As the above Florida gun training site clearly states, you should go out of your way to avoid conflict. That's because when you are carrying a deadly weapon, it requires even more responsibility!
So between the neighborhood watch group, the coordinator for the Sanford Police who trained them, the police dispatcher, and the schools that train and issue permits, Zimmerman broke every rule. "don't carry a gun, avoid conflict, call the police, keep a safe distance, don't confront suspects, don't follow..." But we have people here who insist he had every right to follow an unarmed teenager with a gun and confront him.
Last edited by justNancy; 04-08-2012 at 02:14 PM..
Reason: edited post, added last comment
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.
There are other similar shootings in Florida
