Breaking News! George Zimmerman found not guilty.

Okay folks I am exiting this thread and going into lurk mode.

reply to post by RealTruthSeeker


If you sock me in the face, I certainly do have a right to shoot you, as you would be threatening me with physical harm. Given that I am a female of about 5'0 and maybe 105, anyone punching me in the face, especially a male, is going to be rightly perceived by me as a serious threat to life and limb. So yes, I would shoot you if I felt this was the best way to stop you from doing me physical harm.

Trayvon was taller than Zimmerman. Zimmerman is a short pudgy guy, he did not have a physical advantage.

reply to post by muzzleflash

So you think people should let tough people just beat them up?

good point. the question of how much force one can use to prevent or stop an attack on their person is a real one, however people exclaiming "he should have just taken the punches, then martin would still be alive" are making a twofold error:

firstly, it is rarely knowable how far something will go. they say hindsight is 20/20, but even we cannot ascertain for certain if martin would have either tried to kill zimmerman, or attempted to do serious damage. it is my belief that martin was attacking zimmerman for racially motivated reasons in an attempt to do serious bodily damage, but it isn't 100% provable even after the fact, let alone BEFORE the events had happened.

secondly, it would be incredibly silly to design laws so that one would have to wait for the attacker to actually use lethal force so that one would be "authorized" to use lethal force as a defense. "maybe this person will just beat me for awhile, then leave. i can't know that they intend to kill me, so i'm just going to take it. at least they will survive." that mentality defeats the purpose of having the right to defend your person.

reply to post by PLASIFISK

Really.

Hahaha

Hood rat !!!

I call it like I see it!

Dismissed gunny

As long as you realize GZ is a free man, I’m prepared to leave this thread. Otherwise I will keep reminding you what the jury said!

NOT GUILTY!

ATSer's-

The sad thing is, two posters in the last few pages of this thread, seem to think the term "hood rat" is fine to use.

After all the discussion nationwide, on the trial/racial issues, we have folks(and probably many others on this lengthy thread) who continue to hate others of a different skin pigmentation.

What have we learned? Nothing it appears!!

Sad.

reply to post by muzzleflash


Apparently to some people, the only way someone can die is by a gun.... otherwise they think they're immortal...

*** ATTENTION ***

The ATS Terms and Conditions do not allow for crime scene photos that include pictures of the decedent.

Please do not post them. Thank you.

Originally posted by ker2010
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

 

I wasnt there so i dont know who started the fight. How many times has someone started a fight in a bar and got the worst end of the deal? Oh this guy looks terrible guess that means the other guy swung first . Going by your logic the person who took the beating is always the innocent one.

I agree with the verdict. But only 3 people know what happened that night for a fact God (if you believe in it) Martin, and Zimmerman. No one else knows. I dont know if Zimmerman swung at Martin or pushed him etc first and you dont either.

Zimmerman is innocent cause there was no evidence to contradict his story. That however doesn't mean he didnt attack first and lie about it. NO ONE but he knows that and that is a FACT.

edit on 14-7-2013 by ker2010 because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-7-2013 by ker2010 because: (no reason given)

I second this. True true and true.

Originally posted by PLASIFISK
No no no, less not forgot Zimmerman was looking for Trayvon

Deflection. Stop it.

Martin could have just walked to the house he was heading to, but decided to circle back and confront Zimmerman. Martin confronted him and having the physical advantage decided to beat him...no deflection here.

Why didn't Martin just go to the house he was staying at and tell his mom or dad? Why did he head AWAY from the house to confront Zimmerman. The answer is he had no fears not too, he wanted to confront this crazy ass cracker and show him what's what.

Originally posted by Astrocyte
*snip*
I think he entered a precarious situation immaturely, without the proper circumspection to know that killing Treyvon Martin was a very likely possibility.
*snip*

That isn't what the evidence presented in the trial showed. From all indications, including Zimmerman's own call, Martin was already out of sight when Zimmerman exited his vehicle, to see if he could tell in what direction Martin went. According to the woman on the phone with Martin, he was practically back to the place he was staying, which is a bit distant from the sight of the incident. It's pretty clear that Martin returned to that area, and confronted Zimmerman. I can understand his reluctance to state his own address, or wait in a stated location for the police, too, since he didn't know where "the guy" went. He didn't want to be vulnerable. He ended up so anyway, since Martin doubled back. I believe that, had he had some desire to use the gun, he would have shot a lot sooner, as soon as he was punched. Even the NW lady thought he was stable, and recommended him for their Citizens on Patrol program.

Originally posted by freedom12
ATSer's-

The sad thing is, two posters in the last few pages of this thread, seem to think the term "hood rat" is fine to use.

After all the discussion nationwide, on the trial/racial issues, we have folks(and probably many others on this lengthy thread) who continue to hate others of a different skin pigmentation.

What have we learned? Nothing it appears!!

Sad.

Possibly, but I think you may be misinterpreting their intent.

For example the Movie called "Mall Rats" wasn't about race actually, it was about a type of behavior. Loitering, trouble making, etc.

Perhaps the terminology "hood rat" is akin to "mall rat" ? Rat being = pest?

I say this because the terminology "Rat" appears to be used for any and all races as long as they fulfill specific behavior criteria.

its a real tough call. I wasn't there at the incident so I cant say one way or the other what happened. Its a tragedy that mass media was allowed to attempt to sway the opinions of the nation and the court before Zimmerman even stepped into trial. Based on my limited knowledge of the subject and what ive read, id say there was no enough evidence to convict for Murder 2. The prosecution shot itself in the foot by not going for a more lenient charge like manslaughter I think. It would have been easier to convict that way. As for Zimmerman. Im glad he walked because the evidence wasn't there, but I don't envy the man at all because this is far from over for him.

reply to post by PLASIFISK


No, you confront them. Ask them if there is a problem, why they are following you. Provided they haven't done anything else other than follow you. If they don't respond, or look like they are going to attack or do something else, then you can do whatever you need to do to stop them.

Simply following someone does not necessarily mean a direct threat, only a potential one.

i cant believe the emotional overload in this thread. put your bias and emotions aside, and the evidence is clear

reply to post by TKDRL



Um... this is hugely flawed logic on your part. Zimmerman followed Martin, not the other way around. He was taking a risk, and it turned out badly for him.

Comparing Zimmerman to a rape victim is beyond moronic. A rape victim doesn't go out looking for rapist. And that woman (or man, men can be raped too) has every right to defend herself (or himself).

Zimmerman went after what appeared to him to be a suspicious looking individual. Things went south, he took a KIDS life. Lets not forget the fact that Martin wasn't even old enough to vote.

Originally posted by freedom12
ATSer's-

The sad thing is, two posters in the last few pages of this thread, seem to think the term "hood rat" is fine to use.

After all the discussion nationwide, on the trial/racial issues, we have folks(and probably many others on this lengthy thread) who continue to hate others of a different skin pigmentation.

What have we learned? Nothing it appears!!

Sad.

This entire trial was racially charged.

It’s funny you take exception with the term “hood rat” yet you had no problem with “creepy cracker”.

Spare us your indignation!!!

reply to post by Xtrozero


That, combined with the fact Zimmerman called 911 before the confrontation occurred paints a very clear picture. One individual was looking for trouble and the other was attempting to follow the rule book. Unfortunately, the former died.

Originally posted by freedom12
ATSer's-

The sad thing is, two posters in the last few pages of this thread, seem to think the term "hood rat" is fine to use.

After all the discussion nationwide, on the trial/racial issues, we have folks(and probably many others on this lengthy thread) who continue to hate others of a different skin pigmentation.

What have we learned? Nothing it appears!!

Sad.

Don't remember anyone ever saying hood rat equated to black ... you apparently have a narrative to push. I'm just glad that an innocent man didn't go to prison for ventilating his thug (is that better) assailant.

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
reply to post by PLASIFISK

 

No, you confront them. Ask them if there is a problem, why they are following you. Provided they haven't done anything else other than follow you. If they don't respond, or look like they are going to attack or do something else, then you can do whatever you need to do to stop them.

Simply following someone does not necessarily mean a direct threat, only a potential one.

Ok. So put yourself in Trayvon's shoes.

How would you have reacted?