Zimmerman Martin Case

What possible reason do you have for even mentioning this spurious hypothetical scenario? You're getting all Minority Report on us.



A bag of weed, a tag on a school locker, and some jewelry. Sounds like many of the kids I went to school with. Lucky for them our neighbourhood watch groups don't follow people through the streets with guns.



Pretty much.

But why are untrained and unlicensed people allowed to carry firearms and tail people through the street? Isn't that what the police and licensed security professionals are for?
 
Because, "in the eyes of some neighborhood watch people", this is what "they see"


Same here, but back in the early 70's. We got hassled, but I never got hostile


Agreed. I want it to be known, that I am not, or never been "in favor" of one side or the other. Hence my previous post


Agreed. One of the residential areas I had resided long ago, we had watch groups and we never carried firearms. And this was a time long before cell phones which makes it easier to "observe"
 
I think a lot of people feel the way I do: that the verdict reached by the jury was the right one given the facts of the case, but that something down in my gut wants Zimmerman found guilty of something because of the overzealous and irresponsible way he acted. The thing is, being overzealous and irresponsible isn't a crime.

A lot of people in this thread (and in the world at large) seem to think that Zimmerman is getting away with murder, and the facts simply don't bear that out. What happened here was not a murder. It just wasn't. The fact that a weirdo is following you does not give you the right to attack him, and does not make it a crime for that person to defend himself if you do. And we in the martial arts community should know that better than anyone. Zimmerman isn't blameless, but he isn't a criminal.
 
Everyday harassment of people in the 70s isn't exactly the same as being racially profiled, having water cannons and dogs socked on you, or having to worry about being lynched. Dramatic one may say but minorities still have to worry about random acts of violence (like anyone else), as well as institutionalized versions. I learned a lot discussing these things with a lot of minority friends in college. Didn't matter where they lived, their financial status, or educational level as they were seen in in inferior light automatically by some bigots.





Martin wasn't a saint but neither is Zimmerman. One lost his life for the zealous and questionable actions of the other that led to their confrontation.
 
Good read:
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/3595953



If he's ever committed a crime before, he is.

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/11808013-george-zimmermans-criminal-records-revealed


Oh, and as a martial artist, wouldn't you try to wrest a gun out the hands of a guy you were fighting if he suddenly drew one?
 
Feel a need to point out Zimmerman wasn't armed as part of his neiboughood watch role. He carried a gun due to a dog that had been terrorizing people recently including his wife. He was advised to buy a gun to deal with the dog should he need to because it would be more efficient in an attack than pepper spray. His local police person acknowledged this and was aware Z carried.

But in any case this isn't a question of yet another gun control debate. Whether you believe carrying a gun is bad or not is irrelevant. The conflict over this case seems to have arisen because Z was believed by some that he should have been found.guilty. His carrying a gun is not a crime.

Its a sucky case and there's no real good guy/ bad guy here. But I don't understand how anyone can argue the jury made the wrong call based on the evidence they had.
 
come on man really? Even at worst Zimmerman would've gotten beaten up, but not likely shot had there been no gun involved. I'm all for protection and the right to bear arms but your statement goes WAYYYY beyond even the most ignorant and pure idiotic posts.
 
Connovar certainly showed his true colours with that post. No wonder he thinks he's a 'good guy'.
 
Maybe one day Connovar will lose a son, a close friend or another family member to a gun-carrying wannabe vigilante. Maybe then he'll change his tune - although whether he does may depend on the colour of the attacker.
 
Or maybe he will lose a family member or friend to a violent criminal that could have been stopped by an armed citizen.

The right of legal (US style) self-defense should always be supported and the majority of the people in the US do support it.
 
No-one has a problem with the idea of self-defence. But nothing about this case sounds like self-defence, it sounds like murder.

Making out that Zimmerman killing Martin is a 'victory for the good guys' is sick. He is the one with the violent criminal record, and he killed an innocent passer-by.
 
Obviously the problem is that Trayvon Martin didn't have a gun.
If he'd have had one he could have shot Zimmerman or warned him off before Zimmerman shot him.
Everyone should have a gun and then no one would get shot?
That's how it works right?
The more guns the less people get shot?
 
If Martin had shot Zimmerman he'd get the electric chair. Simple as that.

Edit: my mistake. Apparantly death by lethal injection is more common than electrocution in Florida nowadays.
 
Based on what? Unless someone can point to decent evidence zimmerman only got away wirh it because Martin was black (How is american tolerance towards latinos btw?) then all the stuff about race is baseless assumption. No one in the trial seemed to make this about race. The only ones who have are people looking for it because they've alrwady made up their mind.
 
I don't think it's possible to post in this thread without basing your entire post on assumptions, generalizations, stereotypes and a large dose of personal opinion. It really reads like a nutter thread from both sides of the aisle in my opinion.

This thread should have been ignored from the very start based on the attitude of the OP in his post and how distasteful it was for this online community.
 
and why has the ridiculous title of this thread not been changed yet after 10 pages ? It's biased to one side of the debate, its rhetoric and could even be taken as a little bit racist, I'm always being pulled up for similarly partisan thread titles when it comes to posting about political stuff pn map ?
 
It became a matter of self-defense when Martin escalated the forced he was using to a level that could have caused serious bodily harm.

As far as “victory for the good guys” I understand what the op meant but I don’t see victory for anyone personally but I believe the jury made the correct decision with the evidence at hand.
 
Back
Top