Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-16-2013, 01:33 PM
 
Location: NE Ohio
30,419 posts, read 20,315,673 times
Reputation: 8958

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by LostInHouston View Post
Again, Florida has a stand your ground law, he did not have to retreat to the apartment. Furthermore, he was not supposed to be anywhere, as he had every right to be outside. Your kind of proving my point though, there seems to be this disconnect for people on the pro-Zimmy side that the two confrontations (initially profiling/following/chasing) was a separate incident from the physical confrontation due to the fact that a few minutes elapsed and Martin could have retreated to the apartment. The fact is, there are no provisions in the Florida SYG/Self defense laws that put a time limit on standing your ground... and obviously none that require an individual to retreat (which is the exact opposite of SYG.) What can be established by Martin's behavior and the phone call he was on during the confrontations, he was in fear of a stranger following/chasing him... thus had every right to stand his ground and defend himself.
"[P]rofiliing:" Not exactly. As a neighborhood watch captain, he had noticed a "suspicious looking character." In view of the fact that they had been experiencing multiple break-ins, this would be something he would naturally be keen to be doing; i.e., being watchful. In answer to the dispatchers questioning, he said, "He looks black." Is that "profiling?"

"[F]ollowing:" He did start to follow. When asked by the dispatcher, "Are you following him?" He replied, "Yes." The dispatcher then said, "We don't need you to do that." To which Zimmerman replied, "Okay." He started to return to his vehicle at that point, when he was surprised by Martin.

"[C]hasing:" He never "chased" Martin. And, there was never any suggestion that he did. Where are you getting that from, the "mainstream" media, which has been lying about this entire case, and Zimmerman, since the beginning?

I'm not "pro zimmy." I am pro-justice, and pro-truth. Justice has been served, as Zimmernan was the attack victim, and acted out of self preservation. I would have done the same if someone was beating me to a pulp, and had told me, "You're going to die tonight, mother f---er." I imagine that Zimmerman was plenty scared.

Let's also not forget that Martin approached Zimmerman's vehicle, and checked him out while Zimmerman was inside. He apparently passed very close. I'm sure Zimmerman was scared even then. Or did you forget that little detail? If you had read any of the transcripts, you would have known of that.

This was not a "Stand Your Ground" case. It was simple self defense, after being attacked by a common thug (which Martin was, as is evident fom what we have learned about Martin, information which was not allowed to be used as evidence in the case, such as being caught with the "tools of burglary" in his locker, for which he was suspended from school. Also, his propensity for fighting).

If Martin had been "in fear" of "a stranger following him" (again, he was not being chased, as you claim), why didn't he go home? He was practically at his father's doorstep. Secondly, why did he approach Zimmerman's vehicle, so as to 'check him out.' Doesn't sound to me like he was in any kind of fear.

Lastly, he was not on the phone "during the 'confrontations.'" He was on the phone until at some moment in time when he decided to confront and attack Zimmerman. We don't know when that moment was, but it is clear that he made that choice, ended his call, and went after Zimmerman. Remember, Zimmerman had lost sight of him (or did you convenientely forget that too?).

If Martin had done what he should have done, and returned to his father's apartment, and not been loitering, and looking like he was up to something, and arousing suspicion, he would be alive today. But Martin was easily angered. He was a punk. He was a bully, and he loved to pick fights. These are all facts that should have been allowed as evidence. Facts about Zimmerman's character were presented (and he was mischaracterized as a "wannabe cop," which he wasn't.) But, Martin's character was barred from mention. Only that he was a "young, innocent teen." And they strenghthend that false perception with photos of him at 12 years of age!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-16-2013, 01:54 PM
 
Location: South Carolina
1,991 posts, read 3,970,736 times
Reputation: 917
Quote:
Originally Posted by LostInHouston View Post
Again, under Florida law there is no requirement to retreat. Martin ran in fear from Zimmerman initially... if he was worried that Zimmerman was still following him, he was well within his rights under Florida law to turn back and stand his ground when re-confronted by Zimmerman.
You would THINK so. But apparently not. Apparently in Florida, standing his ground and defending himself with his bare hands was not allowed. But carrying a gun and following somebody silently and intimidating them and then killing them when they, in fear, defended themselves with their bare hands IS allowed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-16-2013, 01:56 PM
 
Location: South Carolina
1,991 posts, read 3,970,736 times
Reputation: 917
Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy View Post
Let's also not forget that Martin approached Zimmerman's vehicle, and checked him out while Zimmerman was inside. He apparently passed very close. I'm sure Zimmerman was scared even then.
If you're scared of somebody who is close to your vehicle, you don't get out and follow them when they walk away. Come on!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-16-2013, 01:57 PM
 
Location: Sunbelt
798 posts, read 1,034,981 times
Reputation: 708
The problem is that even if they prove Martin was fighting in self defense, that doesn't prove that Zimmerman wasn't fighting in self defense. So you're still back at square one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-16-2013, 02:02 PM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,045 posts, read 44,853,831 times
Reputation: 13718
Quote:
Originally Posted by MantaRay View Post
You would THINK so. But apparently not. Apparently in Florida, standing his ground and defending himself with his bare hands was not allowed.
Defending himself from what? TM had no injuries. Z, on the other hand, was being battered by TM and defended himself legally.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-16-2013, 05:01 PM
 
Location: Whoville....
25,386 posts, read 35,551,149 times
Reputation: 14692
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Defending himself from what? TM had no injuries. Z, on the other hand, was being battered by TM and defended himself legally.
I'm amazed that anyone thinks TM was defending himself given it was Zimmerman who had, obviously, been battered. TM's only other injury besides the gunshot wound was to his fist from pummeling Zimmerman. Sounds like an open and shut case of self defense to me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-16-2013, 05:03 PM
 
Location: Whoville....
25,386 posts, read 35,551,149 times
Reputation: 14692
Quote:
Originally Posted by texdav View Post
Their biggest mistake was withholding evidence and now they are likely to face consequences themselves civil suit.
What evidence was withheld?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-16-2013, 05:19 PM
 
Location: NE Ohio
30,419 posts, read 20,315,673 times
Reputation: 8958
Quote:
Originally Posted by MantaRay View Post
If you're scared of somebody who is close to your vehicle, you don't get out and follow them when they walk away. Come on!
Let's not be ridiculous. As the neighborhood watch captain, he was doing his duty, and reporting the suspicious activity. He was on the phone with the dispatcher at the time Martin approached his vehicle, as I recall from the transcripts (which I do have saved on my computer).

Scared, I'm sure he was. But no coward, and the police were on their way. He was trying to keep him in sight, but Martin ran. This was the point after he had gotten out of his vehicle to keep track of him, as he was speaking to the dispatcher. He told the dispatcher, "He ran."

It is ridiculous how some of you people try to twist the facts, and bend the scenario to fit what the "mainstream media" has told you. The MSM has most of their "facts wrong," and in their attempts to make this about race, they don't want to know the truth. They have fabricated a story out of whole cloth.

Thank God, the jury didn't buy it. And the reason they didn't buy it, is because none of the facts support the MSM's fabrication.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-16-2013, 05:26 PM
 
Location: Minneapolis
2,526 posts, read 3,052,917 times
Reputation: 4343
I don't think prosecutors wanted to pursue this case to begin with. Both law enforcement and the prosecution dragged their feet on the matter. Eventually, they had to yield to nationwide pressure. Unfortunately, this is one of perhaps three states in the country where the combination of right-wing legislation, gun-worship, and racial paranoia would be likely to allow Zimmerman to have gotten away this homicide.

Trayvon Martin's right to defend himself against an aggressive and armed stalker should have been the cornerstone of the state's case. In addition, Zimmerman should have been charged with manslaughter, as opposed to murder--which requires a higher standard of proof. The late addition of manslaughter as a potential charge had little effect once this became a "murder" case within the media circus.

Everyone should have a right to protect themselves, but these "stand your ground" laws are in serious need of revision. At the very least, an individual who initiates a confrontation (in this case, George Zimmerman), should be deemed to have abrogated the right of self-defense when his intended victim fights back.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-16-2013, 05:27 PM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,045 posts, read 44,853,831 times
Reputation: 13718
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivorytickler View Post
I'm amazed that anyone thinks TM was defending himself given it was Zimmerman who had, obviously, been battered. TM's only other injury besides the gunshot wound was to his fist from pummeling Zimmerman. Sounds like an open and shut case of self defense to me.
The jury thought so, too, after examining all the evidence. Hence, the acquittal.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top