Black Man Kills White Teen - Jury Lets Him Walk

[Karee 4,190]

Are you serious?

Of course the circumstances of the altercations matters.

It matters that in your story, the only reason the shooter even confronted the victim was because the victim, along with others, was in the process of DOING SOMETHING ILLEGAL. He was committing a crime. Against the shooter's personal property.

How doesn't it matter?

In what world does "what happened minutes before the shooting" not matter?

I don't think you can shoot someone for breaking into cars. You can shoot someone for attacking you. In that regard the cases are very similar except the races are reversed. Both men were attacked by unarmed men, and both responded with deadly force. Both of them were charged with manslaughter and both were acquitted.

Of course it was probably just a blip on the local news though. Wonder why?

Edited July 19, 2013 by Karee

[Penny Lane 8,159]

What murder?

There was a self defense killing (or two) but there were no murders. See, you keep doing it. You keep bringing up things that are irrelevant to the incident.

Okay. Let me rephrase.

Since when does the real world not care about the circumstances that lead to a death?

The circumstances that lead to the altercation, in this story and in the GZ/TM story, are not irrelevant. Sorry.

I don't think you can shoot someone for breaking into cars. You can shoot someone for attacking you. In that regard the cases are very similar except the races are reversed. Both men were attacked by unarmed men, and both responded with deadly force. Both of them were charged with manslaughter and both were acquitted.

Agreed. And he didn't shoot someone for breaking into a car. He needed something to keep the trio there. He asked them to wait until the cops showed up. One of them unfortunately didn't. Once one person charges him, he's in danger of it being 3 on 1. This guy left witnesses and only shot the person who was endangering his life.

The end result is similar. An unarmed person ended up dead and the shooter claimed self defense.

The circumstances, which ARE relevant despite what others might want to believe, are pretty different.

Saying the minutes leading up to a shooting don't matter doesn't make sense. Of course they do.

Edited July 19, 2013 by Penny Lane

[GandD 5,966]

No one knows who first made the confrontation a physical thing. Stating one or the other did as a fact only shows your bias.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

No one knows who first made the confrontation a physical thing. Stating one or the other did as a fact only shows your bias.

Also true. In GZ/TM, there are no living witnesses other than the shooter.

[Karee 4,190]

Okay. Let me rephrase.

Since when does the real world not care about the circumstances that lead to a death?

The circumstances that lead to the altercation, in this story and in the GZ/TM story, are not irrelevant. Sorry.

Agreed. And he didn't shoot someone for breaking into a car. He needed something to keep the trio there. He asked them to wait until the cops showed up. One of them unfortunately didn't. Once one person charges him, he's in danger of it being 3 on 1. This guy left witnesses and only shot the person who was endangering his life.

The end result is similar. An unarmed person ended up dead and the shooter claimed self defense.

The circumstances, which ARE relevant despite what others might want to believe, are pretty different.

All that following business didn't have any bearing at all in the TM/GZ trial. It had alot of bearing here in P&R and in the media, but not at the trial where it mattered. It basically came down to who attacked who. Remember there's nothing illegal about following someone.

[slim 1,525]

I don't think you can shoot someone for breaking into cars. You can shoot someone for attacking you. In that regard the cases are very similar except the races are reversed. Both men were attacked by unarmed men, and both responded with deadly force. Both of them were charged with manslaughter and both were acquitted.

Of course it was probably just a blip on the local news though. Wonder why?

Two nights in a row, you get "Best Post" honors. Well done.

Okay. Let me rephrase.

Since when does the real world not care about the circumstances that lead to a death?

The circumstances that lead to the altercation, in this story and in the GZ/TM story, are not irrelevant. Sorry.

Agreed. And he didn't shoot someone for breaking into a car. He needed something to keep the trio there. He asked them to wait until the cops showed up. One of them unfortunately didn't. Once one person charges him, he's in danger of it being 3 on 1. This guy left witnesses and only shot the person who was endangering his life.

The end result is similar. An unarmed person ended up dead and the shooter claimed self defense.

The circumstances, which ARE relevant despite what others might want to believe, are pretty different.

Saying the minutes leading up to a shooting don't matter doesn't make sense. Of course they do.

All that emotional mumbo-jumbo is why the GZ case is still news and this story I posted is something we never had a real-time update on. You feel something about the case. You want to think about it. You want to know what really happened.

Awesome. Great.

And at the end of the day, it's irrelevant.

No one knows who first made the confrontation a physical thing. Stating one or the other did as a fact only shows your bias.

It's not biased when there's evidence.

You folks keep getting hung up on who started it. Once again, that's irrelevant. The evidence of the case shows only one person was being beaten at the time of the shooting. That corroborates the story of the shooter. Case closed.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

You folks keep getting hung up on who started it. Once again, that's irrelevant. The evidence of the case shows only one person was being beaten at the time of the shooting. That corroborates the story of the shooter. Case closed.

The evidence of the case does not show who started the confrontation.

You don't think if evidence of who started it existed, it would be relevant?

If GZ started it, couldn't TM have been acting in self defense?

Would his beating of GZ be justified if GZ swung first?

Edited July 19, 2013 by Penny Lane

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I don't think you can shoot someone for breaking into cars.

In Florida you can fatally stab someone for breaking into cars. You can even chase them before you stab them. I would have to believe that you could also fatally shoot them and get away with it. Has to do with the fact that the person was committing a felony. Just as in this case. In Martin's case, on the other hand, the teen had not committed any felony at all.

[Karee 4,190]

The evidence of the case does not show who started the confrontation.

You don't think it evidence of who started it would be relevant?

If GZ started it, couldn't TM have been acting in self defense?

What do you consider "starting it" ? TM had no injuries at all except the bullet wound. I think he may have had some injuries on his knuckles from pounding GZ's face.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

What do you consider "starting it" ? TM had no injuries at all except the bullet wound. I think he may have had some injuries on his knuckles from pounding GZ's face.

For the record, I don't think GZ started it.

I'm simply saying that who started it matters. The fact that it's believed that TM did justifies what GZ did.

If it were the other way around, TM could have been acting in self defense.

Who started it absolutely matters.

[Karee 4,190]

In Florida you can fatally stab someone for breaking into cars. You can even chase them before you stab them. I would have to believe that you could also fatally shoot them and get away with it. Has to do with the fact that the person was committing a felony. Just as in this case. In Martin's case, on the other hand, the teen had not committed any felony at all.

You're missing the point. He didn't shoot the guy for breaking into cars, he shot him because he was attacked.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

You folks keep getting hung up on who started it. Once again, that's irrelevant.

Only since 2005. Prior to 2005, it would have made all the difference. Zimmermann would not have had any self defense claim available to him because he out himself into the situation that he ended up shooting his way out of. That was once below the threshold of self defense. As it should be..

You're missing the point. He didn't shoot the guy for breaking into cars, he shot him because he was attacked.

He had a valid reason to confront them.

[Karee 4,190]

He had a valid reason to confront them.

Confronting someone is not against the law. Following someone is not against the law. If TM pounded GZ's head and face simply for confronting him, then,.......well you know the rest.

[GandD 5,966]

You folks keep getting hung up on who started it. Once again, that's irrelevant. The evidence of the case shows only one person was being beaten at the time of the shooting. That corroborates the story of the shooter. Case closed.

Who started a fist fight should declare who's able to make the self defense claim. Unless you are suggesting that its ok to approach someone, punch them in the face, and then shoot them if the ensuing fight starts to go their way?

Edited July 19, 2013 by GandD

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Confronting someone is not against the law. Following someone is not against the law.

Of course not. It once was against the law, however, to get yourself into a situation that you then felt you had to shoot yourself out of. Not too long ago. Here in Florida. We had fewer homicides then. Ever since they enacted this garbage of SYG, homicides have gone up in the state after steadily declining for years prior to this kill at will law being put in place.