15 Jul 13
Originally posted by woodypusherOf course all your assumptions are based on Zimmerman not being a lying, conniving, homicidal, racist pig.
A lot has been made out of Zimmerman being a 'cop wannabe' and taking the law into his own hands by following Martin. They said he should've stayed in the car and let police handle it.
True. But didn't Martin take the law into his own hands as well by attacking Zimmerman? That is a felony. If Martin was so 'scared' that night would he have waited for ...[text shortened]... failed miserably. And virtually every African-American thinks Simpson is innocent
You do not scrape your knuckles by thumping human flesh, you bruise them, they may get scraped if someone, say dragged your dead or dying body to a position more convenient to the defence lawyer.
P.s if you were black and Zimmerman moved into your neighbourhood you might want to shoot Him in self defence.
15 Jul 13
1 edit
Originally posted by kevcvs57They aren't assumptions and they're not based on just Zimmerman's testimony. They're based on physical evidence, forensics, experts, detectives, defense witnesses...even state witnesses. It's based on the totality of the evidence.
Of course all your assumptions are based on Zimmerman not being a lying, conniving, homicidal, racist pig.
You do not scrape your knuckles by thumping human flesh, you bruise them, they may get scraped if someone, say dragged your dead or dying body to a position more convenient to the defence lawyer.
P.s if you were black and Zimmerman moved into your neighbourhood you might want to shoot Him in self defence.
You can scrape your knuckles on cement when the person is below you and trying to get away.
I guess you buy the state's totally absurd suggestion the injuriws to Zimmerman's face were caused by a tree branch.
I wouldn't shoot Zimmerman for moving in my neighborhood. I would however shoot him if he were on top of me, beating me up, I couldn't get away, I felt he wasn't going to stop, and my screams for help were ignored.
I'm sure you wouldn't reach for your gun under those circumstances...maybe your cell phone to call the cops?
Be glad your right to defend yourself was confirmed by our judicial system. Otherwise, you'll have to hope those 'lying, conniving, homicidal, racist pigs' who are threatening to 'kill crackas' are just bluffing.
15 Jul 13
Bottom line: A big ass guy assaults you. You have a gun he could possibly grab if he doesn't punch you to death first. What do you do? Me, personally. I wouldn't think. I'd use the gun. Of course I'm a 5'6" 110 lb chick but I wouldn't stop to check ID or anything. I'm just saying that would be my instinct. And I have been assaulted by a person before and I have tried running as "my first instinct" and it has not proven to be very effective.
15 Jul 13
If people could never "take the law into their own hands", a lot of people would be dead. Do you know DV stats? Look into that. It is relevant. Cops are not miracle workers; they're people doing a job. Get to the scene. If the scene unfolds before they get there, human instinct is self defense period.
15 Jul 13
Zimmerman described martin as "He looks black." He also said later, "These f-ing punks. They always get away." I see no racism in his words. The 'f-ing punks' was describing the burglars who kept getting away. That was not ill will, malice, or hatred. It was frustration.
It was testified that Martin described Zimmerman as "creepy-ass cracker." Rachel jeantel said her friends all used that term to describe white people. The only racists were Martin, Jeantel, and her friends.
15 Jul 13
Originally posted by carpenoctemthats my point a black person is totally justified on the grounds of self defence in shooting zimmerman befor he shoots them or their children.
If people could never "take the law into their own hands", a lot of people would be dead. Do you know DV stats? Look into that. It is relevant. Cops are not miracle workers; they're people doing a job. Get to the scene. If the scene unfolds before they get there, human instinct is self defense period.
last post for me on subject here, it really belongs in debates forum.
15 Jul 13
1 edit
Originally posted by kevcvs57anyone of any race is justified in shooting someone who has attacked and is beating you. If Zimmerman was attacking and beating a black person's child, they, and their children, would be justified in using self-defense. Self-defense is not shooting somone before he shoots them or his children.
thats my point a black person is totally justified on the grounds of self defence in shooting zimmerman befor he shoots them or their children.
last post for me on subject here, it really belongs in debates forum.
What is so hard to understand about that distinction?
15 Jul 13
2 edits
Originally posted by woodypusherZimmerman stalked the dude after the police told him to stay away, he is directly responsible for the death of a seventeen year old boy. Had he listened to duly appointed authority, Trayvon Martin would still be walking the planet.
anyone of any race is justified in shooting someone who has attacked and is beating you. If Zimmerman was attacking and beating a black person's child, they, and their children, would be justified in using self-defense. Self-defense is not shooting somone before he shoots them or his children.
What is so hard to understand about that distinction?
15 Jul 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI'm with you on this one. I don't think you should be able to claim self-defense when you've been following someone around with a gun, even if he turns the tables and starts beating your arse.
Zimmerman stalked the dude after the police told him to stay away, he is directly responsible for the death of a seventeen year old boy. Had he listened to duly appointed authority, Trayvon Martin would still be walking the planet.
15 Jul 13
Originally posted by SwissGambitThis high profile event is far from over (retaliation attempts on George Zimmerman and his wife may well occur).
I'm with you on this one. I don't think you should be able to claim self-defense when you've been following someone around with a gun, even if he turns the tables and starts beating your arse.
15 Jul 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThat is not the only factor that led to Martin's shooting. It wasn't even the initial factor. The initial factor were the burglaries committed in the neighborhood by young men matching Martin's description.
Zimmerman stalked the dude after the police told him to stay away, he is directly responsible for the death of a seventeen year old boy. Had he listened to duly appointed authority, Trayvon Martin would still be walking the planet.
Zimmerman said he got out of the car to get an address. Even if he were following Martin, he had the right to see where Martin went to better give the police, who he did call, Martin's whereabouts.
If Martin had gone home and called police to report the "creepy-ass cracker" following him he would also be alive today. If he had not decided to take the law into his own hands and attack Zimmerman, he would be alive today. There are many indirect factors that led to the shooting.
But the direct factor was Martin's attacking and beating Zimmerman.
15 Jul 13
1 edit
Originally posted by woodypushernonsense, had Zimmerman done what he was told to do, by the police, none of this would have happened. Martin would have gone home, Zimmerman would have waited in his car/truck and the police would have arrived.
That is not the only factor that led to Martin's shooting. It wasn't even the initial factor. The initial factor were the burglaries committed in the neighborhood by young men matching Martin's description.
Zimmerman said he got out of the car to get an address. Even if he were following Martin, he had the right to see where Martin went to better giv d to the shooting.
But the direct factor was Martin's attacking and beating Zimmerman.
15 Jul 13
1 edit
Originally posted by SwissGambitThe law says if someone is "beating your arse" you can justifiably use self-defense. What was Zimmerman supposed to do during the beatdown? Try to get away? He did. Hope Martin would stop? He didn't. Scream for help? He did. No one came. Call the police. He already did.
I'm with you on this one. I don't think you should be able to claim self-defense when you've been following someone around with a gun, even if he turns the tables and starts beating your arse.
When all those failed, only then, did Zimmerman draw his weapon and fire one shot. It was, at that point in time, clearly self-defense.
Some say Zimmerman already had the gun drawn before he was attacked. Seriously? Martin approached and attacked someone who had his gun drawn? And some say Zimmerman threw the first punch (they have to say that or admit GZ's claim of self-defense). Sure. Zimmerman, holding the gun in one hand, walked up to Martin and punched him (no marks were on Martin's face). Zimmerman then wrestled Martin to the ground with one arm, continuing to hold the gun in the other (Jeantel testified Martin screamed "Get off, Get off!" - something that she never mentioned in any previous depositions). So Martin, instead of grabbing the gun (no DNA or fingerprints of Martin's on the gun), decided to punch Zimmerman in the face AND back of his head (explain that. Oh yeah, the state already did. It came from a tree branch). Zimmerman continued to hold Martin down with his one free arm and finally decided he had enough facial wounds to claim self-defense and shot Martin.
Yeah right.