Thread: Trayvon Martin (pardon me if this subject is verboten.)

i say he acted within his leagle boundries adn should be free and walking around if hes not already. his record shows hes made some smart calles and the 46 police calles ended up getting alo tof criminals out of the local area.

Yes, let's not bother with justice in the matter and just set him free. Really? Ludicrous. Someone died and there ought to be a trial. Sure glad you're not in charge here. Unbelievable.

well nothing towards you but if he was attacted and shot the guy while he was reciving a beating from him then he was defending his own life and even if he does got to a full out trial its better to be judged by 9 than carried to the grave by 6.

I think a quote from the article linked earlier in the thread helps sum up why this thing has turned into a media frenzy...

"The crowd was acting off of emotion without knowing all of the facts of this case,"

And we still do not know "the facts" but I can tell you one thing, if I had a gun on me and someone punched me in the face and had me on the ground bashing my head on the concrete and I had a fear that I might not live through it well... you can figure out the rest.. and we are assuming that is what actually happened since we have no conflicting evidence to go on (as the court will as well)

Regardless if Travon or Zimmerman started the confrontation, once someone is on the ground, helpless, the stand your own ground law goes out the window, that is assault. If Travon stopped beating Zimmerman when he was on the ground, none of this would have happened either. Why was he at the guys truck that he was "scared" of that was following him in the first place. Basically the guy stepped up thinking he was going to teach Zimmerman a lesson, and unfortunately for him he had a gun on him.

The 911 tape does tell me something when he references Travon "reaching for something in his pants", that shows me he had a fear that he had a gun as well. And in the case of self defense it is weither or not you have a fear for you life, making him more in his right to defend himself if he was attacked. There is no evidence that Zimmerman was trying to provoke him, and unless I hear evidence of that I will have a hard time changing my mind.

Legally I see no issues with what happened from what evidence is out there. Morally it is up to each individual and everyone has a right to believe what they want in that respect. The two have no business mixing though.

I don't know, if Zimmerman listens to the 911 operator no one gets shot and he can tell his buddies about that time he scared off the hoodlum with skittles.

Whether it is self defense or murder, I do not know. I am sure he defended himself once he was in a losing situtation, I guess the argument is was he the aggressor. With one party dead and the apparent multiple fark ups by police, like correcting a witness on her testimony, who knows what will happen with this.

Zimmerman has a bright future ahead of him in terms of book sales, tv appearances, and political tool I think.

Originally Posted by Slartibartfast

I don't know, if Zimmerman listens to the 911 operator no one gets shot and he can tell his buddies about that time he scared off the hoodlum with skittles.

I don't understand this arguement either. According to what is laid out on the table now Travon came back to his car when Zimmerman was not actively pursuing, so following, not following would not necissarily enter into the equation. Nor is that reason for standing your own ground, leagally there is nothing wrong with following someone. In addition the operator states that they do not NEED him to follow him, which the 911 operator is not an authority, and is just more than likely trying to keep him away from harm. Zimmerman had a good bit of experience with neighborhood watch and had probably heard this several other times and not listened... in the other cases though he got the bad guy arrested.

He deserves a fair trial no matter what, and from what is going on so far that is not going to happen. There is a chance the grand jury would throw it out and because of that they were not allowed to vote on it, which is the whole point of the grand jury and part of a fair trial IMO. If evidence does come up that he was the aggressor then by all means he needs to be punished. I just see no angle for that to come from at this point other than someone lying, but as always I could be wrong...

As a lifelong NRA member,gun collector,gun advocate, avid duck hunter,believer in the right to bear arms.
One thing sticks in my craw,Once was a time not to long ago,before CCW and all the stand your ground B.S when people did not pack Guns.two guys get in a fight,getting killed never really happend,you might get the crap beat out of you,but it usually made you a better person in some ways.
A society where everyone is allowed to carry guns scares the hell out of me,some bad guys may get killed,but alot of innocents will also,Just my two cents,carry on

Originally Posted by pixelfixed

A society where everyone is allowed to carry guns scares the hell out of me,some bad guys may get killed,but alot of innocents will also,Just my two cents,carry on

"An Armed Society is a Polite Society", Robert A. Heinlein

If you think so,thats okay,ever been to japan?

The problem to me is this law basically devalues life. Instead of trying to extricate yourself from a situation heading south it gives you more bravado. It's the old "strap on a gun and walk ten feet tall". As an ex law enforcement dude we are trained lethal force is the very last thing you do. You don't maneuver yourself into a situation where you can take someones life and then call it self defense.

Think about this scenario. You wife is at the mall by herself and it's night and dark and as she is leaving the mall to walk to her car she notices a big mean looking dude following her maybe 20 feet away. As she walks he's still there and getting closer. 15 feet away and getting closer, 10 feet and getting closer and there ain't even that many cars parked where's she out now. he suddenly breaks into a run and she panics and pulls out a gun and shoots him dead. No witnesses and she says she feared for her life cause he was menacing her. It turns out the dude was parked next to her. Think she'd have a problem in a state like Florida? I know of cases in my state where women have used OC spray on guys in this very scenario.

Also in cases like this though the shooter may have no criminal liability there most certainly will be a civil lawsuit and in that case the law won't mean 2 cents to a civil jury who may have a different idea what a justified action is and the shooter could wind up owing millions to the family.