Unnarmed 17 year old shot dead "in self defence"

[breadcatcher101]

You're wasting your time here presenting facts, dude.

Most of the posts I have read are from those who only want to promote an agenda of some type such as anti-gun or race.

Zimmerman did a great job. Martin could have left the area but didn't, chose to attack and was killed as a result.

[mookiemookie]

Funny how anything, no matter how flimsy, supporting the wet dream fantasy of a heroic gun owner blowing away an invading black thug is a "fact" and anything that doesn't is all part of "agenda"

[Stealhead]

Really? I see no posts that are overtly anti gun in this thread I have seen a few that mentioned better gun control but not total ban or even removal of carry rights.

Bubblehead is not posting facts he is posting someone else facts.I say that because everything that he posted has been published in media outlets that wish to portray the idea that Zimmerman was correct and these things have been out there for well over a week all of a sudden Bubblehead posts them as if it is some new form of information rather than the swayed spin that they truly are.

The headline should read;
Florida teenager shot and killed by neighborhood watch captain shooters claims self defense investigation by local law enforcement under review by states attorney and Justice Department.

Not;
Black Florida teen shot and killed by white hispanic neighborhood watch captain shooter claims self defense.

I have seen very few media outlets not put some form of spin or another on this story.The only outlet I can think of that has an objective view and gives out all the information (and not just the bits that they want to in order to spin their tops) Is the Christian Science Monitor.

You can read their article about recent developments here I do warn it is spin free so many might not like that fact because it means that you have to think for yourself and not have Joseph Goebbels wiper into your ear he would be very impressed with the majority of American media outlets today and there propaganda spreading to open ears.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politic...immerman-first Also note that this article was written by two AP writers yet few outlets publish all that they said.

[breadcatcher101]

You are right, Stealhead. I said "most" when I should have said "some".

[Stealhead]

In the end when all is said and done we will see what the truth is.It is a good thing if you ask me that the state and fed got involved here that way if it does turn out that Zimmerman was justified then the people that are convinced Martin is the victim here will have nothing more to say.

I think Sanford really dropped the ball here they should have thought about the anger that would occur if given any doubt they should have arrested Zimmerman
this is what gives fuel to the fire.Tons of people get arrested for much less minor things than this and the charges get dropped later down side of the law you might spend a few days hours in jail and be an innocent person.

Did you notice in that CSM article I posted on the second page it reports that they(Martins parents) copyrighted slogans that seems very money grabby to me.Of course the thing is no matter what happens some people on both ends are convinced 100% and they will angry either way.

Also another media spin a roo the picture of Zimmerman(may be the only one they have available) is an old one from a mug shot and the Martin photo is not recent either(they have other photos of him).Not to say that ones appearance alone makes them right or wrong but to many it does guess they never heard of Ted Bundy.

By the way one of the eye witnesses is a black teenager around the same age as Martin so that somewhat nullifies the notion that Zimmerman might target any black person simply because they are black this kid was walking his dog at the time very good chance Zimmerman might have seen him as well on regular basis and while he was walking the dog prior to the indecent.

[Krauter]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

Trayvon chose to assault him, he gave up his rights in a sense.I could see him being a young wannabe gangster, getting mad some neighborhood watch guy was following him.I could see this guy picking a fight with him, 17 year olds are not known for their impulse control.Really is sad, but he messed with the wrong guy.

So just like that he gives up his rights and is fair game to be shot and killed?

....

[August]

Originally Posted by Krauter

So just like that he gives up his rights and is fair game to be shot and killed?

....

I'm not saying I buy the theory of Martin being the aggressor but if it's true and he did initiate the fight then yes he did deserve to be shot and killed. Do you think a person should have the right to attack another person and not suffer the potential consequences of his victim defending himself?

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by August

I'm not saying I buy the theory of Martin being the aggressor but if it's true and he did initiate the fight then yes he did deserve to be shot and killed. Do you think a person should have the right to attack another person and not suffer the potential consequences of his victim defending himself?

But in the same sense, and where I think this law goes into pure malarkey, is that I can be in a bar, follow someone around all night calling them names, harassing them in general, and then when they finally take a swing at me I'm perfectly justified in "standing my ground" and shooting them dead. And then the Glenn Becks and ragsheets of the world like "The Blaze" say that I was attacked, and I was the good guy. That makes absolutely no sense. The kid wouldn't have been aggressive (if he was) unless Zimmerman did something to provoke it. That provocation is all that matters in my mind.

[Stealhead]

mookiemookie you are some what doing the same thing Bubblehead is doing you just have the notion that surely Zimmerman provoked Martin you have no way to prove this is the case and even if he did and he did throw the first punch then he did assault Zimmerman and if he was winning the fight and Zimmerman felt in fear of great harm or death then he has the right to use the weapon in self defense.

Even if a person provoked a fight as you say if the person attacked them and they where seriously beating the person self defense is legit you do not get a pass because the guy ticked you off and you hit him ignore the jerk simple as that or at least do not use violence because if you get out of control and start beating someone down expect to possibly get shot by them or someone else or for someone else to set in and beat your rear to aid the person you are beating.If in fact Martin was angry for being questioned he should have just walked away once he was done asking him.

I think many bad situations would never have happened if one party had simply just pulled a Ghandi and walked away sometimes it is better just to do nothing and say nothing if the person offends you.

What they are doing in this case is verifying or disproving Zimmerman's claim and seeing if race had a motive if at all(and that would only apply if his intent was to kill in the first place which will nearly impossible to prove)

[August]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

But in the same sense, and where I think this law goes into pure malarkey, is that I can be in a bar, follow someone around all night calling them names, harassing them in general, and then when they finally take a swing at me I'm perfectly justified in "standing my ground" and shooting them dead. And then the Glenn Becks and ragsheets of the world like "The Blaze" say that I was attacked, and I was the good guy. That makes absolutely no sense. The kid wouldn't have been aggressive (if he was) unless Zimmerman did something to provoke it. That provocation is all that matters in my mind.

But you don't know what the kid would or wouldn't have done. Kids his age have been known to walk up and beat the bejesus out of total strangers just for the fun of it.

For Example

If Beck and the blaze are twisting the truth to serve their own agenda then so are Al Sharpton and the New Black Panthers. It doesn't make either sides argument more or less valid.

At this point Zimmerman has both witnesses and physical evidence to back up his version of events. It might be somewhat slim but what do his detractors have? Apparently only some kid pictures and their word that Martin was a nice boy. They're going to need more than that before i'd be willing to convict Zimmerman of murder.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Stealhead

mookiemookie you are some what doing the same thing Bubblehead is doing you just have the notion that surely Zimmerman provoked Martin you have no way to prove this is the case and even if he did and he did throw the first punch then he did assault Zimmerman and if he was winning the fight and Zimmerman felt in fear of great harm or death then he has the right to use the weapon in self defense.

He did initiate the situation. We have the 911 tapes as proof of that. You need to apply the "but for" test. But for Zimmerman following the kid, none of this would have happened. And again, no matter what happened or who hit who, there's someone dead. In my mind that deserves more of an investigation that it got. And if the law says it doesn't? Bad law.

And the second part of what you said, I've already addressed. If you provoke or otherwise start a fight, it doesn't give you the right to kill someone.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

can't debate so just insult and make things up, makes you feel better about yourself.

Can you show a single GT thread in which you have ever "debated" anything?

I did initially think Zimmerman was responsible but still protected by Florida Law,

This is the sort of thing you always say, yet we never actually see the part where that happened. We only see you claiming it after the fact. It seems to be an attempt to make yourself look centrist and fair, when you're actual posts are anything but.

It may come to light that your interpretation of events is true. From your previous comments I have no doubt that if and when that happens you will make sure to crow about how right you were. And if it turns out you're wrong?

Mookie is right, in that you get your information from right-wing radio and newsprint, and still, after all the admonitions you've recieved, still spout the party line while claiming to be in the middle.

As for the rest, we'll see. Any good lawyer would wait to pass judgement until all the evidence was in.

[Stealhead]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

He did initiate the situation. We have the 911 tapes as proof of that. You need to apply the "but for" test. But for Zimmerman following the kid, none of this would have happened. And again, no matter what happened or who hit who, there's someone dead. In my mind that deserves more of an investigation that it got. And if the law says it doesn't? Bad law.

And the second part of what you said, I've already addressed. If you provoke or otherwise start a fight, it doesn't give you the right to kill someone.

You are assuming that Zimmerman started the situation how do we not know that Martin was in fact behaving in a suspicious manner he may very well have been in this area we have nothing but Zimmermans word.Also 911 dispatchers are not law enforcement they can suggest something to you but you are in no way obliged by law to what they say.

If you provoke a fight you are wrong to have done so however if the person attacking you that you provoked is beating you to death you still have the right to defend yourself form a person out of control just as you have the right to sue the person for assaulting you.A person asking you who you are what are you doing here should not provoke violence out of a normal person it may annoy them.

Everything is speculation at this point nothing and now I see a battle brewing between you on your side of the spin and Bubblehead on his end of the spin.

Makes you sit and think how easy one can convince a nation to go to war using spin to fuel preconceived notions.

We shall see but one group is gong to be eating their words soon enough.

You're wasting your time here presenting facts, dude.

Forgive me for a moment, you are talking about Bubbles post there are you?
If so then: har:

Most of the posts I have read are from those who only want to promote an agenda of some type such as anti-gun or race.

You mean like those who crow on some nonsense like "he ain't WHITE"? yes you might have a point there, but I don't think it was the point you intended.

Martin could have left the area but didn't

Why did he have to leave the area breadcatcher?
He was walking in a neighbourhood to get to a house in the neighbourhood and somone was following him while he was going about his lawful business in the neighbourhood.

[Krauter]

Originally Posted by August

I'm not saying I buy the theory of Martin being the aggressor but if it's true and he did initiate the fight then yes he did deserve to be shot and killed. Do you think a person should have the right to attack another person and not suffer the potential consequences of his victim defending himself?

Oh I agree that if someone initiates a fight then you should defend yourself, but with appropriate force. Pulling a gun on a kid because he punched you, in my opinion at least, is not appropriate force. Maybe it's just the Canadian in me, hell if it was me I'd probably just stand there and say "eh quit hitting me" and maybe spray him with maple syrup.