Zimmerman Martin Case

I think this is true on a legal basis. I also think that, on a strictly factual basis, i.e., what really happened, a great many people have been imprisoned who were innocent of the crime they were charged with and a greater number of guilty people who were not imprisoned. It's an imperfect system, vv
 
The duty to retreat only existed if retreat was viable. Since no retreat is viable if someone has you on the ground and is in the mount position, the distinction is utterly irrelevant for this particular case. Zimmerman asserted he was on the ground getting pummeled by Martin in a mount position when he fired the shot, and the State did not prove otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt (which was their burden of proof). As such, before SYG or after makes no difference in this particular case.
 
Dead men tell no tales.

The FACT is a teenager was stalked because his stalker thought he was 'up to no good'

The FACT is, Martins stalker, upon hunting him down (regardless if Martin was stitting on his head, his shoulders, or his chest) shot him.

The FACT is, Zimmerman decided to be a vigilante, and forced a person (unknown to him) into a position of 'fight or flight'.

The FACT is, Zimmerman was the perpetrator (from begining to end) of a stalking of a young man, that resulted in that young mans death.

He is directly, and completely, responsible for his own actions, and those actions resulted in an un-needed death.
 
None of us doubtfully watched the entire trial on television so we don't know all the facts. Its a tradgedy no matter what the verdict. I do have one question, how come all the other shootings around the country don't get the publicity this one got.
 
I would not be so sure of that.

This trial has been of an utmost interest from psychologists to race right activists. (With any and all weighing in with an opinion)

Some people on here (i'm not saying I am one of them) have been following this case very, very closely.

I think the reason other shooting cases do not get as much exposure is because in this case is because Obama crossed all the lines and decided to comment (I believe strongly he should have kept his mouth shut, despite my bias towards martin.)

Obama gave this case coverage that was not undeserved, but commented only because he was pushed to do so. And my respect for him dwindled even more.
 
Because most shooting are properly investigated and the shooter of unarmed innocent teenagers don't normally get released 5 hours after the shooting takes place.
 
I can see how you come up with some of these conclusions but as I stated in an earlier thread... what you think and know over here in the UK means nothing in the US (or Canada).

There are vagrancy laws in the US/Canada that prevent people with no know means of support from wandering about (and they can be arrested for this in some places).

Trespassing is illegal in many places and citizens can protect their property using force (unlike the UK where a traveler puts down a tent and no one can disrupt them for weeks if not potentially years).

Even here in the UK my son was picked up and searched by the police for being where they thought was the wrong place at the wrong time (although I think it was the long hair, black leather jacket and hoodie that got him stopped).

Neighbourhood watch type programs exist in many places and this sort of following behaviour might not be considered out of character for someone who is a regular participant on these watches.

In the UK in similar circumstances you would potentially be justified in killing someone sitting on your chest appearing to be in a position to kill you.

Martin did not have to attack, he could have left the neighbourhood. I wonder why he didn't just use his phone to video Zimmerman and post the behaviour to the police (or onto YouTube as is commonly done) rather than decide to take matters into his own hands.

I think you are a bit quick to draw conclusions and those conclusions are based on what you feel should be the law/right rather than what is the law either in the US or UK.

Just some observations.

LFD
 
Maybe more common that one might think...

Woman questioned, released after teen's shooting death
Posted: Apr 30, 2013 1:59 PM BST
Updated: Apr 30, 2013 5:24 PM BST
By Amy Speropoulos - email

http://www.wmctv.com/story/22116230/students-back-to-school-following-classmates-shooting-death

MEMPHIS, TN -
(WMC-TV) - The woman taken into custody in connection to the shooting death of a 15-year-old in Orange Mound has been released and is not charged.

AND -
http://www.10news.com/news/teen-injured-in-shooting-at-poway-apartment-complex (this teen wasn't armed but was obviously out of control)

LFD
 
Before I respond I would like to ask a few questions to ensure this is not a 'staw man' argument.




Martin was not a vagrant, and these is no evidence to suggest this.



There has never been any suggestion that martin was trespassing.



As this is irrelevant, this is another point towards 'straw man'.



Correct me if I am wrong, but Zimmerman was not 'on duty' when he decided to follow, and then shoot martin.


No, in the UK our laws are just as stupid. A theif fell through a skylight window, and sucessfully sued the owner of the house.

A farmer shot a person tresspassing on thier land (a known theif) and was put in prison for 20 years.

I know how absurd UK law can be in protecting your home, and I agree that we need more powers to protect ourselves, but this is also irrelevant.
 
Ok, just pointing out that isn't an exclusively US/Canadian thing.

You're right, completely OT.
 
My apologies. I was skim reading an old case. Tony Martin wasn't sentence to 20 years but has been 'on the run' from the 'traveler community' for almost that long. After (rightfully) defending his home.

I was attempting to draw a parallel to the fact I feel it is right and proper to defend yourself and your home. But not to follow a random stranger, and shoot them dead.
 
I think its IS a good example. Given that there is a dispute over how the shootings occurred.

In both cases its disputed as to how the events unfolded.

But the key in deciding it for me in this case is that it was a complete fact that the perpetrators had invaded private land and violated private property.

It was nothing like Martin walking through a random neighborhood.

Anyway we should probably not start discussing another (perhaps irrelevant) case.

(P.s: I am not disputing your version of the events, but giving my own perspective: I hope it shows I am not a 'liberal do-gooder' who wants best for criminals'. I have very strong views on protecting yourself and your property.)
 
The FACT, according to the story believed by the court, is that Zimmerman followed Martin, not stalked him.

The FACT, according to the story believed by the court, is that Zimmerman lost track of Martin, and that Martin hunted Zimmerman down, not the other way around.

The FACT, according to the story believed by the court, is that it is Zimmerman who was forced into a fight-or-flight situation, not Martin.

This means that you are either (a) making things up, or (b) asserting that the court got the facts of the case wrong. Which is it?
 
The second one.

Do you really thing a court verdict means you are innocent. Look at O.J.

Are you that naive?
 
Okay, so you are asserting that your version of the facts is more accurate than the one believed by the court. What evidence do you have of this?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
Duncan Robinson with the great assist!
Replies
0
Views
1
admin
A
G
Google Pixel 8a review: The best midrange Android phone gets flagship AI features
Replies
0
Views
60
Geek
G
G
The best smartphones to buy in 2024
Replies
0
Views
73
Geek
G
M
Bluetti SwapSolar review: power and chill with swappable batteries
Replies
0
Views
31
M_Smith
M
A
Prince Harry Launches New Wellness Website to Help People Through the Pandemic
Replies
0
Views
379
admin
A
Back
Top