Zimmerman to be charged

[ready4ONE 5,400]

They are just gun nuts, don't worry about it. Plus this is Politics and Religion, snarky comments are the rule here, not the exception.

[SMOKE 1,426]

don't let the haters bother you mari.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Or arm our kids and young adults with firearms! Good answer!

If I thought my life was in danger I wouldn't hesitate putting a bullet through someones head. My life > anyone else

[one...two...tree 2,762]

If I thought my life was in danger I wouldn't hesitate putting a bullet through someones head. My life > anyone else

And if you were unarmed and felt your life in danger, would you use physical force against that threat?

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

And if you were unarmed and felt your life in danger, would you use physical force against that threat?

If someone attacked me of course. It's all about survival.

[Sayha or bust. 71]

To the two poster who replied my post:

First of all, Thank you so much for showing me that one can be insulted and bashed just to express an opinion in a public forum in the U.S.

Second, My post was not addressed to you both personally. I don't understand why you have to insult me.

last, You both seem to be very angry and mean people (I might be wrong).

I pray the lord that people that rush to judgment as you did with me for just expressing an opinion may never get seated in a jury to decide the fate of another human being.

Maria by the sounds of post your a bit of a biggot. I'd react to anybody thats post sounded racial. And look it my reponse to your first post, basically had nothing negative to say about it.

Edited April 16, 2012 by Sayha or bust.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

There is a difference between beating someone to death and shooting them of course. A single gunshot can kill where as unless the person is unlucky a single punch or kick will not kill. Therefore, a person should be able to stop from killing a person by physical force. If you starting beating a person to death I'd hardly call that self defense.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

There is a difference between beating someone to death and shooting them of course. A single gunshot can kill where as unless the person is unlucky a single punch or kick will not kill. Therefore, a person should be able to stop from killing a person by physical force. If you starting beating a person to death I'd hardly call that self defense.

But listen to that logic. A single bullet can be deadly, yet shooting someone as an act of self defense even in a situation where that person is punching you is considered by many as a reasonable amount of force, whereas, if it were two unarmed people, both throwing punches, they are both expected to show restrain from beating the other one to death even if they reasonably believe their life is in danger. Now, if it is one unarmed person defending their life from a person that is carrying a gun, why should they show any restraint that results in anything short of the lethality that a single gunshot would do?

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

But listen to that logic. A single bullet can be deadly, yet shooting someone as an act of self defense even in a situation where that person is punching you is considered by many as a reasonable amount of force, whereas, if it were two unarmed people, both throwing punches, they are both expected to show restrain from beating the other one to death even if they reasonably believe their life is in danger. Now, if it is one unarmed person defending their life from a person that is carrying a gun, why should they show any restraint that results in anything short of the lethality that a single gunshot would do?

Because beating an armed person becomes illogical when that person can reach for their firearm. The likely conclusion was that Martin initiated the beating without knowing about the firearm.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Because beating an armed person becomes illogical when that person can reach for their firearm. The likely conclusion was that Martin initiated the beating without knowing about the firearm.

Not necessarily. According to Martin's gf, he turned around and confronted Zimmerman:

...she said when she was talking to Trayvon as he was walking back home in the rain and he was telling her about this strange guy who was on a phone following him:

“He said this man was watching him, so he put his hoodie on. He said he lost the man. I asked Trayvon to run, and he said he was going to walk fast. I told him to run but he said he was not going to run.”

Trayvon did eventually decide to run but he was eventually cornered.

“Trayvon said, ‘What, are you following me for,’ and the man said, ‘What are you doing here.’ Next thing I hear is somebody pushing, and somebody pushed Trayvon because the head set just fell. I called him again and he didn’t answer the phone.”

After that the line went dead and it was just seconds later that Trayvon was killed.

So, if the girlfriend's statement is true, the only thing Martin might have been guilty of was shoving Zimmerman, even if that. Had Zimmerman not had a gun, but struck Martin with a blunt object and killed him, that would not have been act of self defense but of retaliation. Somewhere there, lies the truth about what happened. Two people retaliating, but with one deciding to escalate it further by drawing a gun. If Martin saw Zimmerman drawing a gun or noticed it after physical contact, he may have gone for the gun, but out of self defense. Zimmerman could have identified himself to Martin initially, telling him that he was watching the neighborhood, but he didn't. Martin could only assume the worst of Zimmerman as Zimmerman assumed the worst of Martin. A real tragedy and one that could have been avoided if Zimmerman would have listened to the 911 dispatcher and not pursued Martin. Based on his 911 call and his track record, he sounds like a paranoid, gun-toting cop-wannabe, looking for trouble and found it.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Not necessarily. According to Martin's gf, he turned around and confronted Zimmerman:

So, if the girlfriend's statement is true, the only thing Martin might have been guilty of was shoving Zimmerman, even if that. Had Zimmerman not had a gun, but struck Martin with a blunt object and killed him, that would not have been act of self defense but of retaliation. Somewhere there, lies the truth about what happened. Two people retaliating, but with one deciding to escalate it further by drawing a gun. If Martin saw Zimmerman drawing a gun or noticed it after physical contact, he may have gone for the gun, but out of self defense. Zimmerman could have identified himself to Martin initially, telling him that he was watching the neighborhood, but he didn't. Martin could only assume the worst of Zimmerman as Zimmerman assumed the worst of Martin. A real tragedy and one that could have been avoided if Zimmerman would have listened to the 911 dispatcher and not pursued Martin. Based on his 911 call and his track record, he sounds like a paranoid, gun-toting cop-wannabe, looking for trouble and found it.

Its unlikely zimmerman would have drawn a gun at that stage however. Your right, both may have simply assumed the worst, however it seems illogical to blame Zimmerman for the death rather than see it as a tragic accident given the circumstance. To find Zimmerman guilty of anything, there must be evidence that he initiated a first strike, or had Martin in a position of surrender and yet fired.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Its unlikely zimmerman would have drawn a gun at that stage however. Your right, both may have simply assumed the worst, however it seems illogical to blame Zimmerman for the death rather than see it as a tragic accident given the circumstance. To find Zimmerman guilty of anything, there must be evidence that he initiated a first strike, or had Martin in a position of surrender and yet fired.

I don't know enough about the laws, but I would hope that when an unarmed person dies in a situation like this, the court would look as to who instigated the altercation and hold that person accountable. If not, we're gonna see a lot more Trayvon Martins being shot by paranoid, vigilante cop-wannabes who assume the worst about someone they don't know. But I'm hopeful that from this tragedy, we can tweak the laws so that someone minding their own business can be protected from harassment in their own neighborhood. Even if Zimmerman gets only a wrist slap, I hope Martin's parents go after him in civil court and win. It will make people like Zimmerman think twice about trying to do the job of trained law enforcement.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

I don't know enough about the laws, but I would hope that when an unarmed person dies in a situation like this, the court would look as to who instigated the altercation and hold that person accountable. If not, we're gonna see a lot more Trayvon Martins being shot by paranoid, vigilante cop-wannabes who assume the worst about someone they don't know. But I'm hopeful that from this tragedy, we can tweak the laws so that someone minding their own business can be protected from harassment in their own neighborhood. Even if Zimmerman gets only a wrist slap, I hope Martin's parents go after him in civil court and win. It will make people like Zimmerman think twice about trying to do the job of trained law enforcement.

Don't physically attack someone and you won't get shot. Teach children self control and less of them will end up like Trayvon.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

I don't know enough about the laws, but I would hope that when an unarmed person dies in a situation like this, the court would look as to who instigated the altercation and hold that person accountable. If not, we're gonna see a lot more Trayvon Martins being shot by paranoid, vigilante cop-wannabes who assume the worst about someone they don't know. But I'm hopeful that from this tragedy, we can tweak the laws so that someone minding their own business can be protected from harassment in their own neighborhood. Even if Zimmerman gets only a wrist slap, I hope Martin's parents go after him in civil court and win. It will make people like Zimmerman think twice about trying to do the job of trained law enforcement.

In a way your saying that an armed individual is automatically a second class citizen to an unarmed one.

Its a basic right to walk around my neighborhood and watch out for suspicious characters. I have a right to walk where they walk, I have a right to talk to them. Obviously I have no right to physically hold them or harm them.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

In a way your saying that an armed individual is automatically a second class citizen to an unarmed one.

Its a basic right to walk around my neighborhood and watch out for suspicious characters. I have a right to walk where they walk, I have a right to talk to them. Obviously I have no right to physically hold them or harm them.

You have a right to protect yourself, but that shouldn't give you the right to pretend you're the local sheriff and chase after the riff raff. If you do, you should be held accountable if an unarmed person dies by your gun. Unless you believe that we should start arming citizens to act as their own law enforcement agency. That IMO, would be dangerous road to go down and most likely take us back a century or two. Heck, even during the 'Wild West,' the local sheriff could require you to turn in all your guns at his office before entering his town. Once someone takes on the role of enforcing the law, they no longer are an ordinary citizen just protecting themselves. Zimmerman clearly was not looking out for his own safety or he would have never followed Martin and he definitely wouldn't have gotten out of his SUV. He took it upon himself to behave like law enforcement, except with no certification, training, approval or legitimacy.

Edited April 16, 2012 by Mister Fancypants