It is not credible to say that Trayvon was thinking "Hey, there's a man chasing me, but I don't fear him. Even though I am running away from him, I don't fear him. Even though I hid from him and complained about him to a person on the phone, I don't fear him. What the heck, maybe I could just kill him? Yeah, hey, let's just do that for no reason whatsoever." Nobody does that, ever. When you're hunted, then run away, then hide, and the pursuer approaches you, you feel fear and you are right to defend yourself.
That is the only believable story and Zimmerman's story is obvious nonsense. "Yeah, sure, I had a gun and hunted down the kid. Sure, I chased him when he ran, then I tried to find him where he hid. Yeah, but *THEN* you see, then I totally stopped all that and was leaving him alone when *SUDDENLY* and for no reason he attacked me!" Mmm hmm. They must have found the six stupidest women in Florida to believe that claptrap.
I'm unconvinced by your attempt to equate an armed maniac diligently hunting an innocent child through the gloom of night even after the child runs away from him with parking nearby.
"we can not kill anybody we perceive as a potential threat."
Not if you're black you can't. But if you're white-ish, you can kill someone just for eating skittles.
If you hunt me through the night including after I run away from you, that's assault. Your other hypotheticals are super cool and all, but not relevant.
How about this hypothetical: if I as a large menacing man follow a single woman through Central Park in the middle of the night, turning around when she turns around, following faster when she runs away from me, find her in her hiding spot and block her safe escape, then try to grab her (but haven't actually made contact yet) as she cowers in fear, is she guilty of battery when she scratches my face and tries to get away from me? No. She is defending herself. Am I then justified in shooting her in the heart because she scratched my face? No. I am an assailant who got a small fraction of what was coming to me, and I am guilty of murder (or manslaughter or something).
Zimmerman's own story is about 90% similar to that hypothetical, making it about 90% germane. The other 10% is him lying to beat a murder rap. The "I got lost one block from my house on a street I patrol regularly" is a crock of shit.
I'm a gun owner, but not really an enthusiast. Martin was innocent because he hadn't committed any crimes, unlike his assailant and murderer Zimmerman.
I would certainly expect Martin to use a gun to defend himself against his pursuer, as he tried to do with his fists. Unfortunately the murderer had a superior weapon or else the criminal might be dead and the innocent boy might be the one enjoying his freedom.
Ohai. It's called an opinion and it doesn't have to agree with what the opinion of six white women. I wasn't there, neither were they, and Zimmerman has no reason whatsoever to tell the truth about anything, and every reason to make shit up to cover for his murder. My opinion is based on the question "Is anyone in the world retarded enough to first run away from a man pursuing them (that part makes sense), then suddenly decide for no reason hey maybe I'll go kill that creepy ass cracker (this is Zimmerman's preposterous claim)?" No. Nobody would ever do that, ever, that makes no sense, so I reject it. The only story that makes sense is that a scared kid was pursued by an armed maniac through the night, feared for his life as anyone would, and tried to defend himself against a person who was quite obviously trying to kill him. He was almost successful in defending himself, but George couldn't stand to lose the fight he started, so he murdered the kid.
"If Martin ignored the creepy looking guy and just kept on walking home he would be alive."
What makes you say that? Creepy guy with a gun hunts you through the night, and you have to just wait for him to shoot you in the back? *After* running away from Zimmerman, Martin was *still* pursued. "Walking away" from the hunter wasn't doing Trayvon much good, the hunter continued to hunt. And the hunter got his prey -- mission accomplished, plan executed, dream realized.
The world you just described is a world where Martin has to let Zimmerman shoot him in cold blood without ever a chance to save his own life. That's not our world. In our world, Martin has the right to defend himself against Zimmerman's assault. I prefer our world to the world you describe.
Actually, that's wrong isn't it? Apparently, Martin did live in a world where he couldn't defend himself. That's what it means to be black, I guess, and Martin is not the first black kid to learn that lesson.
Assault requires both that a reasonable person would feel in danger, and also that the victim actually felt in danger. Since Martin was murdered by Zimmerman, we are forced to apply the reasonable person standard without his testimony. Any reasonable person, armed with nothing but wits and skittles, would be scared and would fear for their safety when an unknown creepy ass guy stalks them around the neighborhood and then gets out of their car and barges up to them.
Because he's in Florida where he knows black children can be murdered with impunity but can not, in any circumstance, expect the police to protect them. And look, he was right.
If by following someone you cause them reasonable fear of safety, then you have committed assault, the way George did in this case. Would a reasonable person be fearful for their safety when a creepy ass cracker hunted them across a neighborhood at night? Yes.
Assault is a crime. Hunting an innocent person through the night when that person is fearfully trying to escape from you, is assault. Zimmerman's own story is that he hunted, and thus assaulted, Martin. Therefore Zimmerman can't possibly act in "self defense" because he was on offense, not defense. Only Martin could act in self defense, which he did, but was murdered anyway.
I keep hearing that thing about marijuana and I don't get it. Let's say Martin was, at that very moment, huffing blunts full of sticky thai. That could only mean that he would cower in fear and be nonviolent. I never understood how having pot in his system ("traces" at that) would cause prejudice *against* Martin. It would seem obviously to support the case of him defending himself given no other option.
I don't see how you concluded that. Zimmerman was following Martin which of course means Martin was moving away from Zimmerman. Z was in pursuit. Z was hunting M. If Z is hunting M, then Z can't possible stand his ground, because he's advancing past his ground onto M's ground. M tried to evade Z but Z kept advancing on him. Eventually, M decided he had to defend himself against this assault by Z.
"what evidence do you have that Zimmerman initiated the fight?"
The evidence is that Zimmerman admits it. He assaulted Martin by hunting him down. That's assault -- causing reasonable fear for safety. After that, Zimmerman can't possible engage in self defense because he initiated the situation with the crime of assault. George is on the offense. If you're on offense, you don't have the "right of self defense", you gave up that right by going on the offense.
You're wrong about everything but one thing: it is about simple self defense -- Martin's self defense against the man who assaulted him by hunting him down in the gloom of night. Sometimes, unfortunately, the victim is not successful in defending themself; sometimes the hunter gets its prey.
When you're innocently walking home from the quickie-stop with Skittles and tea, you aren't thinking about murdering anyone. That's nonsense.
Zimmerman hunted a child through streets and alleys at night. That is plain aggression, it is the opposite of self defense. When you are being hunted it is reasonable to fight and try to kill the person who is hunting and trying to kill you. Trayvon didn't start the situation, George did. George started it, then couldn't stand to get beat up, so he killed the child that he had hunted down. All that is according to Zimmerman himself, so the only question is intent, which divides his crime between second degree murder and some level of manslaughter. Acquittal is a crazy finding considering Zimmerman's own story is one of manslaughter.
Slashdot Mirror
It is not credible to say that Trayvon was thinking "Hey, there's a man chasing me, but I don't fear him. Even though I am running away from him, I don't fear him. Even though I hid from him and complained about him to a person on the phone, I don't fear him. What the heck, maybe I could just kill him? Yeah, hey, let's just do that for no reason whatsoever." Nobody does that, ever. When you're hunted, then run away, then hide, and the pursuer approaches you, you feel fear and you are right to defend yourself.
That is the only believable story and Zimmerman's story is obvious nonsense. "Yeah, sure, I had a gun and hunted down the kid. Sure, I chased him when he ran, then I tried to find him where he hid. Yeah, but *THEN* you see, then I totally stopped all that and was leaving him alone when *SUDDENLY* and for no reason he attacked me!" Mmm hmm. They must have found the six stupidest women in Florida to believe that claptrap.
I'm unconvinced by your attempt to equate an armed maniac diligently hunting an innocent child through the gloom of night even after the child runs away from him with parking nearby.
"we can not kill anybody we perceive as a potential threat."
Not if you're black you can't. But if you're white-ish, you can kill someone just for eating skittles.
If you hunt me through the night including after I run away from you, that's assault. Your other hypotheticals are super cool and all, but not relevant.
How about this hypothetical: if I as a large menacing man follow a single woman through Central Park in the middle of the night, turning around when she turns around, following faster when she runs away from me, find her in her hiding spot and block her safe escape, then try to grab her (but haven't actually made contact yet) as she cowers in fear, is she guilty of battery when she scratches my face and tries to get away from me? No. She is defending herself. Am I then justified in shooting her in the heart because she scratched my face? No. I am an assailant who got a small fraction of what was coming to me, and I am guilty of murder (or manslaughter or something).
Zimmerman's own story is about 90% similar to that hypothetical, making it about 90% germane. The other 10% is him lying to beat a murder rap. The "I got lost one block from my house on a street I patrol regularly" is a crock of shit.
Okay I forgive you. You're welcome.
I'm a gun owner, but not really an enthusiast. Martin was innocent because he hadn't committed any crimes, unlike his assailant and murderer Zimmerman.
I would certainly expect Martin to use a gun to defend himself against his pursuer, as he tried to do with his fists. Unfortunately the murderer had a superior weapon or else the criminal might be dead and the innocent boy might be the one enjoying his freedom.
"Would you say he had the right if it was an undercover cop?"
Yes, but not a uniformed cop.
"your "creepy guy" took a hit to the face"
Yep, that's called "almost being successful defending yourself from your attacker, but getting murdered anyway".
Ohai. It's called an opinion and it doesn't have to agree with what the opinion of six white women. I wasn't there, neither were they, and Zimmerman has no reason whatsoever to tell the truth about anything, and every reason to make shit up to cover for his murder. My opinion is based on the question "Is anyone in the world retarded enough to first run away from a man pursuing them (that part makes sense), then suddenly decide for no reason hey maybe I'll go kill that creepy ass cracker (this is Zimmerman's preposterous claim)?" No. Nobody would ever do that, ever, that makes no sense, so I reject it. The only story that makes sense is that a scared kid was pursued by an armed maniac through the night, feared for his life as anyone would, and tried to defend himself against a person who was quite obviously trying to kill him. He was almost successful in defending himself, but George couldn't stand to lose the fight he started, so he murdered the kid.
You don't have to worry about getting shot in America unless you're black. If you're black, God help you, because the police and courts sure won't.
"If Martin ignored the creepy looking guy and just kept on walking home he would be alive."
What makes you say that? Creepy guy with a gun hunts you through the night, and you have to just wait for him to shoot you in the back? *After* running away from Zimmerman, Martin was *still* pursued. "Walking away" from the hunter wasn't doing Trayvon much good, the hunter continued to hunt. And the hunter got his prey -- mission accomplished, plan executed, dream realized.
He started it by assaulting Martin, which he admitted doing when he admitted hunting the innocent unarmed child through the night.
The world you just described is a world where Martin has to let Zimmerman shoot him in cold blood without ever a chance to save his own life. That's not our world. In our world, Martin has the right to defend himself against Zimmerman's assault. I prefer our world to the world you describe.
Actually, that's wrong isn't it? Apparently, Martin did live in a world where he couldn't defend himself. That's what it means to be black, I guess, and Martin is not the first black kid to learn that lesson.
Assault requires both that a reasonable person would feel in danger, and also that the victim actually felt in danger. Since Martin was murdered by Zimmerman, we are forced to apply the reasonable person standard without his testimony. Any reasonable person, armed with nothing but wits and skittles, would be scared and would fear for their safety when an unknown creepy ass guy stalks them around the neighborhood and then gets out of their car and barges up to them.
He didn't admit following Trayvon around? If not, then you can accept my apology; if so, then I accept yours.
Being Asian doesn't or wouldn't make you an ass, but it would make you non-black like I said.
Because he's in Florida where he knows black children can be murdered with impunity but can not, in any circumstance, expect the police to protect them. And look, he was right.
I don't know where you live but it sound like Britain which has a higher theft and petty crime rate than the USA.
Gun laws should strike a balance. Britain and the USA are both out of balance.
Martin deserved a medal for appropriate application of self defense. Zimmerman deserved assault charges. With a gun, manslaughter or murder charges.
If by following someone you cause them reasonable fear of safety, then you have committed assault, the way George did in this case. Would a reasonable person be fearful for their safety when a creepy ass cracker hunted them across a neighborhood at night? Yes.
You can't defend yourself from a situation you created. That's the opposite of defense.
"Well, yes officer, I did hunt down that woman and tried to rape her, but then she scratched my face so I shot her in the chest. Self defense!"
Assault is a crime. Hunting an innocent person through the night when that person is fearfully trying to escape from you, is assault. Zimmerman's own story is that he hunted, and thus assaulted, Martin. Therefore Zimmerman can't possibly act in "self defense" because he was on offense, not defense. Only Martin could act in self defense, which he did, but was murdered anyway.
I keep hearing that thing about marijuana and I don't get it. Let's say Martin was, at that very moment, huffing blunts full of sticky thai. That could only mean that he would cower in fear and be nonviolent. I never understood how having pot in his system ("traces" at that) would cause prejudice *against* Martin. It would seem obviously to support the case of him defending himself given no other option.
I don't see how you concluded that. Zimmerman was following Martin which of course means Martin was moving away from Zimmerman. Z was in pursuit. Z was hunting M. If Z is hunting M, then Z can't possible stand his ground, because he's advancing past his ground onto M's ground. M tried to evade Z but Z kept advancing on him. Eventually, M decided he had to defend himself against this assault by Z.
"what evidence do you have that Zimmerman initiated the fight?"
The evidence is that Zimmerman admits it. He assaulted Martin by hunting him down. That's assault -- causing reasonable fear for safety. After that, Zimmerman can't possible engage in self defense because he initiated the situation with the crime of assault. George is on the offense. If you're on offense, you don't have the "right of self defense", you gave up that right by going on the offense.
You're wrong about everything but one thing: it is about simple self defense -- Martin's self defense against the man who assaulted him by hunting him down in the gloom of night. Sometimes, unfortunately, the victim is not successful in defending themself; sometimes the hunter gets its prey.
When you're innocently walking home from the quickie-stop with Skittles and tea, you aren't thinking about murdering anyone. That's nonsense.
Zimmerman hunted a child through streets and alleys at night. That is plain aggression, it is the opposite of self defense. When you are being hunted it is reasonable to fight and try to kill the person who is hunting and trying to kill you. Trayvon didn't start the situation, George did. George started it, then couldn't stand to get beat up, so he killed the child that he had hunted down. All that is according to Zimmerman himself, so the only question is intent, which divides his crime between second degree murder and some level of manslaughter. Acquittal is a crazy finding considering Zimmerman's own story is one of manslaughter.