Zimmerman Not Guilty - DPChallenge Forums

07/14/2013 11:36:36 AM · #26

Originally posted by GeneralE:

So, if Trayvon had had a gun he would have been perfectly justified in shooting Zimmerman, since being followed to your own house by someone with a gun would seem to fit the definition in the stand-your-ground of having a reasonable fear for your own life. Why would he not be allowed the use of any other form of deadly force? Does the law say you can ONLY use a gun for self-defense?

Read my last post about following police instruction.

I don't appreciate it when people start to make up cockamamie scenarios about what if this, what it that? If Martin had a gun and shot Zimmerman for stalking him he would go to jail. No questions asked and not because he is black but because he shot a man for following him which is not enough to shoot a person and no jury in the US would say that that would be justified. Now if Zimmerman stalked then beat Martins head into the concrete then yes Martin would be found not guilty for shooting him. Let's not get crazy with made up scenario's. Stick to the facts when talking about the case.

BTW, there was another case on 20/20 (I can't remember the persons name) but he had a video camera and was filming the event. The shooter was not happy that a neighbor was playing loud music late at night and confronted the people. He kept yelling, "I fear for my life and will shoot." He was rightlfully found guilty. He was a gun toting fool that wanted nothing more than to use his gun. You can't just say, "I fear for my life." It doesn't work that was. A judge and jury will decide that.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

07/14/2013 11:39:24 AM · #27

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by Spork99:
If Trayvon had instead beaten Zimmerman to death on that sidewalk, none of you would be the least bit outraged.

I hope someday you'll share your gift of mind-reading with the rest of the world.

That's exactly what you are doing. Guessing what happened that day and crucifying Zimmerman. You was not there? Your face was not bloodied. Your head was not smashed into the concrete. If it were you probably would have loved to have a gun. Or at least a stick or pipe for those of you who don't believe guns should be in the hands of law abiding citizens.

The fact is that you would have wanted to protect yourself.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

07/14/2013 11:45:28 AM · #28

Originally posted by SEG:

Your face was not bloodied. Your head was not smashed into the concrete. If it were you probably would have loved to have a gun. Or at least a stick or pipe for those of you who don't believe guns should be in the hands of law abiding citizens.

The fact is that you would have wanted to protect yourself.

I would have followed instructions and waited for the police, assuming I'd have been "suspicious" of Martin in the first place. Even if I were, I think watching him walk up to the house and open the door with his key would have been evidence enough that the kid "belonged" there -- there was no need to create the confrontation in the first place.

There's another Florida statute which says that if you are the instigator of a confrontation, you do have a "duty to retreat," in which case Zimmerman would have to prove that he couldn't have just run away if he was afraid.

Surely, you are not contesting that Zimmerman was the "instigator" of the entire incident?

Message edited by author 2013-07-14 11:46:39.

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

07/14/2013 11:55:29 AM · #29

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Surely, you are not contesting that Zimmerman was the "instigator" of the entire incident?

I do not contest that at all but I am saying that Martin had a choice and chose to be a bad ass. A bad ass that messed with the wrong man.

Given the choice. I would have walked away. Martin was not innocent is all I'm saying. Given the choice I would have walked away or said sure let the cops come. I am legally here. I would not have fought a grown man.

So let me flip the script, you contest that Martin did everything in his power to make sure this did not escalate?

Message edited by author 2013-07-14 11:57:25.

blindjustice

Canon EOS-7D

07/14/2013 12:19:11 PM · #30

Originally posted by SEG:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Surely, you are not contesting that Zimmerman was the "instigator" of the entire incident?

I do not contest that at all but I am saying that Martin had a choice and chose to be a bad ass. A bad ass that messed with the wrong man.

Given the choice. I would have walked away. Martin was not innocent is all I'm saying. Given the choice I would have walked away or said sure let the cops come. I am legally here. I would not have fought a grown man.

So let me flip the script, you contest that Martin did everything in his power to make sure this did not escalate?

He was 17. How many great decisions did you make? Testosterone never got the better of you? It would not have been ideal, but the proper result would have been an ass kicking dealt to a creepy stalking, racially profiling instigator. Trayvon could have been arrested for the thug you claim him to be.

Unfortunately, it is likely this once again exposed our ever-paranoid, gun loving culture.

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

07/14/2013 12:28:42 PM · #31

Originally posted by blindjustice:

He was 17. How many great decisions did you make? Testosterone never got the better of you?

I made some dumb decision just like anyone would but not many. This is exactly whats wrong with America. I was brought up by a family that cared and would not allow me to be out at night in strange neighborhoods. My father was not an ex gang member. So I guess that give's a 17 year old the right to fight. And don't blame it on the streets like most do. I have friends that saw there mother beaten by there father and grew up in a stressed household and went on to graduate 3.8 in college and join the Air Force and is currently a highly compensated officer. It sucks sometimes but when you are in these situations at an early age you have to make tough life decision.

Originally posted by blindjustice:

It would not have been ideal, but the proper result would have been an ass kicking dealt to a creepy stalking, racially profiling instigator. Trayvon could have been arrested for the thug you claim him to be.

So you promote violence and not a civilized populous? Great statement. What if that ass kicking turned to the death of Zimmerman? Would you say OK he was stalking him, he deserved it? We don't know if it would have escalated to that but it was highly possible judging by the photo's of Zimmerman.

Message edited by author 2013-07-14 12:32:05.

blindjustice

Canon EOS-7D

07/14/2013 12:33:42 PM · #32

Originally posted by SEG:

Originally posted by blindjustice:

He was 17. How many great decisions did you make? Testosterone never got the better of you?

I made some dumb decision just like anyone would but not many. This is exactly whats wrong with America. I was brought up by a family that cared and would not allow me to be out at night in strange neighborhoods. My father was not an ex gang member. So I guess that give's a 17 year old the right to fight. OK

Originally posted by blindjustice:

It would not have been ideal, but the proper result would have been an ass kicking dealt to a creepy stalking, racially profiling instigator. Trayvon could have been arrested for the thug you claim him to be.

So you promote violence and not a civilized populous? Great statement. What if that ass kicking turned to the death of Zimmerman? Would you say OK he was stalking him, he deserved it? We don't know if it would have escalated to that but it was highly possible judging by the photo's of Zimmerman.

I dont like all this what if stuff. Lets stick to the facts. Coincidentally, any ass kicking could result in death. Precisely why you dont provoke people. The x-factor is that the adult had a weapon. A true "thug" of a 17 year old would have had a gun, wouldn't he?

FourPointX

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

07/14/2013 12:42:12 PM · #33

Originally posted by blindjustice:

I dont like all this what if stuff. Lets stick to the facts.

unfortunately, the only facts you, i or anyone OTHER than those present in the courtroom are privy to, are what the media has fed us. anything postulated upon what we've been given is pure folly.

the only facts "we" KNOW, is that a jury heard all the evidence presented and didn't find enough to convict on any charges brought.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

07/14/2013 12:45:26 PM · #34

I thought this was a public trial with gavel-to-gavel coverage on cable ...

FourPointX

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

07/14/2013 12:48:20 PM · #35

Originally posted by GeneralE:

I thought this was a public trial with gavel-to-gavel coverage on cable ...

was it? then i retract my comment with, the only ones qualified to make a judgement about the verdict would be the ones with the time/determination to watch all the presentation of evidence and testimony, and that wouldn't include me obviously.

07/14/2013 12:50:59 PM · #36

Originally posted by blindjustice:

No

Give people the right to fight. That solves the problem. Go into a inter-city neighborhood where you don't belong. See how that changes your tune. That is exactly what happened here but because it normally doesn't happen this way the media and the American public lost their damn minds.

The fact is that this is only a media frenzied case because it didn't happen where ALL the crime usually happens. We turn a blind eye to killings in the project. I watched the news here in New Orleans and 2 people were shot again last night in 2 separate shootings and that's the last we'll here of it because its expected.

I won't sway anyone and said my beliefs so ill gracefully bow out of this thread but continue to follow it. Good debate though. It's what America was founded on and I commend everyone for expressing what they believe.

Message edited by author 2013-07-14 12:56:33.

07/14/2013 01:02:45 PM · #37

Originally posted by blindjustice:

A true "thug" of a 17 year old would have had a gun, wouldn't he?

Well, the text messages where he was talking about getting into lots of fights, and the text messages where we was trying to buy a gun weren't allowed as evidence.

So, given a couple more days/weeks, this particular young man would have been armed.

07/14/2013 01:06:11 PM · #38

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by vawendy:
That's the problem that I have with this verdict. He did act as a vigilante. He did take matters into his own hands when he was specifically told not to. His attitude and his actions led to the death of a 17 year old kid. How is he not seen as the instigator of this fight?

That's the point I was leading to with my "unbelievable" comment at the very beginning, but then a tournament started and I couldn't wade in further (we won). Yeah, the "incredible" part to me is not that he was acquitted of murder, but it was clear that was gonna happen based on the evidence. No, what bothers me is that he was, as Wendy put it, the "instigator" of this entire encounter. He was STALKING the kid. He DIDN'T heed police advice, and the encounter escalated.

Look at it from this perspective; are we now approaching understanding of the law where self-styled vigilante protectors-of-the-neighborhood essentially fell empowered to draw down on the people they're stalking? It's getting closer. Of course, this is all tied up in "stand your ground" doctrine, which is a relatively localized phenomenon as far as I know, but still... My problem with "stand your ground" is that you can more-or-less PROVOKE people into attacking you, and then shoot 'em in cold blood. I know I'm exaggerating, but....

It just seems weird to me, but I'm no expert on all this. I was hoping for/expecting a manslaughter verdict at some level.

Ok, let's take this to 'home' for us.

Imagine you're out 'stalking' a person doing street photography in a poorer neighborhood (something I do myself).

Imagine this person circles around and attacks you for being a 'creepy fucking cracker', and starts bashing your face up, and beating your skull into the pavement.

Now, are you in the wrong? Or do you do whatever it takes to defend yourself? Is it not defense?

My point is this - following someone may be creepy, but it NEVER justifies a physical assault. Once you cross that line, you're entering into a game where both lives are on the table until the encounter is finished.

ETA: I don't want to be unclear on this point either - much of the problem was with Trayvon's culture, for many of today's youth, they worship violence, and think that being 'hard' is the only solution to things.

Just head over to Worldstar and you'll see what I mean. I think maybe this video illustrates the problem best. What would happen in your neighborhood if someone accidentally hit a pedestrian?

Message edited by author 2013-07-14 13:10:41.

07/14/2013 01:14:59 PM · #39

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Have you actually listened to the 911 call?

He was following instructions, and was actively trying to answer the questions the dispatcher asked him.

The operator didn't say "Don't follow him" she said "We don't need you to do that" -- That's not even a request, let alone a lawful command (which dispatchers can't give anyway)

It wasn't like he was chasing Martin down, at the time of the confrontation, Martin circled back to confront Zimmerman (and confront in this case almost certainly means physically assault)..

Now, tell me how you come to the conclusion that Zimmerman instigated this?

Message edited by author 2013-07-14 13:16:18.

07/14/2013 01:20:58 PM · #40

Originally posted by SEG:

Make sure that you are looking at the facts. Not what you personally and morally believe to be the truth. I don't think this trial comes down to racial issues as much as gun laws. Many are viewing this as a, I believe / dont believe in gun laws case.

cowboy221977

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM

07/14/2013 01:26:45 PM · #41

He was defending himself. The jury saw that, so he was found not guilt. I agree that out justice system has some major flaws but in this case I think they got it right

blindjustice

Canon EOS-7D

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

07/14/2013 01:28:27 PM · #42

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by vawendy:
That's the problem that I have with this verdict. He did act as a vigilante. He did take matters into his own hands when he was specifically told not to. His attitude and his actions led to the death of a 17 year old kid. How is he not seen as the instigator of this fight?

That's the point I was leading to with my "unbelievable" comment at the very beginning, but then a tournament started and I couldn't wade in further (we won). Yeah, the "incredible" part to me is not that he was acquitted of murder, but it was clear that was gonna happen based on the evidence. No, what bothers me is that he was, as Wendy put it, the "instigator" of this entire encounter. He was STALKING the kid. He DIDN'T heed police advice, and the encounter escalated.

Look at it from this perspective; are we now approaching understanding of the law where self-styled vigilante protectors-of-the-neighborhood essentially fell empowered to draw down on the people they're stalking? It's getting closer. Of course, this is all tied up in "stand your ground" doctrine, which is a relatively localized phenomenon as far as I know, but still... My problem with "stand your ground" is that you can more-or-less PROVOKE people into attacking you, and then shoot 'em in cold blood. I know I'm exaggerating, but....

It just seems weird to me, but I'm no expert on all this. I was hoping for/expecting a manslaughter verdict at some level.

Ok, let's take this to 'home' for us.

Imagine you're out 'stalking' a person doing street photography in a poorer neighborhood (something I do myself).

Imagine this person circles around and attacks you for being a 'creepy fucking cracker', and starts bashing your face up, and beating your skull into the pavement.

Now, are you in the wrong? Or do you do whatever it takes to defend yourself? Is it not defense?

My point is this - following someone may be creepy, but it NEVER justifies a physical assault. Once you cross that line, you're entering into a game where both lives are on the table until the encounter is finished.

ETA: I don't want to be unclear on this point either - much of the problem was with Trayvon's culture, for many of today's youth, they worship violence, and think that being 'hard' is the only solution to things.

Just head over to Worldstar and you'll see what I mean. I think maybe this video illustrates the problem best. What would happen in your neighborhood if someone accidentally hit a pedestrian?

Its a scary world. Scary culture. Personally, I wouldn't ever get involved unless absolutely necessary. I guess we must ask, was Zimmerman doing the absolutely necessary?

cowboy221977

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM

07/14/2013 01:32:15 PM · #43

This case was not about race...even though Al Shapton and te news media tried to make it out that way to get people iled up. It is unfortunate that a 17 year old kid was killed.

Canon EF-M 22mm f/2.0 STM Lens

07/14/2013 01:41:46 PM · #44

Originally posted by blindjustice:

Its a scary world. Scary culture. Personally, I wouldn't ever get involved unless absolutely necessary. I guess we must ask, was Zimmerman doing the absolutely necessary?

Is that the world you want to live in? A world where people treat everything as someone else's problem?

I think Zimmerman wasn't only in the right, he was DOING THE RIGHT THING. If he had caught someone in the middle of B&E or caught a rapist in the act and saved a woman, would you still view him as a 'creepy stalker' or would you then call him a 'hero'?

I could give you a list a mile long of acts like Zimmerman's that have saved lives, property, and prevented tragedies from occurring.

Please don't continue to suggest that people shouldn't get involved.

I've put my life on the line many times to help others, and I'll gladly do it anytime the opportunity is presented to me, as I feel it to be my responsibility as a human.

...

â��If we could change ourselves, the tendencies in the world would also change. As a man changes his own nature, so does the attitude of the world change towards him. â�¦ We need not wait to see what others do." -Gandhi

Spork99

Canon EOS M6 Mk II

07/14/2013 02:34:21 PM · #45

Originally posted by GeneralE:

It's simple common sense, in all likelihood, you wouldn't even know about it. Murders like that happen EVERY day in cities across this country. There's no national outrage; no nationwide media sensation; the president, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and the NRA don't get involved; these equally vicious crimes aren't even the faintest blip on your radar. The only reason you know enough to care is that someone decided to play out the race card when the thug got killed and happened to be black.

ambaker

Google Glass Google Glass

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM

07/14/2013 02:37:34 PM · #46

If the only viable verdict was guilty, why did we bother with a trial?

Seems to me a ~~lunch~~ lynch mob would have satisfied quite a number of people. That the people who were closest to the evidence, heard every word, saw the expressions and tones of the the witnesses voices, that deliberated over the evidence, were all unconvinced certainly seems to have no bearing on the matter.

Enough of this trial foolishness sheriff... hang him!

Message edited by author 2013-07-14 14:38:28.

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

07/14/2013 03:14:05 PM · #47

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by blindjustice:

Its a scary world. Scary culture. Personally, I wouldn't ever get involved unless absolutely necessary. I guess we must ask, was Zimmerman doing the absolutely necessary?

Is that the world you want to live in? A world where people treat everything as someone else's problem?

What problem was Zimmerman trying to solve other than the one he created himself?

Originally posted by Cory:

I think Zimmerman wasn't only in the right, he was DOING THE RIGHT THING. If he had caught someone in the middle of B&E or caught a rapist in the act and saved a woman, would you still view him as a 'creepy stalker' or would you then call him a 'hero'?

Except none of that happen and no evidence suggested anything like that was about to happen.

Originally posted by Cory:

I could give you a list a mile long of acts like Zimmerman's that have saved lives, property, and prevented tragedies from occurring.

Please don't continue to suggest that people shouldn't get involved.

What tragedy was Zimmerman trying to stop? By your logic someone else should have gotten involved and shot Zimmerman down before he committed the actual tragedy in this case. A kid is dead because Zimmerman playing cop screwed up, period. This is why we have trained professionals in law enforcement. And you want more people doing this?

Message edited by author 2013-07-14 15:18:18.

07/14/2013 03:19:16 PM · #48

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by blindjustice:

Its a scary world. Scary culture. Personally, I wouldn't ever get involved unless absolutely necessary. I guess we must ask, was Zimmerman doing the absolutely necessary?

Is that the world you want to live in? A world where people treat everything as someone else's problem?

What problem was Zimmerman trying to solve other than the one he created himself?

You do understand the concept of 'Neighborhood watch' correct? He was trying to solve the problem of recent home invasions / burglaries.

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by Cory:
I think Zimmerman wasn't only in the right, he was DOING THE RIGHT THING. If he had caught someone in the middle of B&E or caught a rapist in the act and saved a woman, would you still view him as a 'creepy stalker' or would you then call him a 'hero'?

Except none of that happen and no evidence suggested anything like that was about to happen.

Didn't say it was about to happen. You're completely right that Trayvon was not a burglar. It did turn out that he had a thing for felonious assault and battery though.

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by Cory:
I could give you a list a mile long of acts like Zimmerman's that have saved lives, property, and prevented tragedies from occurring.

Please don't continue to suggest that people shouldn't get involved.

What tragedy was Zimmerman trying to stop? By your logic someone else should have gotten involved and shot Zimmerman down before he committed actual tragedy in this case.

Dude. Really? You think someone should have shot Zimmerman while Martin was physically assaulting him? Impressive lack of reason here.