17 year old kid shot dead by Neighborhood Watch "Captain"

[dross]

My point is we have very few facts in this case. We don't know who attacked who first, we don't know if Martin took off running, we don't know if Zimmerman deserved a beating or if Martin deserved to be shot. The only facts are Zimmerman pulled up to Martin, got out of his vehicle and proceeded to follow him, resulting in Martin's death.

You've taken a leap here that ignores everything relevant. How about, "Trayvon bought skittles and entered the neighborhood, resulting in his death."

Neither one makes sense. Following someone doesn't lead to their death. Shooting someone does. Was the shooting justified? That depends on facts that have nothing to do with following someone. As I've pointed out over and over, following someone at a reasonable distance is not illegal. If Martin attacked Zimmerman for following him at a reasonable distance, and Zimmerman feared for his life, he was justified. What we don't know is what happened in between the following and the shooting. We'll never know exactly what happened.

I don't see how Zimmerman's accounts after he got off of the phone are even relevant to the case. He can say whatever he wants, obviously he's not going to tell them he wanted one less "f***ing c***" wandering his neighborhood, he's going to tell them Martin started it. Who wouldn't if they were facing second degree murder charges?

You've lost me here. Let's say that there were no witnesses at all. Let's say there was no 911 call. Trayvon runs up to Zimmerman and says, I've got a gun, I'm going to kill you and steal your truck, then reaches in his pocket. Zimmerman shoots him. By your logic, Zimmerman's story isn't relevant because he would be facing murder charges if it wasn't self defense.

Zimmerman's story is absolutely relevant. It would be relevant even if there was a witness who said he stalked and executed Trayvon with no provocation. Just because the story benefits him doesn't mean it's not true.

I just don't see how Zimmerman wasn't in the wrong by escalating the situation (following Martin even after being advised not to) and not just waiting for the police.

I hope that helps.

The last I heard, Zimmerman says he stopped following when the dispatcher told him to stop. I don't know whether he did or didn't, but it's certainly not undisputed fact that he continued to follow. Even if he did, that's not the end of the story. The dispatcher can't give him a lawful order. And I'll say it again, just following someone isn't justification for them to attack you. I can legally follow you wherever you go. If you run, I can run after you. If you go into a building, I can wait outside. I can follow you at a reasonable distance. I'm sure there are laws in some states that would prevent me at some point, but I'm not aware of any law anywhere that says I can attack you just for following me.

It was in the 911 call posted by Griffin, he was following him and the dispatcher told him not to do that.

Yes, and he says he stopped following when the dispatcher told him to. Do you have some evidence that he continued to follow after that? And again, I don't see how it's relevant even if he did continue to follow.

Agreed, you would be within your rights to fight back if you were jumped, we dont know if that is what happened in this case. Again all we have is the testimony by the defendant.

If that's all we have, then Zimmerman is golden. Unless he's got some history of lying, it takes some other fact to counter his story. His story isn't automatically suspect just because it's to his benefit. That would be a strange legal system indeed, if everything you said had less weight just because you stand to benefit.

If you felt your life as in danger sure you could ahve attacked them, but you are smart enough to understand there are more of them than there are of you. That is a different situation than this case.

How is it different? They were following me. If Martin was justified in attacking Zimmerman for following, why wouldn't I be justified in attacking these guys? Here's the deal: I wouldn't be justified.

As for your second step, again not really applicable. Martin was not aware he was going to have any issues walking home from the store in what is not a bad part of Atlanta. You would have been going back a second time for no reason other than to see what happened. Sure that is not a crime but its just dumb. You know thats really not relevant to this case either.

It's relevant because doing something dumb doesn't mean you can't defend yourself if something happened. It may have been dumb for Zimmerman to follow Martin, but just because you should know that someone might get mad because you followed them doesn't mean they have a right to attack you. If that's what happened.

Was Martin doing anything illegal walking home from the store?

No, he wasn't. Was Zimmerman doing anything illegal by following him? No, he wasn't. Whatever happened that was illegal came later. One of them attacked the other.

Who knows who initiated the contact, we only get one side of the story.

Yes, so unless we can show that Zimmerman has proven to be a liar in the past, or unless some evidence surfaces that refutes his story, then that one side turns into all the evidence needed. Again, you can't attack Zimmerman's credibility just because his story benefits him. It might also be the truth.

 

[hornadylnl]

Welcome to America where you are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Google the Constitution.

Did Zimmerman give Martin the presumption of innocence?

 

[jamil]

Did Zimmerman give Martin the presumption of innocence?

Suspicion does not equal presumtion. The point at which Z surely presumed Martin guilty was when Martin was on top of him beating the hell out of him.

 

[griffin]

Nice job just quoting that sentence to argue semantics and not bothering with the pertinent content.

I've addressed the content numerous times, including four yesterday alone.

Could he be lying? May I refer you to this post?

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...ighborhood_watch_captain-354.html#post2946197

 

[Kutnupe14]

And what about standing on a sidewalk makes him guilty? According to your prior posts in this thread anyone can stand anywhere on public property, right? Why couldn't Zimmerman legally stand on the sidewalk? That's the disconnect.

The irony that you point out that Zimmerman simply standing (or walking) on the sidewalk doesn't make him guilty, while at the same time being totally oblivious to the fact that Martin was (as far as we know), doing the same thing, is hilarious.

Why the bias towards one, but not the other?

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Yes, I didn't phrase the last sentence properly. Nice job just quoting that sentence to argue semantics and not bothering with the pertinent content.



Did you and Griffin right your playbook together? That's adorable.

I guess I'll start quoting one sentence in an entire post and either breaking down the grammar or totally dodging anything worth talking about.

As long as you're open to lessons, proper spelling often decreases the possibility of misunderstandings and makes you look less stupid.

FYI, I read your whole statement and took the same meaning from it as CarmelHP and Griffin. I personally think you're being unreasonably stubborn in your apparent belief that Z. has to be at fault for this incident and that your stated arguments so far have been both faulty and illogical.

 

[bobzilla]

The irony that you point out that Zimmerman simply standing (or walking) on the sidewalk doesn't make him guilty, while at the same time being totally oblivious to the fact that Martin was (as far as we know), doing the same thing, is hilarious.

Why the bias towards one, but not the other?

Z never said M was guilty of anything. Well, at least up until he started to beat on him. There's was nothing EITHER of them were doing that was illegal until the fight started. Z merely said the man looked suspicious and called it in as such.

There's no bias unless you WANT ther to be a bias.... like ruining one's life without a trial the way some people want. Guilty or not, some have made up their mind and want him to pay. Right? Stupid Civilian trying to help the cops catch criminals. HOW DARE HE!

 

[Expat]

The irony that you point out that Zimmerman simply standing (or walking) on the sidewalk doesn't make him guilty, while at the same time being totally oblivious to the fact that Martin was (as far as we know), doing the same thing, is hilarious.

Why the bias towards one, but not the other?

I would guess it is due to the fact that we are dealing with due process and the rule of law as to Mr. Zimmerman. The State wants to put him in prison. The State has the duty to prove that he was guilty of the charges being made against him.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Zimmerman's story is absolutely relevant. It would be relevant even if there was a witness who said he stalked and executed Trayvon with no provocation. Just because the story benefits him doesn't mean it's not true.

This I agree with, however, one would be remiss in not believing that Zimmerman would create a version of the story that is most beneficial to him. I doubt that anyone would do any different. For the simple fact that he killed the only other person that would offer a different version of events certainly should raise suspicion.

 

[bobzilla]

This I agree with, however, one would be remiss in not believing that Zimmerman would create a version of the story that is most beneficial to him. I doubt that anyone would do any different. For the simple fact that he killed the only other person that would offer a different version of events certainly should raise suspicion.

Why? Why should killing someone in self defense automatically raise suspicion? Do you do that when someone kills an intruder in their home? Do you do that when a police officer kills a suspect in a shootout? No. And that should be the same as here. But it's not BECAUSE you have already deemed him guilty and deserves to be punished.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Z never said M was guilty of anything. Well, at least up until he started to beat on him. There's was nothing EITHER of them were doing that was illegal until the fight started. Z merely said the man looked suspicious and called it in as such.

There's no bias unless you WANT ther to be a bias.... like ruining one's life without a trial the way some people want. Guilty or not, some have made up their mind and want him to pay. Right? Stupid Civilian trying to help the cops catch criminals. HOW DARE HE!

So wait what? Zimmerman never stated that Martin was doing anything wrong?

 

[hornadylnl]

I've got the perfect plan to save municipalities, states and the fed billions. Abolish all courts and bring all cases in front of INGO.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Why? Why should killing someone in self defense automatically raise suspicion? Do you do that when someone kills an intruder in their home? Do you do that when a police officer kills a suspect in a shootout? No. And that should be the same as here. But it's not BECAUSE you have already deemed him guilty and deserves to be punished.

It shouldn't, but when the other party is engaged in self-defense too, that when it becomes a bit blurry. I am of the opinion that Martin was as equally entitled to self-defense as Zimmerman.

(and the fact do not prove either case)

 

[Blackhawk2001]

The irony that you point out that Zimmerman simply standing (or walking) on the sidewalk doesn't make him guilty, while at the same time being totally oblivious to the fact that Martin was (as far as we know), doing the same thing, is hilarious.

Why the bias towards one, but not the other?

For one thing, it looks like M. initiated the violence. For another, as I understand it from posts on other forae, Z. was operating within his capacity as a member of the local Neighborhood Watch and, as is apparently Florida or Sanford law, was protected from harassment and assault while performing his Neighborhood Watch functions. M. was a stranger in the neighborhood and apparently acting in a suspicious manner, thus Z. was well within his function to assess M.'s actions and intentions while he was in the neighborhood.

 

[hornadylnl]

So wait what? Zimmerman never stated that Martin was doing anything wrong?

Is being an ******* a crime?

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Is being an ******* a crime?

Again, Z. merely said M. was acting suspiciously and was following him to see what he was doing. According to the 911 transcript I saw, Z. didn't even know what race he was for certain when he was talking to the Dispatcher and answered with his guess at the Dispatcher's prompting. Whatever else comes out of this incident, I think we can safely leave the race card out of it, since Z. has been shown to have mixed blood in his own family and is known to have spent time tutoring "underprivileged" kids.

 

[bobzilla]

Is being an ******* a crime?

nope. Neither is being a troll. Maybe we should look into a law change?

 

[bobzilla]

It shouldn't, but when the other party is engaged in self-defense too, that when it becomes a bit blurry. I am of the opinion that Martin was as equally entitled to self-defense as Zimmerman.

(and the fact do not prove either case)

So, if what we hear is true, and the evidence as it sits is correct, you are saying that anyone has the right to sucker punch someone, hop on top and beat them into the pavement because they were following you?

That's EXACTLY what you're saying.

 

[CarmelHP]

The irony that you point out that Zimmerman simply standing (or walking) on the sidewalk doesn't make him guilty, while at the same time being totally oblivious to the fact that Martin was (as far as we know), doing the same thing, is hilarious.

Why the bias towards one, but not the other?

Another strawman from the strawman factory of Zimmerman haters. Where did I say Martin being on the sidewalk made him guilty? Oh right, I didn't. However, you did say that Zimmerman being on the sidewalk made him guilty. How about we turn this around? How does Martin have an absolute right to be on the sidewalk, but Zimmerman absolutely barred from the sidewalk? The guy who actually lives there and is Neighbor Watch (which was what he was doing) has no right to be there, but a relative of a friend of a resident has a absolute right to be free from questions.

 

[hornadylnl]

Again, Z. merely said M. was acting suspiciously and was following him to see what he was doing. According to the 911 transcript I saw, Z. didn't even know what race he was for certain when he was talking to the Dispatcher and answered with his guess at the Dispatcher's prompting. Whatever else comes out of this incident, I think we can safely leave the race card out of it, since Z. has been shown to have mixed blood in his own family and is known to have spent time tutoring "underprivileged" kids.

The filter took out a synanym for bunghole, not a slur.