Zimmerman Trial About To Commence

[SweepTheLeg]

Did the work for the defense with that video. Especially with not being able to cross examine him about any of it.

 

[LioraVox]

*this is just something that I want to say on this topic, this is all MY opinion.*

I think that GZ being found not guilty is bull. I feel as though that people who agree with this are missing a very big and obvious picture, and that these people truly lack the ability to hypothetically put themselves in the situation and see it from the other side. IMO, anyone who is actually praising the jurors decision and saying that it was a fair trail and trying to justify GZ's action because he technically did nothing illegal have some sort of mental complex and feel as though they (or anyone in their circle) is untouchable. And that is truly fucked up.

If you want to look at it from a legally point of view, then fine do so, be happy that the system actually stuck to their laws. But please do not try and pin the "fight" on a child that lost his life, as if he was the one pursuing GZ, trying to figure out what he was doing, walking home so late. Stop trying to justify GZ's actions by saying that he felt threatened for his life, so therefore he deserved to "stand his ground" and protect it.

I'm tired of seeing pinning TM death on himself as if he could've prevented it. As if he could have said anything to GZ to make him stop following him. Could he have stopped and asked GZ why he was following him in a non-confrontational manner? Yes. Could he have kept walking and let GZ keep following him? Yes. Did he? No. But at the same time could GZ not gotten out of his car to pursue a person he was suspicious of? Yes. Could he have stayed in his car and followed closely to see what TM was actually doing? Yes. Could he have also addressed why he was following TM to TM? Yes (not sure if he did.. but still a valid question).

All these things could've made a world of difference in this case. Some of these things could've have led to it not being a case at all. But because GZ, felt gutsy and decided to be Billy-badass and get out of his car to pursue a suspicious person, thus leading to him being on the ground while this suspicious person is basically beating his ass- He has the legal right to defend himself by shooting this person, whom HE followed? IMO I don't agree. You may have the power to do so, sure but to be legally found not guilty of your actions is absurd.

And to those who disagree with this logic, and actually deep down believe that GZ was truly within his rights to do what he did and that TM got what he deserved for being outside at night, alone, and feel as though he could've/ should've done something to get himself out of the situation. I truly, truly hope that one day you see the light by falling off your horse.

 

[Nordling]

So much insanity. Hours before the verdict, 73 year old Lester Chambers (The Chambers Brothers) was attacked on stage by a crazy woman while he was giving a tribute to Trayvon Martin.

 

[bawksy]

And to those who disagree with this logic

What logic? I read your post multiple times, and I can't follow any logic.

Your first paragraph is just opinions mixed with baseless accusations of mental complexes.

Your second paragraph is filled with commands that are backed up with no justification. Why exactly are we not allowed to consider the fact that GZ feared for his life?

Your third paragraph just repeats the opinion of juror #B37 that both GZ and TM contributed to the situation. No problems there except the pointless first sentence (as if you being tired of something changes the situation at all).

The fourth paragraph seems like it almost wants to come to a point, but ends up just fizzing out. You end with expressing opinions on what's legal and what's not legal. It has already been established that, under the law, the mere following of someone does not preclude you from using self defense if the other person initiates violence. Your legal "opinions" don't change this fact. Until you get your law degree, save the legal opinions for the professionals.

You summarize in the last paragraph by saying you just want everyone to believe what you believe, but give no good reason.


Where the fuck was the logic in any of that?


"I have an opinion. If you disagree with me, fall off a horse. Therefore, I am logically correct. Q.E.D."

 

[Nordling]

Juror B37 apparently isn't well-liked among the other jurors. Oh, yeah, she's an imbecile.

http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/news/documents/2013/07/16/Jurors_Statement.pdf

 

[LioraVox]

And to those who disagree with this logic

What logic? I read your post multiple times, and I can't follow any logic.

Your first paragraph is just opinions mixed with baseless accusations of mental complexes.

Your second paragraph is filled with commands that are backed up with no justification. Why exactly are we not allowed to consider the fact that GZ feared for his life?

Your third paragraph just repeats the opinion of juror #B37 that both GZ and TM contributed to the situation. No problems there except the pointless first sentence (as if you being tired of something changes the situation at all).

The fourth paragraph seems like it almost wants to come to a point, but ends up just fizzing out. You end with expressing opinions on what's legal and what's not legal. It has already been established that, under the law, the mere following of someone does not preclude you from using self defense if the other person initiates violence. Your legal "opinions" don't change this fact. Until you get your law degree, save the legal opinions for the professionals.

You summarize in the last paragraph by saying you just want everyone to believe what you believe, but give no good reason.


Where the fuck was the logic in any of that?


"I have an opinion. If you disagree with me, fall off a horse. Therefore, I am logically correct. Q.E.D."

The logic of people believing that GZ was within his right to follow someone he deemed as suspicious, to put himself in a dangerous situation, to act in defense in a situation he placed himself in, and THEN solely commenting on TM actions and how they could've been done differently, as if he was the one that caused the situation.

You can consider that GZ feared for his life, because he probably did. My point is he put himself into that situation. Why justify someone that put themselves in that situation?

My stating that I'm tired of people placing the blame on the victim doesn't change a damn thing, and I'm aware of that. The point of that paragraph was to raise that fact that TM was not solely responsible for the outcome of the situation, as people are trying to make it seem that way.

I wasn't saying that if you disagree with me that you should fall off a horse. I was saying that if you truly feel that there is nothing wrong with the situation and that GZ did EVERYTHING correctly or as correctly has he could've done within that situation. And are justifying his actions as "by law, he is within his rights so its ok. no big deal" then you have a lack of compassion and you have a lack of looking at a situation and hypothetically placing someone you know (if not yourself) in a situation as the victim and realizing how fucked up it actually is. Therefore you seem to be on some kind of untouchable placement within society "on a high horse" and you need to come back to reality aka "fall off".

I know people have different opinions on this, and I stated that this was mine. If you disagree with me great. But stating to me that I should keep my opinion of the law to myself because I don't have a law degree or because I'm not a professional, makes you seem like an ass. This is a thread and if I want to state my opinion I, as a member of this thread, have every right to post my opinion on it.

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

I'm tired of seeing pinning TM death on himself as if he could've prevented it. As if he could have said anything to GZ to make him stop following him. Could he have stopped and asked GZ why he was following him in a non-confrontational manner? Yes. Could he have kept walking and let GZ keep following him? Yes. Did he? No. But at the same time could GZ not gotten out of his car to pursue a person he was suspicious of? Yes. Could he have stayed in his car and followed closely to see what TM was actually doing? Yes. Could he have also addressed why he was following TM to TM? Yes (not sure if he did.. but still a valid question).

All these things could've made a world of difference in this case. Some of these things could've have led to it not being a case at all. But because GZ, felt gutsy and decided to be Billy-badass and get out of his car to pursue a suspicious person, thus leading to him being on the ground while this suspicious person is basically beating his ass- He has the legal right to defend himself by shooting this person, whom HE followed? IMO I don't agree. You may have the power to do so, sure but to be legally found not guilty of your actions is absurd.

And to those who disagree with this logic, and actually deep down believe that GZ was truly within his rights to do what he did and that TM got what he deserved for being outside at night, alone, and feel as though he could've/ should've done something to get himself out of the situation. I truly, truly hope that one day you see the light by falling off your horse.

This is basically two guys being ruling by their testosterone and a tragic death happening. It happens pretty frequently, although fortunately violence has been decreasing in this country for the last 25+ years. No one disputes that if GZ had acted differently TM would be alive. What I don't get is why you you think TM couldn't have prevented his death.

You are 5' 11" 17 year old guy who has won his share of fist fights and are in good shape. You are approached by a slightly pudgy Hispanic, maybe white, guy 10 years older than you. This wouldn't feel particularly threatened to me , but I am not Black so let assume he felt threaten. He could have politely ask why he was being followed, he could have yelled at ZM to stop following him, he could have threatened to call the cops if ZM didn't leave him alone. He could have walked, or ran away. The cops are only a few minutes away. The way I see it, the only way TM dies is beating the crap out of ZM, or pulling a knife on him.

Bad stuff happens all the time you are free to assign blame. If TM had grabbed ZM gun and shot him, I would have had even harder time convicting Trayvon. But before locking people in jail we need a much higher standard.

 

[LioraVox]

I'm tired of seeing pinning TM death on himself as if he could've prevented it. As if he could have said anything to GZ to make him stop following him. Could he have stopped and asked GZ why he was following him in a non-confrontational manner? Yes. Could he have kept walking and let GZ keep following him? Yes. Did he? No. But at the same time could GZ not gotten out of his car to pursue a person he was suspicious of? Yes. Could he have stayed in his car and followed closely to see what TM was actually doing? Yes. Could he have also addressed why he was following TM to TM? Yes (not sure if he did.. but still a valid question).

All these things could've made a world of difference in this case. Some of these things could've have led to it not being a case at all. But because GZ, felt gutsy and decided to be Billy-badass and get out of his car to pursue a suspicious person, thus leading to him being on the ground while this suspicious person is basically beating his ass- He has the legal right to defend himself by shooting this person, whom HE followed? IMO I don't agree. You may have the power to do so, sure but to be legally found not guilty of your actions is absurd.

And to those who disagree with this logic, and actually deep down believe that GZ was truly within his rights to do what he did and that TM got what he deserved for being outside at night, alone, and feel as though he could've/ should've done something to get himself out of the situation. I truly, truly hope that one day you see the light by falling off your horse.

This is basically two guys being ruling by their testosterone and a tragic death happening. It happens pretty frequently, although fortunately violence has been decreasing in this country for the last 25+ years. No one disputes that if GZ had acted differently TM would be alive. What I don't get is why you you think TM couldn't have prevented his death.

You are 5' 11" 17 year old guy who has won his share of fist fights and are in good shape. You are approached by a slightly pudgy Hispanic, maybe white, guy 10 years older than you. This wouldn't feel particularly threatened to me , but I am not Black so let assume he felt threaten. He could have politely ask why he was being followed, he could have yelled at ZM to stop following him, he could have threatened to call the cops if ZM didn't leave him alone. He could have walked, or ran away. The cops are only a few minutes away. The way I see it, the only way TM dies is beating the crap out of ZM, or pulling a knife on him.

Bad stuff happens all the time you are free to assign blame. If TM had grabbed ZM gun and shot him, I would have had even harder time convicting Trayvon. But before locking people in jail we need a much higher standard.

I don't think he could've, personally. Because of how the situation began in the first place. Men being ruled by testosterone. GZ approaching Trayvon. Even if Trayvon did everything in his power to not fight GZ, do you honestly think that GZ would just let Trayvon walk home, in a world we live in? NO matter how much the crime rate as dropped in the last 25+ years.

Ask yourself. (while you were being ruled by testosterone) Would you let a person you deemed as suspicious and following , walk away after they questioned you why you were following them/yelled at you to stop following them/ threatened to call the cops *especially if you've already called*? Would you stop following a person if they ignored you getting out of your car and walking behind them on foot? Would you stop following them if they started running away from you?

I don't care that Trayvon was taller and had a healthier lifestyle than GZ, if someone you don't know is following you, you will feel threatened. You don't know what that person is following you for. You have no idea what is going through their mind. You react on your own impulses, and you begin to prepare yourself to defend your life. Being a person of color or not, you have someone follow you.. YOU will defend yourself.

I agree that we need a higher standard before locking people up, but clearly the law system is quite jaded and bias in that regard - On terms of how instead of showing TM as a victim they tried to hight light the facts of him smoking weed, taking pictures that were "thuggish". And instead of calling GZ out on his shit, for fucking up they attempt to label him as someone who was "just protecting the neighborhood" But that's a completely different issue.

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

I don't think he could've, personally. Because of how the situation began in the first place. Men being ruled by testosterone. GZ approaching Trayvon. Even if Trayvon did everything in his power to not fight GZ, do you honestly think that GZ would just let Trayvon walk home, in a world we live in? NO matter how much the crime rate as dropped in the last 25+ years.

Ask yourself. (while you were being ruled by testosterone) Would you let a person you deemed as suspicious and following , walk away after they questioned you why you were following them/yelled at you to stop following them/ threatened to call the cops *especially if you've already called*? Would you stop following a person if they ignored you getting out of your car and walking behind them on foot? Would you stop following them if they started running away from you?

I don't care that Trayvon was taller and had a healthier lifestyle than GZ, if someone you don't know is following you, you will feel threatened. You don't know what that person is following you for. You have no idea what is going through their mind. You react on your own impulses, and you begin to prepare yourself to defend your life. Being a person of color or not, you have someone follow you.. YOU will defend yourself.

I agree that we need a higher standard before locking people up, but clearly the law system is quite jaded and bias in that regard - On terms of how instead of showing TM as a victim they tried to hight light the facts of him smoking weed, taking pictures that were "thuggish". And instead of calling GZ out on his shit, for fucking up they attempt to label him as someone who was "just protecting the neighborhood" But that's a completely different issue.

If I am Zimmerman here,after I call the cops and I approach Treyvon, I have no reason to want to escalate the situation. TM is taller and probably looks a bit menacing. If TM walks or runs away he is at his house, which is 70 yards away, in 15 seconds and I'll wait for the cops to arrive and tell them where TM. If he yells at me to quit following him, maybe a much younger version of myself might ask what the hell he is doing. If he threatens to call the cops I am going to say great they are already on their way. As Zimmerman, my objective is to keep taps on the bad guys who always seem to run away before the cops arrive not get in a fight with a street punk.

On the other hand if I am Zimmerman and some kid comes out of the darkness, and confronts me while I am heading back to the car, and start punching me and telling me "You're gonna die now" and I am going to fear for my life and probably reach for my gun and shoot the guy beating the crap out of me.

Now none of us were there and we will never know the truth. All we have to go on is Zimmerman version of what happened, the physical evidence, and testimony of several witness. The physical evidence supports Zimmerman version, the witness aren't particularly conclusive but a jury evidently found them to be more supportive of ZM version than the prosecution. The thing is if Zimmerman version of the event is true, than Treyvon is the aggressor.

 

[bawksy]

Juror B37 apparently isn't well-liked among the other jurors. Oh, yeah, she's an imbecile.

http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/news/documents/2013/07/16/Jurors_Statement.pdf

That letter doesn't say which of juror #B37's opinions differed from those of the four listed jurors. At least one of those opinions matched, and that was that of the not guilty verdict. Nowhere in that letter do the four jurors express an opinion on #B37's character or mental ability.

These immature statements that you and Jupiter keep making really do a poor job of giving credibility to your opinions.

 

[bawksy]

Some people keep asking if the results of the trial would have been different if the races were reversed. In fact, that's where most of the black rage is coming from. So let's answer that question now, with a resounding NO.

How many of you people have ever heard of Roderick Scott?

I encourage you to read the article and not just the picture. The parallels with the Zimmerman case are amazing.

http://rochester.ynn.com/content/top_stories/490926/jury-finds-roderick-scott-not-guilty/

 

[mynameisbob84]

The jury gave the only verdict they could based on the evidence and the restraints placed upon them by Florida law. I don't think people are upset because the jury gave the "wrong" verdict. They're upset because they gave the only verdict they could give, and that speaks to a much bigger problem. The law as it stands states that it is perfectly legal to follow an innocent, unarmed child and then shoot them dead when they respond in a manner that frightens you. Who is that law protecting exactly?

It's also difficult to look past the reasons for which Trayvon was even followed to begin with. It's yet another in a long line of completely avoidable murders that are inextricably linked to race. "Suspicious looking" may as well be a colloquialism for "African American male" in some parts of the world. That's not a good thing.

 

[Bocefish]

You can consider that GZ feared for his life, because he probably did. My point is he put himself into that situation. Why justify someone that put themselves in that situation?

They both inserted themselves into the situation. As I've stated several times before it was an easily avoidable tragedy on many levels.

Trayvon's parents have been put through hell, yet they've been conducting themselves amazingly well through this whole ordeal. Too bad so many others can't follow their lead.

 

[Bocefish]

The law as it stands states that it is perfectly legal to follow an innocent, unarmed child and then shoot them dead when they respond in a manner that frightens you. Who is that law protecting exactly?

NO, the law states a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.

It's also difficult to look past the reasons for which Trayvon was even followed to begin with. It's yet another in a long line of completely avoidable murders that are inextricably linked to race. "Suspicious looking" may as well be a colloquialism for "African American male" in some parts of the world. That's not a good thing.

Not difficult for me to understand why he followed him. Trayvon was acting somewhat suspicious (not in any hurry in the rain and supposedly looking into and going between houses) and he fit the description of the perp(s) responsible for recent burglaries.

There is NOT one iota of proof that Z was racist, in fact, there is overwhelming evidence otherwise.

 

[mynameisbob84]

NO, the law states a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.

And why did Zimmerman feel as if he needed to "prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself"? Because he followed a child who then may or may not have reacted with physical violence (let's just assume he did). The law is flawed. It needs to take into account the why and not just the what and the how. Otherwise, this kind of thing will happen again and again. If someone attacks you, and you fear for your life and you're armed, then by all means defend yourself. If that results in your attacker's death, that's on them. But if you follow someone, or threaten someone, or provoke a reaction from someone and then wind up killing them beacuse you got scared once they physically responded to your actions, you shouldn't be able to hide behind the law. You're responsible for someone's death and you should be punished accordingly. Isn't that justice? The current laws in Florida actively prevent that.

There is NOT one iota of proof that Z was racist, in fact, there is overwhelming evidence otherwise.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/18/trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-evidence_n_1528268.html

But I do concede that there's no evidence to categorically state that Zimmerman followed Trayvon as result of racism. But nor do I believe Trayvon would have been followed at all if he was white.

 

[Bocefish]

There is NOT one iota of proof that Z was racist, in fact, there is overwhelming evidence otherwise.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/18/trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-evidence_n_1528268.html

Did you notice the date of that article? If it had any credence, the prosecution would have used it.

Furthermore...

African Americans benefit from Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” self-defense law at a rate far out of proportion to their presence in the state’s population, despite an assertion by Attorney General Eric Holder that repealing “Stand Your Ground” would help African Americans.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/16/black ... z2ZKAkcEn4

The only difference between the Stand Your Ground law and the law that has been on the books forever is that it takes away the DUTY to retreat. Stand your ground wasn't even invoked in the Z trial.

 

[LadyLuna]

There seems to be this feeling here that since GZ was found "not guilty", the jury must believe that TM started the fight.

Please remember, that "not guilty" doesn't mean "proven innocent". It means "not proven guilty."

Do I believe that GZ was in the wrong? HELL YES. But there is no proof that he did anything illegal. There is no proof that GZ started the fight. There is no proof that GZ had the upper hand the whole time. There is no proof that GZ wasn't in fear for his life when he pulled the trigger. Thus, there is no proof that GZ is guilty. That's why I agree with the jury.

 

[LioraVox]

If I am Zimmerman here,after I call the cops and I approach Treyvon, I have no reason to want to escalate the situation. TM is taller and probably looks a bit menacing. If TM walks or runs away he is at his house, which is 70 yards away, in 15 seconds and I'll wait for the cops to arrive and tell them where TM. If he yells at me to quit following him, maybe a much younger version of myself might ask what the hell he is doing. If he threatens to call the cops I am going to say great they are already on their way. As Zimmerman, my objective is to keep taps on the bad guys who always seem to run away before the cops arrive not get in a fight with a street punk.

On the other hand if I am Zimmerman and some kid comes out of the darkness, and confronts me while I am heading back to the car, and start punching me and telling me "You're gonna die now" and I am going to fear for my life and probably reach for my gun and shoot the guy beating the crap out of me.

Now none of us were there and we will never know the truth. All we have to go on is Zimmerman version of what happened, the physical evidence, and testimony of several witness. The physical evidence supports Zimmerman version, the witness aren't particularly conclusive but a jury evidently found them to be more supportive of ZM version than the prosecution. The thing is if Zimmerman version of the event is true, than Treyvon is the aggressor.

The problem with this response is that you're trying to answer as if you were GZ, I didn't ask as GZ would you have done these things. I asked how would YOU react in a situation similar to this. I don't need your speculation on how if you were GZ in this case. He already made his decisions and actions, so theres nothing to speculate on.

They both inserted themselves into the situation. As I've stated several times before it was an easily avoidable tragedy on many levels.

Trayvon's parents have been put through hell, yet they've been conducting themselves amazingly well through this whole ordeal. Too bad so many others can't follow their lead.

Correct me if I'm miss understanding you, but are you saying that I am not conducting myself well because I'm stating a disagreement with how the case has turned? You've spoke your opinion many of times, why is it such a problem for someone to speak theirs?

The law as it stands states that it is perfectly legal to follow an innocent, unarmed child and then shoot them dead when they respond in a manner that frightens you. Who is that law protecting exactly?

NO, the law states a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.

Also, the fact that GZ was justified in using deadly force is acceptable because he believed his life was in danger. But Trayvon on the other hand didn't have this right because he "started the fight" ? So basically there is no way that Trayvon could've felt that is life was threatened by a stranger approaching him at night?

AND possibly yes GZ didn't start the actual fight, but he initiated the situation. My point is had he not initiated the situation there wouldn't be a situation, thus we wouldn't be having this discussion. But he did not act in that way. He approached Trayvon, and Trayvon reacted...and somehow GZ reaction is justified because we was the one on the ground and couldn't defend himself so he "HAD" to use lethal force.

 

[SweepTheLeg]

Some people keep asking if the results of the trial would have been different if the races were reversed. In fact, that's where most of the black rage is coming from. So let's answer that question now, with a resounding NO.

How many of you people have ever heard of Roderick Scott?

I encourage you to read the article and not just the picture. The parallels with the Zimmerman case are amazing.

http://rochester.ynn.com/content/top_stories/490926/jury-finds-roderick-scott-not-guilty/

I think the issue here is, along with the kids breaking into someone's car was after this happened was Roderick had to stand trial to be judged without the need of anything happening on twitter or in the media. Zimmerman wasn't even taken in after shooting an unarmed kid and that's going to rub people the wrong way and that is where this story gained so much steam and so much press. If the son of a judge, who's best friends with a cop and all that jazz, it can initially come off as this guy got off without having to worry about going to trial.

 

[Bocefish]

You can consider that GZ feared for his life, because he probably did. My point is he put himself into that situation. Why justify someone that put themselves in that situation?

They both inserted themselves into the situation. As I've stated several times before it was an easily avoidable tragedy on many levels.

Trayvon's parents have been put through hell, yet they've been conducting themselves amazingly well through this whole ordeal. Too bad so many others can't follow their lead.

Correct me if I'm miss understanding you, but are you saying that I am not conducting myself well because I'm stating a disagreement with how the case has turned? You've spoke your opinion many of times, why is it such a problem for someone to speak theirs?

You're conducting yourself fine, hopefully I can clarify things a bit.

You asked "Why justify someone that put themselves in that situation?" I was merely pointing out they both went out of their way to put themselves into the confrontational situation, but they both had every right to be where they were.

However, the one that threw the first blow was not justified.

Once it escalated to the back of Z's head being pounded on the cement, as evidenced, is where it turned possibly fatal or risk of serious injury. Blows or impacts to the area at the base of the skull are considered especially dangerous because it can damage the cervical vertebrae and subsequently the spinal cord, which may lead to serious spinal cord injury or even death. Google rabbit punch and you'll see how fatal it can be and why it is not allowed in boxing or MMA.

 

[LioraVox]

You're conducting yourself fine, hopefully I can clarify things a bit.

You asked "Why justify someone that put themselves in that situation?" I was merely pointing out they both went out of their way to put themselves into the confrontational situation, but they both had every right to be where they were.

However, the one that threw the first blow was not justified.

Once it escalated to the back of Z's head being pounded on the cement, as evidenced, is where it turned possibly fatal or risk of serious injury. Blows or impacts to the area at the base of the skull are considered especially dangerous because it can damage the cervical vertebrae and subsequently the spinal cord, which may lead to serious spinal cord injury or even death. Google rabbit punch and you'll see how fatal it can be and why it is not allowed in boxing or MMA.

I understand how severe injuries to the spinal cord are. And I can admit that Trayvon did get very violent. My question is, assuming he felt his life was threatened, why is it not okay for him to use lethal force as it is for Zimmerman using a gun?

 

[Bocefish]

If Trayvon felt his life was in danger or risk of serious injury, it was perfectly legal for him to have used lethal force.

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

Also, the fact that GZ was justified in using deadly force is acceptable because he believed his life was in danger. But Trayvon on the other hand didn't have this right because he "started the fight" ? So basically there is no way that Trayvon could've felt that is life was threatened by a stranger approaching him at night?

AND possibly yes GZ didn't start the actual fight, but he initiated the situation. My point is had he not initiated the situation there wouldn't be a situation, thus we wouldn't be having this discussion. But he did not act in that way. He approached Trayvon, and Trayvon reacted...and somehow GZ reaction is justified because we was the one on the ground and couldn't defend himself so he "HAD" to use lethal force.

Of course Trayvon could have felt his life was in danger the moment he sees the guy he is fighting with has a gun. Which is why if Travyon ended up with the gun and GZ ends up dead Trayvon walks away also. Especially in Florida where only 59% of prosecutions end up in a conviction.

You can feel anyway you want, the question is what action are you allowed to take? Being followed by a stranger and evn approached (FYI, it is in dispute if Zimmerman approached Trayvon or vice versa) doesn't give you the right to initiate violent action. Imagine it is late at night I, a pretty big guy, have been following you for two blocks, about 10 yards behind. You are not allowed to hide in a doorway when we turn a corner, Mace me and then kick me in the balls no matter how scared you feel. Legally you probably aren't allowed to grab your can of mace, or a knife, and stick it in my face. But practically if you do and tell me to stay the fuck away from you, you aren't getting arrested or convicted of anything. If I try to take knife/mace can away from you and I end up injured or dead, I doubt a jury will convict you of anything more serious than brandishing a weapon. Why because most people would consider it reasonable for you to be afraid in that situation. If you are 6' young male you can't get away with being as aggressive, because it us unreasonable to feel that just because you are being followed your life is in danger.

 

[LioraVox]

Also, the fact that GZ was justified in using deadly force is acceptable because he believed his life was in danger. But Trayvon on the other hand didn't have this right because he "started the fight" ? So basically there is no way that Trayvon could've felt that is life was threatened by a stranger approaching him at night?

AND possibly yes GZ didn't start the actual fight, but he initiated the situation. My point is had he not initiated the situation there wouldn't be a situation, thus we wouldn't be having this discussion. But he did not act in that way. He approached Trayvon, and Trayvon reacted...and somehow GZ reaction is justified because we was the one on the ground and couldn't defend himself so he "HAD" to use lethal force.

Of course Trayvon could have felt his life was in danger the moment he sees the guy he is fighting with has a gun. Which is why if Travyon ended up with the gun and GZ ends up dead Trayvon walks away also. Especially in Florida where only 59% of prosecutions end up in a conviction.

You can feel anyway you want, the question is what action are you allowed to take? Being followed by a stranger and evn approached (FYI, it is in dispute if Zimmerman approached Trayvon or vice versa) doesn't give you the right to initiate violent action. Imagine it is late at night I, a pretty big guy, have been following you for two blocks, about 10 yards behind. You are not allowed to hide in a doorway when we turn a corner, Mace me and then kick me in the balls no matter how scared you feel. Legally you probably aren't allowed to grab your can of mace, or a knife, and stick it in my face. But practically if you do and tell me to stay the fuck away from you, you aren't getting arrested or convicted of anything. If I try to take knife/mace can away from you and I end up injured or dead, I doubt a jury will convict you of anything more serious than brandishing a weapon. Why because most people would consider it reasonable for you to be afraid in that situation. If you are 6' young male you can't get away with being as aggressive, because it us unreasonable to feel that just because you are being followed your life is in danger.

I don't understand why it's unreasonable for me (if I were a 6' young male) to feel threatened if someone was following me for two blocks ? Why can't I or anyone in this position feel threatened in these circumstances? Just because you (the pretty big guy) and I have a different body shape, I shouldn't feel threatened?

That doesn't even make sense.
Basically you're saying that Trayvon shouldn't have felt threatened by GZ following him, because GZ is a fat guy, and Trayvon was physically fit. Seriously?

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

I don't understand why it's unreasonable for me (if I were a 6' young male) to feel threatened if someone was following me for two blocks ? Why can't I or anyone in this position feel threatened in these circumstances? Just because you (the pretty big guy) and I have a different body shape, I shouldn't feel threatened?

That doesn't even make sense.
Basically you're saying that Trayvon shouldn't have felt threatened by GZ following him, because GZ is a fat guy, and Trayvon was physically fit. Seriously?

Ok I wasn't being entirely clear. You can feel anyway you want. But judging whether someones actions are reasonable depends a lot on context, and yes gender, age, size all matter. If you were following me and I ambushed attacked you, it would be completely unreasonable for me to argue that I feared for my life. Even me pulling a knife on you and telling you stop following me bitch or I'll kill you, could reasonably result in me being charged with assault. Why? because 99+% of the time if two people are walking on the same street for two blocks it is just coincidence, and it is even more rare for 5' woman to mug to 5' 11" men.

In this situation it was reasonable for both Trayvon to be apprehensive and a bit scared of Zimmerman, and vice versa. It was not reasonable for either one to resort to physical violence. Nor was a reasonable for either one to fear for their life, until in Zimmerman's case Treyvon was beating the crap out of him, or in Trayvon's case until he saw the gun.

Are you saying that is ok for Trayvon to attack Zimmerman because he felt threatened by Zimmerman following him?

 

[LioraVox]

I don't understand why it's unreasonable for me (if I were a 6' young male) to feel threatened if someone was following me for two blocks ? Why can't I or anyone in this position feel threatened in these circumstances? Just because you (the pretty big guy) and I have a different body shape, I shouldn't feel threatened?

That doesn't even make sense.
Basically you're saying that Trayvon shouldn't have felt threatened by GZ following him, because GZ is a fat guy, and Trayvon was physically fit. Seriously?

Ok I wasn't being entirely clear. You can feel anyway you want. But judging whether someones actions are reasonable depends a lot on context, and yes gender, age, size all matter. If you were following me and I ambushed attacked you, it would be completely unreasonable for me to argue that I feared for my life. Even me pulling a knife on you and telling you stop following me bitch or I'll kill you, could reasonably result in me being charged with assault. Why? because 99+% of the time if two people are walking on the same street for two blocks it is just coincidence, and it is even more rare for 5' woman to mug to 5' 11" men.

In this situation it was reasonable for both Trayvon to be apprehensive and a bit scared of Zimmerman, and vice versa. It was not reasonable for either one to resort to physical violence. Nor was a reasonable for either one to fear for their life, until in Zimmerman's case Treyvon was beating the crap out of him, or in Trayvon's case until he saw the gun.

Are you saying that is ok for Trayvon to attack Zimmerman because he felt threatened by Zimmerman following him?

Simply, Yes.

Why would you not feel threatened that a person was following you late at night? I would understand if they were walking in a neighborhood that was in an area that had a lot of late night traffic (its common to see people walking home) but I'm going to assume that they don't live in that type of neighborhood because Zimmerman felt that Trayvon was showing suspicious behavior by walking late at night.

So yes, if I or a family member lived in a neighborhood where it wasn't common for people to walk around at night, I would be very uneasy and on the defense to someone following me.

 

[Bocefish]

Rachel Jeantel: I Believe Trayvon Hit First...

http://on.aol.com/playlist/rachel-jeant ... =517860142

 

[bawksy]

Rachel Jeantel: I Believe Trayvon Hit First...

http://on.aol.com/playlist/rachel-jeant ... =517860142

Holy crap. Why isn't this all over the front page of CNN?

If you haven't seen the video clip yet, the good stuff starts at 1:18.

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

Simply, Yes.

Why would you not feel threatened that a person was following you late at night? I would understand if they were walking in a neighborhood that was in an area that had a lot of late night traffic (its common to see people walking home) but I'm going to assume that they don't live in that type of neighborhood because Zimmerman felt that Trayvon was showing suspicious behavior by walking late at night.

So yes, if I or a family member lived in a neighborhood where it wasn't common for people to walk around at night, I would be very uneasy and on the defense to someone following me.

I would certainly be uneasy, looking for escape routes, have my phone out ready to speed dial 911. If I had some type of weapon I'd have my hands on it.
My level of paranoia would be proportional to who was following me an old black man or middle age Hispanic woman very little, a young black man a fair amount, and 3 young white guys in hoodies, a shitload.

What I would not do is turn and attack the person who was following me. More importantly the law doesn't allow you to use violence just because you feel threaten. Your life has to be an imminent danger and being followed is not an impenitent danger. Having the shit beaten out of you is sufficient so would being an fight with someone who has a gun.

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

Rachel Jeantel: I Believe Trayvon Hit First...

http://on.aol.com/playlist/rachel-jeant ... =517860142

Holy crap. Why isn't this all over the front page of CNN?

If you haven't seen the video clip yet, the good stuff starts at 1:18.

I agree if girlfriend thinks Trayvon swung first, that means he escalated the confrontation to violence. What the hell would Zimmerman be guilty of acting as the neighborhood watch :?