George Zimmerman Trial

[phgreek]

Not sure it is a sign of aggression, but what happens if GZ follows the advice of the dispatcher and not follow the kid? Why wasn't calling the police enough? IMO, the situation was totally avoidable if GZ simply called the police and let them do their job. By following him, GZ opened the door for anything to happen.

maybe so, but would you have listened. If there were thefts and crime as has been asserted by Zimmerman, if I put myself in his shoes I'm staying on the person until the police get there so there is no confusion about who I think they need to talk to.

I love cops, but they have a lot to do. When you call them about a suspicious person in the neighborhood, they may or may not come directly. I'm not counting on them to get there immediately or to even question the person I was worried about. Only way to ensure that happens is to verify who it is I'm concerned about.

The other issue I think gets lost here...Neighborhood watches are meant to deter ...if you are neighborhood watch it works better if its clear you will approach and question. Many don't because of the potential dangers, not because it'd be wrong to follow and approach someone... if you are a person looking for theft targets, and its known you'll be confronted in a certain neighborhood, you'll likely go somewhere else.

I don't know what Zimmerman was thinking, but I can easily see myself doing the same thing he did for the reasons he stated.

 

[kmoose]

Virtually every person on this thread who is defending Zimmerman was against any type of gun control on the thread of . Those who defend Martin, were for gun control measures. I don't think this is a coincidence. It's almost like the arguments aren't really about this specific case but a larger social issue. I suspect that if a gun was not involved in this crime that there would be a lot of people switching sides. No matter who attacked who, who provoked the situation, who was on top during the fight, who had drugs in their system, I think most people drew their line based on their thoughts on the gun control issue. Also the timing of this incident made this a HUGE case in the media. Just an observation.

For me, it's simply a question of people who take one side and then close their minds, completely, to any and all other possible explanations. It's a "thought cancer" that is causing all manner of societal issues. It seems as if we have become a society where the only honorable outcome of any situation is us being "right", and being "right" early on in the process, as if that is some kind of indication our superior intellectual prowess. What happened to being creatures of reason, and not rushing to judgment without honestly considering all of the facts?

 

[Ndaccountant]

By f*cking Trayvon's mother without birth control, Trayvon's dad opened the door for anything to happen. Since we're dealing in "what ifs" here........... what if Zimmerman goes home, the cops show up a few hours later (because they have been too busy busting drug dealers and pimps, and eating donuts, to respond to a suspicious character call in a "richy rich" gated community), do a drive around of the neighborhood, see nothing, and then move along? An hour later, a woman is raped in a home invasion........... And Zimmerman is left thinking, "If I had just kept an eye on where that kid was, maybe that lady would not have been raped."? As far as Zimmerman knew, Martin had twice tried to disappear from public view(hide). So why WOULD he just go home and forget about it? At one point, his girlfriend testified that Trayvon was outside of the home of his dad's girlfriend, and she told him just to go in. But Trayvon told her that he was not going to do that. If he had just gone inside, then he would not have opened the door for any of this to happen.

Just want to be clear that I am not saying GZ should be convicted. I am trying to point out that the situation got very much out of control, but the first action taken in the very long chain of events was GZ trying to be a vigilante.

In the instance you described, it is not GZ's role to stalk, potentially confront, or stop possible suspects. We can't have a society that feels justified to confront people (with no real authority) on the basis they feel that the police are not able to respond.

Both individuals in this case did some things that escalated the situation. Neither party is 100% innocent. I just personally feel that if GZ would have listened to the dispatcher, followed the guidelines that the PD gave him on the protocol of watch programs and used basic common sense, none of this would have happened. By no means do I think TM acted correctly, but I think the moment someone starts stalking an individual, you never know what that person will do if/when they feel threatened.

 

[Ndaccountant]

maybe so, but would you have listened. If there were thefts and crime as has been asserted by Zimmerman, if I put myself in his shoes I'm staying on the person until the police get there so there is no confusion about who I think they need to talk to.

I love cops, but they have a lot to do. When you call them about a suspicious person in the neighborhood, they may or may not come directly. I'm not counting on them to get there immediately or to even question the person I was worried about. Only way to ensure that happens is to verify who it is I'm concerned about.

The other issue I think gets lost here...Neighborhood watches are meant to deter ...if you are neighborhood watch it works better if its clear you will approach and question. Many don't because of the potential dangers, not because it'd be wrong to follow and approach someone... if you are a person looking for theft targets, and its known you'll be confronted in a certain neighborhood, you'll likely go somewhere else.

I don't know what Zimmerman was thinking, but I can easily see myself doing the same thing he did for the reasons he stated.

That clearly goes against the recommendations of the National Sheriffs Association.

 

[BobD]

Theory: Two wannabes and tragic timing.

TM : Like many nice young kids these days, maybe he grew up wanting to project this thug image kids find so cool these days and he carried his wannabe role a little too far at a very bad time?

GZ: Taking law enforcement classes, starting a neighborhood watch, riding along with
cops, carrying a gun and he carried his wannabe role a little too far at a very bad time?

I will add this: IMO, If GZ doesn't have that gun, none of this ever happens.

 

[goldandblue]

I will add this: IMO, If GZ doesn't have that gun, none of this ever happens.

On the flip side of that: If GZ doesn't have that gun, maybe he gets beaten to death or left with traumatic brain injuries that alter his lifestyle forever.

 

[Rhode Irish]

Not just use it against him. He deserves to DIE.

The possibility that Martin physically attacked him his irrelevant because Zimmerman followed someone in his neighborhood that he thought looked "suspicious" which means it was OBVIOUSLY a hate crime perpetrated by a bigoted "white-hispanic". You know, because it's COMPLETELY unreasonable that someone walking alone in the rain at night in a neighborhood they don't live in would appear suspicious to a home owner. And it also wouldn't appear suspicious if said person wandering through the neighborhood alone in the rain at night took off running the moment he noticed I was watching him. Zimmerman was clearly a racist, and likely a member of a white-hispanic hate group and/or a vigilante set to appear in the major motion picture Kick *** 2.

And in the realm of possibility that Martin attacked Zimmerman, Martin would be totally justified in attacking him first just because Zimmerman was following him... I mean, if someone is following me at night, the first thing I would do is turn around and start a fist fight. That's definitely the best course of action. Even if Martin while kicking Zimmerman's *** decided to go for Zimmerman's gun... which is likely what he will testify to... Zimmerman had no right to draw and fire on a poor innocent KID because it's his fault for carrying a gun and following Martin. I don't care that it was well within his legal right to do both of those things, if Zimmerman didn't want to 'get his' he should've minded his own darn business. He had no right to fire on him and should've just let Martin continue to beat his *** and/or kill him. But he didn't. He shot Martin. Which makes him a big racist kid-targeting homicidal vigilante profiler deserving of death.

(Am I doing it right?)

I can't possibly answer all of these posts at once, and it doesn't seem like it would do much good anyways. So instead, lets try to flip the question around: did Trayvon Martin deserve to die for walking through a neighborhood minding his own business? Did he even deserve to be confronted or have any attention paid to him at all? I say no. And therefore, the person who did pay attention to him and confronted him without justification, and who shot the kid - note: shot.the.kid. - deserves to pay. If it were up to me, he'd pay with his life because that is what I think he deserves. There is not a fact that I can imagine that would square with what we know about the incident that would excuse this grown man from arbitrarily interjecting himself into this kid's life and then killing him. That is how I feel about it. I'm not writing a rebuttal to Dan Abrams here, I'm just giving my opinion, and you may not agree.

 

[Rhode Irish]

On the flip side of that: If GZ doesn't have that gun, maybe he gets beaten to death or left with traumatic brain injuries that alter his lifestyle forever.

Or maybe he stays where is and minds his own business and Gerorge Zimmerman's and Trayvon Martin's universes never cross.

 

[BobD]

On the flip side of that: If GZ doesn't have that gun, maybe he gets beaten to death or left with traumatic brain injuries that alter his lifestyle forever.

I'd guess odds are better that he doesn't follow a "suspicious" person without having that gun or at least never gets anywhere close to him.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

Or maybe he stays where is and minds his own business and Gerorge Zimmerman's and Trayvon Martin's universes never cross.

Do you honestly believe "minding your own business" should be a requisite for a claim of self-defense? I mean, it isn't, because that would be ridiculous, but is that honestly what you believe or are you just venting?

 

[jmurphy75]

Just want to be clear that I am not saying GZ should be convicted. I am trying to point out that the situation got very much out of control, but the first action taken in the very long chain of events was GZ trying to be a vigilante.

In the instance you described, it is not GZ's role to stalk, potentially confront, or stop possible suspects. We can't have a society that feels justified to confront people (with no real authority) on the basis they feel that the police are not able to respond.

Both individuals in this case did some things that escalated the situation. Neither party is 100% innocent. I just personally feel that if GZ would have listened to the dispatcher, followed the guidelines that the PD gave him on the protocol of watch programs and used basic common sense, none of this would have happened. By no means do I think TM acted correctly, but I think the moment someone starts stalking an individual, you never know what that person will do if/when they feel threatened.

Just to play devil's advocate, why should it be the first action and not the last that started the confrontation? Either could have chose to take an action to avoid the outcome at multiple times so why is it the first and not the last?

 

[Golden_Domer]

I can't possibly answer all of these posts at once, and it doesn't seem like it would do much good anyways. So instead, lets try to flip the question around: did Trayvon Martin deserve to die for walking through a neighborhood minding his own business? Did he even deserve to be confronted or have any attention paid to him at all? I say no. And therefore, the person who did pay attention to him and confronted him without justification, and who shot the kid - note: shot.the.kid. - deserves to pay. If it were up to me, he'd pay with his life because that is what I think he deserves. There is not a fact that I can imagine that would square with what we know about the incident that would excuse this grown man from arbitrarily interjecting himself into this kid's life and then killing him. That is how I feel about it. I'm not writing a rebuttal to Dan Abrams here, I'm just giving my opinion, and you may not agree.

There's not enough evidence to show that GZ confronted TM. You can't state that as a fact. I agree, nobody deserved to die. The issue is: was GZ justified in shooting TM under the alleged circumstances? Everything else you keep stating about "minding your own business" and "arbitrarily injecting himself into this kid's life" (wat) is irrelevant.

 

[ND NYC]

On the flip side of that: If GZ doesn't have that gun, maybe he gets beaten to death or left with traumatic brain injuries that alter his lifestyle forever.

or...if he doesn have the gun...maybe he doesnt continue his pursuit of the kid and does what he was supposed to do: let the police handle it.

 

[ND NYC]

Do you honestly believe "minding your own business" should be a requisite for a claim of self-defense? I mean, it isn't, because that would be ridiculous, but is that honestly what you believe or are you just venting?

semantics.

change "minding his own business" to "not committing any crime"

 

[Irish Houstonian]

semantics.

change "minding his own business" to "not committing any crime"

But Zimmerman wasn't committing any crime. (Not that it would necessarily preclude his self-defense claim anyway).

 

[Rhode Irish]

Do you honestly believe "minding your own business" should be a requisite for a claim of self-defense? I mean, it isn't, because that would be ridiculous, but is that honestly what you believe or are you just venting?

I think that the reasonableness of claiming self defense has to be considered on a case by case basis. Part of the problem in this case is a rigid self defense rule being allowed to justify a murder. Do you always have to mind your own business? Probably not. But should you be able to instigate and then, when it doesn't go well, extract yourself from the mess you created by just shooting the other guy? I don't think anyone would suggest that is reasonable.

The comment you were responding do was only that if Zimmerman had minded his own business he wouldn't have been in a confrontation at all and the kid would still be alive.

 

[Ndaccountant]

Just to play devil's advocate, why should it be the first action and not the last that started the confrontation? Either could have chose to take an action to avoid the outcome at multiple times so why is it the first and not the last?

The reason why I believe that is because the first action is the one that went against what had been advised (multiple times) to GZ. Once he decided to track/stalk/follow TM, the likelihood that the situation would get out of control increased substantially. Like I mentioned in a previous post, TM is not without blame and both parties could have done more.

 

[Golden_Domer]

I think that the reasonableness of claiming self defense has to be considered on a case by case basis. Part of the problem in this case is a rigid self defense rule being allowed to justify a murder. Do you always have to mind your own business? Probably not. But should you be able to instigate and then, when it doesn't go well, extract yourself from the mess you created by just shooting the other guy? I don't think anyone would suggest that is reasonable.

The comment you were responding do was only that if Zimmerman had minded his own business he wouldn't have been in a confrontation at all and the kid would still be alive.

That's not necessarily true. If the original aggressor was using non-deadly force and was met with deadly force, the original aggressor may be able to use deadly force and rightfully claim self-defense. Depends on the laws of the state, though. Regardless, your hypothetical assumes that the person using deadly force (GZ) was the initial aggressor.

 

[ND NYC]

But Zimmerman wasn't committing any crime. (Not that it would necessarily preclude his self-defense claim anyway).

my bad...i thought you were referring to first hyothetical that Rhode laid out not the second one.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

I think that the reasonableness of claiming self defense has to be considered on a case by case basis...

Ok, so someone doing something perfectly legal (and non-violent) should not be able to use self-defense if they're beaten up because they did something that was not 'reasonable'?

 

[ndfi78]

Forensic expert: Gunshot wound indicates Trayvon was atop Zimmerman | Fox News

 

[ACamp1900]

Forensic expert: Gunshot wound indicates Trayvon was atop Zimmerman | Fox News

you don't say

 

[HereComeTheIrish]

Forensic expert: Gunshot wound indicates Trayvon was atop Zimmerman | Fox News

Kinky...

 

[connor_in]

for both sides, let me point out again that we don't know for sure what happened...

we know that GZ (a neighborhood watch guy) was following TM an unknown (to GZ) in a neighborhood that had experienced some thefts

we know that there was a confrontation

we know someone was on top of someone else (and possibly also reversed during the struggle)

we know there was a scream

we know TM was shot by GZ (perhaps in a struggle perhaps not) and died from his wounds

we know GZ had wounds on and about his head


What else do we know? And feel free to point out where I am wrong on any of the items I listed above

 

[GoIrish41]

I'd guess odds are better that he doesn't follow a "suspicious" person without having that gun or at least never gets anywhere close to him.

I agree with you Bob, and that is a really important point in my mind. Without the gun is he so overzealous? I don't think so. Without the gun, everyone lives in this case.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

-We know that TM was returning from a convenience store

-We know that GZ called 911 on TM, and claimed that he believed TM was "on drugs"

-We know that GZ's gun was loaded, due to instructions from a Federal Air Marshall

-We know that GZ was familiar with Florida Self-Defense law

-We know that TM had cuts and bruises on his knuckles, and no other injuries (other than gunshot)

-We know that GZ had facial and head wounds, and no other injuries, and that his nose "may have been" "broken" or "fractured"

-We know that TM had THC in his system, such that it "may have" affected his behavior that night

-We know that TM was shot from about 2-4 inches from his body

 

[GoIrish41]

-We know that TM was returning from a convenience store

-We know that GZ called 911 on TM, and claimed that he believed TM was "on drugs"

-We know that GZ's gun was loaded, due to instructions from a Federal Air Marshall

-We know that GZ was familiar with Florida Self-Defense law

-We know that TM had cuts and bruises on his knuckles

-We know that TM had THC in his system, such that it "may have" affected his behavior that night

If it had an affect on his behavior, it is doubtful that his behavior wouldn't have been to jump a guy in the dark and beat the crap out of him. Weed usually mellows people out instead of making them aggressive. Not sure where the defense is going with this idea other than to claim that Zimmerman's initial call when he said he looks like he's on drugs was somehow more meaningful -- which I can't see how it would be.

 

[ND NYC]

I agree with you Bob, and that is a really important point in my mind. Without the gun is he so overzealous? I don't think so. Without the gun, everyone lives in this case.

hell no he's not.

this wannabe "big shot" had all the "locked and loaded courage" he needed to pursue his "suspect"

 

[kmoose]

If it had an affect on his behavior, it is doubtful that his behavior wouldn't have been to jump a guy in the dark and beat the crap out of him. Weed usually mellows people out instead of making them aggressive. Not sure where the defense is going with this idea other than to claim that Zimmerman's initial call when he said he looks like he's on drugs was somehow more meaningful -- which I can't see how it would be.

It's going to subtly paint Martin as "a druggie", in the eyes of some jurors. It's a pretty sickening attempt to cheapen Martin's life, and try to convince a juror or two that no one needs to be held accountable for the loss of such a "worthless" life.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

If it had an affect on his behavior, it is doubtful that his behavior wouldn't have been to jump a guy in the dark and beat the crap out of him. Weed usually mellows people out instead of making them aggressive. Not sure where the defense is going with this idea other than to claim that Zimmerman's initial call when he said he looks like he's on drugs was somehow more meaningful -- which I can't see how it would be.

You don't think an allegation that someone is on drugs is made "more meaningful" when it is later proven that they actually were on drugs? Seriously?

I swear, something about this trial is making people totally unhinged.