Zimmerman Martin Case

No probs, just miscommunication I come from an academic background and my need to verify my sources comes out in force, hehe.

(Apologies for getting quite so defensive by the way: for the cited reasons )
 
If it contains any form of masking it will be assumed to be a profanity, whether you put them in or whether the filter does it for you.
 
I've been following this and debating on a different forum (Sher.........) and explaining to people why he was going to walk.

The only consideration in this case was the justifiable use of deadly force at the time Zimmerman pulled the trigger.

It was not a stand your ground case but a pure self-defense case.

There is nothing proving Zimmerman struck first and following someone is not assault and even if Zimmerman had garbed Martin first he could still have used deadly force as he would have become the victim once Martin began to use excessive force.

Statutes:







http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776ContentsIndex.html


IMO (originally posted there before the outcome)

Z let his alligator attitude over load his humming bird rear.

TM was no shy innocence child running in fear.

I have and and will have again 17 and 18 year olds in the gym with their limited "street fighting" abilities and grown up size believe they are bad grown men.

They want to swing for the fences during sparring and believe everyone is scared of them. It part of being young, stupid and male. In the gym it gets them knocked on their rear and a dose of just where they stand real quick.

There are plenty of young men out there like this and always will be. Most but not all will live and learn.

So we have humming bird rear that most likely had attitude and TM was most likely about "keeping it real" (do they still use that saying) and was going to get Z straight for talking crap to a "grown man"

Up to this point Z has been a bit of rear in the way he handled the situation. That was his big mistake. If TM had let it go at the first punch ( I assume humming bird rear wasn't about to get up and rumble) this is where it would have ended maybe even long before the police arrived with Z going home to nurse this nose and ego and TM going on about his way knowing he taught that guy to mess with a "man".

However TM being young and male like 90% of young males makes a stupid decision and is going to teach the guy a lesson and whup his rear.

Do I believe TM wanted to try and kill Z, no he just wanted to lay a rear whipping on him.

Now humming bird rear is taking a beating like he never took in his life and he believes that this guy is going to do some real damage and no one is coming to save is humming bird rear and decides it's up to him and he has to do something before it's too late.

Could TM in his iofftopicture decision have done great bodily harm to Z, well with it starting on the side walk and getting his head banged it's possible.

So all in all we have a cluster situation of a night with not one big thing causing it all but a lot of little things getting us one dead and one not.

Most likely (and it looks that way) Z was legal in using deadly force (the jury did see it that way) because TM was not mature enough to know when he stepped over the line and such is the thing of being a 17 year old.

Sometimes we all did stupid stuff at that age and I did much more then my share. I wounder how I made it this long many times.

There is no winner in this. We will never know if TM would have grown up and after getting his rear knock around some wising up and lead a great life.

One mistake be it drinking and driving or a host of other this we guys do or did as young men could end a life on any night. Most of us are just lucky we didn't set yourself up for our own cluster situation before we learned.

And we have Z that might now be wiser but the price even for him will be high not to mention all the people left behind on both sides.


PS: The above and $2.50 will get you a cup of coffee.
 
I may have it wrong, but that entire post appears to be in defense of zimmerman.

He may not have been breaking the law when he stalked a stranger (carrying a deadly weapon)

He may of not even have been breaking the law when he pulled out that deadly weapon and shot dead the person he decided to stalk. (When he started to lose the fight)

But the whole responsibility for the entire situation, rests squarely on the shoulders of zimmerman when he decided (of his own accord) to peruse and escalate the situation, resulting in a young persons death.

From begining to end, it was zimmerman who stalked martin (not the other way around) and it was zimmerman who carried out the persuit, knowing full well he had a deadly weapon carried about his person, he could not doubt that he would 'win' whatever the situation (unless martin had a gun too, which he didnt)

Its indefensable that Zimmerman persued a complete stranger, (after being told not to by the police) followed a stranger, and then shooting them dead.

That was not self defence, it was stalking, and then murder. Pretty simple, disregarding anything you might have to say about martin and his 'youthfull antics'.

He did not deserve to be stalked, and then shot, simply because zimmerman thought he was up to 'no good'.
 
Zimmerman did nothing legally wrong with following Martin.


I have followed drunk drivers and called the cop and asked people in my neighborhood that I didn't know if I could help them.

Zimmerman was (by his story) just following Martin to point him out to the cops.

Per the only story that can be proven Martin struck first and even if he had stop there that's where it would have ended.

Zimmerman could have handled the situation better but once Martin had the advantage he was required to stop and his dissension not to stop cost him his life.

Zimmerman is no great guy but Martin did complete the key to his death by not backing down once he held advantage.


PS: the post is in support of judging on law and evidence and not feelings.

And per Zimmerman he did disengage once the dispatcher suggested that he did dispatchers carry no weight of law in their advice.
 
Did you follow these people carrying a deadly weapon after being advised not to, and after telling the police "these (censored) always get away with it?"

I wonder.
 
I have followed people (in auto) and I carry most of the time.

I have not been advised to stop by a dispatcher.

And if you look at the transcripts the (censored) word was reviled to be goon.
 
Is there any reason you 'carry' most of the time?




If you told them you was 'carrying' would this be a different story?


Actually no. I am not refering to 'that' word. The transcripts clearly show that zimmerman stated these (censored) (NOT the N word) always get away with it.

He then chased down this person and shot them dead.

By the way, your referal as Martin as the 'goon' is somewhat telling.
Click to expand...
 
Your getting lost.

The word Zimmerman used was goon not the word you want to say he did and that's what I was talking about.

I carry for lots of reasons and have used it before more then once inside my home and outside my home as a needed means of defense.

There is no evidence Zimmerman chased Martin down unless you know something the state didn't.

I don't like Zimmerman or the way he handled this but the evidence and the law support this verdict.
 
A jury of peers finding you not guilty (acquitted), doesn't mean you didn't commit a crime, it meant it could not be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
 
So what was Martin's crime or offence that Zimmerman was following him for? What specifically made Zimmerman believe he was up to nefarious activity?

And Zimmerman WAS told to back off...ad he didn't. He engaged someone WHO WAS DOING NOTHING WRONG having been TOLD to back off and wait for the police. He was in NO imminent danger nor was anyone nor anything else at the time he IGNORED THE POLICE DIRECTION

"chase" does not mean 100 yard dash. he was a male following an innocent party - I would have challenged that behaviour if it was directed toward me, and if you deny that you would have done similar then i will flat out call you a liar my friend
 
I have no idea what or when this racist word you believe Zimmerman said.

I'm just fine where I live now and was just fine before.

If you believe Zimmerman chased him down and shot him on purpose then fine you can believe what you want despite the evidence.
 
He didn't say any racist words.




Ok, as long as your happy using firearms inside and outside your home, thats all good. Sounds like a lovely neighborhood. (Having the need to do so on quite a few occasions that you described)
Click to expand...
 
cptequinox never said that.

edit: you beat me too it. I jumped-in because I felt somewhat responsible for giving that impression to thread-skimmers.
 
You need to go back and read the transcripts.

Per Zimmerman he was headed back to his truck at the advice of the dispatcher when the confrontation started.

Challenging being followed is one thing but if you sucker punch someone and jump on them for following you then you are going to have problems.

All I'm saying is the evidence as came out supported Zimmerman's side of the story which is why the verdict was what it was.
 
I don't think the evidence supports Zimmerman's side of the story so much as it failed to refute it.
 
cptequinox said:
OK I'm just lost on that, sorry.

Some time I could go into detail on hows and whens but not in this thread.

Our countries are very different in many ways and once or twice it was where I was but the other times it just happened, lucky as far as I know no was killed any of the times.

And it has nothing to do with drug dealing or that kind of stuff and most of this was before most of you were born.

Any way like I said I'm not saying Zimmerman is a good guy but only with the evidence presented the shooting was "justified".
Click to expand...
 
Back
Top