Black Man Kills White Teen - Jury Lets Him Walk

[slim 1,533]

That doesn't tell me he was def initially jumped by TM.

Why do you need to know that?

I'm baffled by folks who have to know what really happened. We'll never know. To get all upset over it and somehow point fingers at anyone anywhere is silly.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

So I guess since the story is from 2009, it's not relevant? Having a hard time understanding why that matters.

Perhaps because it illustrated the proper use of a gun for protection from someone actually in the act of committing a crime (yay guns!)

But despite that there was an attempt to convict the black man for protecting himself. Oops! Very different scenario.

And it's a story from 2009?

[Dan and Judy 614]

Just irks me when people talking about TM jumping poor TM and TM being left with no other option than to shoot his way out.

So TM jumped himself and then as a last resort shot himself in self defense. You should have been Zimmermans lawyer.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

Why do you need to know that?

I'm baffled by folks who have to know what really happened. We'll never know. To get all upset over it and somehow point fingers at anyone anywhere is silly.

I don't see anyone saying they HAVE to know what really happened. It's obvious nobody ever will.

What I think is silly is the notion that who started it is irrelevant to you.

If TM started it, which I think he did, then GZ was justified in his self defense claim. He rightfully walks.

If GZ had started it, TM goes from a thug who is attacking someone for following him... to a person who fought back against someone who attacked him first.

I don't believe that happened, of course, just stating that "who started it" isn't as irrelevant as you think.

It's what self defense claims are built on. "I was attacked, I was scared for my life, I felt threatened."

In the story you posted, the circumstances are different in that the shooter didn't simply shoot for committing a crime. He purposefully avoided doing that. He didn't shoot until one of the three people charged at him.

Edited July 19, 2013 by Penny Lane

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

I can't believe that there are folks that are trying to use this case as a example of the system working for a black person. Oh wait, let me wake up.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

I can't believe that there are folks that are trying to use this case as a example of the system working for a black person. Oh wait, let me wake up.

If anything, this case is a perfect example of proper gun use. People here consistently tell me that this is what their guns are for. Protecting their family and protecting their property. Rightfully so.

Why did this even go to trial?

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

If anything, this case is a perfect example of proper gun use. People here consistently tell me that this is what their guns are for. Protecting their family and protecting their property. Rightfully so.

Why did this even go to trial?

I don't know the parameters of this case so well. Could be SOP, could be something else. I agree there is no similarities with this and the GZ case. This guy caught them in a crime, TM wasn't committing one. Folks love to say everything GZ did wasn't illegal but it wasn't correct either. http://www.mediaite.com/tv/piers-morgan-to-marc-lamont-hill-how-would-things-be-different-if-trayvon-was-a-young-black-girl/

[Penny Lane 8,159]

I don't think he did anything illegal. Unfortunately, being an idiot isn't illegal.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

I don't think he did anything illegal. Unfortunately, being an idiot isn't illegal.

Me either, but taking a life is still a burden he should bear.

Now I have to tell my sons if they are confronted, they need to run. They can't fight back, because if you get the upper hand you might get shot.

[slim 1,533]

Me either, but taking a life is still a burden he should bear.

Now I have to tell my sons if they are confronted, they need to run. They can't fight back, because if you get the upper hand you might get shot.

Fighting back is one thing. Jumping on top of someone and pounding their head into the ground is quite another. As evidenced by the case I posted - even if you're black, you have the legal right to defend yourself.

[Karee 4,191]

Me either, but taking a life is still a burden he should bear.

Now I have to tell my sons if they are confronted, they need to run. They can't fight back, because if you get the upper hand you might get shot.

I don't understand why there are only two options. Either run away or beat the guy? How about saying, "Hey, what's up?"

[Penny Lane 8,159]

I don't understand why there are only two options. Either run away or beat the guy? How about saying, "Hey, what's up?"

TM did ask what's up, in a way. He did question GZ as to why he was being followed.

For some reason, instead of an introduction and/or explanation, he got an accusatory "What are you doing here?"

As if he didn't have the right to be there.

Not saying TM was justified in his actions, but it's not like he turned around and simply started wailing on the guy as soon as he saw him.

Edited July 19, 2013 by Penny Lane

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

Fighting back is one thing. Jumping on top of someone and pounding their head into the ground is quite another. As evidenced by the case I posted - even if you're black, you have the legal right to defend yourself.

That's because as you stated, you don't care what happened, just the outcome. I've had my head hit on the concrete, still have the scar. If his head was slammed 20-30 times into the curb like he said, he would be dead. No doubt about it. He looked like he had been in a normal fight, but I guess when you can't fight and you get beat up, it might feel like your life is in danger.

[slim 1,533]

I guess when you can't fight and you get beat up, it might feel like your life is in danger.

Then it fit the legal standard.

What's the problem? I understand you guys on here are all ticked off because "pu$$y @$$ George Zimmerman" was getting beat up by "poor little Trayvon." But what you're forgetting is condemning GZ also condemns grandma in the wheel chair when thugs try to steal her purse. It disables our wives from defending themselves against bigger and stronger men.

Simply put, the law is in place to protect the threatened. Changing that just because GZ is a bit of a b!tch sets in motion a slew of unintended consequences. Do you really want a woman pushing a baby stroller to have the duty to flee from those who would do her harm?

[Penny Lane 8,159]

Then it fit the legal standard.

What's the problem? I understand you guys on here are all ticked off because "pu$$y @$$ George Zimmerman" was getting beat up by "poor little Trayvon." But what you're forgetting is condemning GZ also condemns grandma in the wheel chair when thugs try to steal her purse. It disables our wives from defending themselves against bigger and stronger men.

Simply put, the law is in place to protect the threatened. Changing that just because GZ is a bit of a b!tch sets in motion a slew of unintended consequences. Do you really want a woman pushing a baby stroller to have the duty to flee from those who would do her harm?

Of course not. I don't think anyone is really arguing the right to defend yourself.

If you feel threatened, and you feel your life is in danger, or you feel you're about to be harmed.. you absolutely NEED the right to take action to defend yourself. Running away should not be the only option.

I don't disagree with the verdict of this trial. Like I've said, I think GZ and TM made some stupid decisions that night that unfortunately resulted in a death.

I don't condemn GZ for his actions AFTER TM attacked. I condemn him for the actions before - but, of course, those actions while STUPID, are not illegal.

People shouldn't put themselves in dangerous situations and then claim self defense when those situations turn out to be, you know, dangerous.

Stand Your Ground, which didn't end up mattering in this case since GZ and his team dropped it, sets a dangerous precedent.

Do you think it's a coincidence that self defense claims tripled in Florida after the enactment of SYG? It makes it very hard to prosecute anyone who killed someone in 'self defense' ... because the only other witness ends up dead and the shooter just has to say they were scared. They don't have to prove they were, the defense has to prove they weren't. Very difficult. Very dangerous.