Zimmerman vs. Martin

From my understanding, a young man was walking through a gated community, talking on the phone, while he made his way back to his place after buying snacks at a convenience store.

And some dude, under the guise of being part of a neighborhood watch, accosted him. AFTER the police told him not to.

Now, if some son of a b approached me, and I told him to back off, and he didn't and we got into a scuffle where I ended up getting shot?

Who is guilty? What, if someone approaches me in a confrontational way, I'm not supposed to defend myself?

I don't care if Trayvon is percieved as a child or a thug. He was minding his own business and Zimmerman instigated. Had Zimmerman done what the police TOLD him to do, Trayvon would have kept on walking and none of this would have happened.

This is my take on it. And it doesn't matter to me that Trayvon got in trouble at school or smoked pot. He is 17. Lots of kids behave this way and grow up to be 100% awesome contributing members of society.

Trayvon didn't get the chance to do that because a grown assed man approached him and started a fight. Unreal.

You really know nothing about this case...

i agree.
Zimmerman was not ordered to go back to his car by ANY officer. The 911 operator suggested he return to his car and he did...and martin chased him down...

oh this is fun, i need popcorn. I'm hungry.

Zimmerman pursued when he shouldn't have and someone is now dead. This is all that really matters here.

It doesn't matter if Zimmerman had legal right to carry. It doesn't matter if Martin had drugs in his system. It doesn't matter if Zimmerman was defending himself.

This event would not have occurred if Zimmerman had not pursued.

Does that mean he is guilty of murder? Maybe not.

Is this young man now dead because Zimmerman made a poor choice? Yes.

Is it because the news shows Martin as a 10 year old kid in all his pics? Martin was a thug, drug dealer, "gangster", etc..

What makes you say that? If he were a true thug, he would have been the one carrying a gun that night, how was he a drug dealer? because he smoked? You shouldn't make remarks about a person you know nothing about. Zimmerman shouldn't have followed him, how did Trayvon know what they guy was doing? If someone is following me and I don't know them or their intent, you better believe I'm going to fight them off.

From my understanding, a young man was walking through a gated community, talking on the phone, while he made his way back to his place after buying snacks at a convenience store.

And some dude, under the guise of being part of a neighborhood watch, accosted him. AFTER the police told him not to.

Now, if some son of a b approached me, and I told him to back off, and he didn't and we got into a scuffle where I ended up getting shot?

Who is guilty? What, if someone approaches me in a confrontational way, I'm not supposed to defend myself?

I don't care if Trayvon is percieved as a child or a thug. He was minding his own business and Zimmerman instigated. Had Zimmerman done what the police TOLD him to do, Trayvon would have kept on walking and none of this would have happened.

This is my take on it. And it doesn't matter to me that Trayvon got in trouble at school or smoked pot. He is 17. Lots of kids behave this way and grow up to be 100% awesome contributing members of society.

Trayvon didn't get the chance to do that because a grown assed man approached him and started a fight. Unreal.

^^^ this !

I knew a couple of 17 year olds who's parents let them enlist in the Army. Trust me... they weren't children. You can use the legal 18 year old age definition all you want, but Martin was in no way 'a child'.

I'm not using the legal definition. I'm using my memory of being that age and the CHILDREN Icurrently know who are that age.

I know and knew 17- and 18- and even 19-year-olds who enlisted in every branch of service who really were still children. Yes, they went out and did adult things, but they had a lot of growing up to do.

My old HS boyfriend joined the Marines at 19. We are in touch now as adults and I can tell you the person he was when he joined the Marines and went off gung-ho to fight a war is not the same person he is now. He was very immature even then. He was a kid.

I had a baby when I was 17. I had to grow up pretty quickly, but I really was still a kid in a lot of ways.

And if doing a few drugs makes someone a thug, I'd say a good 80% of the population are thugs.

As for self-defense/stand your ground, considering that Zimmerman was following Trayvon, couldn't the prosecution make a case that TRAYVON was standing his ground?

No, you can't make that case. Following somebody is not a crime and is not a justification for Martin assaulting Zimmerman with deadly intent.

Secondly, Zimmerman had stopped following Martin and was returning to his car when Martin confronted him and began an unprovoked assault.

Martin decided to beat the cracker and recieved his justice that night.

Martin was returning to his car because he lost sight of Martin, who was hiding, isn't that the story? Trayvon didn't know that Zimmerman wasn't intending to hurt him and he didn't know if Zimmerman was going to go looking for him.


But, as I said, Murder 2 is too harsh a charge. I still don't think it's clear-cut self-defense.

Well, we don't know what Martin was thinking since he isn't around to tell us. What we do know is that Martin initiated an assault on an armed man with a predictable result.

Since Martin started the fight and was much larger than Zimmerman and was pounding his head into concrete, Zimmerman had reason to believe his life was in danger and used justifiable self defense with a deadly weapon.

The police knew this from the beginning and never wanted to charge him with anything. The only reason this ever became an issue at all was to placate the race baiters.

Obviously you really cared because your list says it all. Self-defense for whom, Martin had every right to be walking down the street, like every body else. When it is a crime in this country to walk in any neighborhood. If he was breaking into someone's house, I would have no problem with what happened, but he was walking and Zimmerman was told to stand down.

No. I care d*ck about his case. What I care about is the disgusting media bias and the obvious bias of the presiding Judge. The legal system in Florida states "You are innocent. The state must prove your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." The State over-charged and cannot meet the burden of 2nd Degree Murder. They MIGHT have gotten a Manslaughter conviction, but media, social, political pressure blew this case for them. Zimmerman will walk. If he doesn't then there is some deep corruption going on.

1) Martin didn't have the right to brutally assault another person for simply following him. Martin was bashing Zimmerman's head against a sidewalk. "Feared for my life" is all it takes. Sorry, self-defense. Police testimony/evidence supports this.

2) It's not a crime to walk in a neighborhood. Just like it's not a crime to patrol your neighborhood when it has been burglarized several times. Martin should have just kept on walking, but no he had to be all billy badass and prove something (to someone).

3) Zimmerman was never told by the police to 'stand down'. I'd like to know where people get this from. The 911 Operator (who has ZERO authority to order anyone do to anything) simply said "We need you to not do that."

Always classy... Thanks!

It shows. Keep it up!

Well lets ymtalk about consequences for our actions. Trayvon may have been a saint. But he was a cgild who deserved a chance to do better. Todays kids are much different than kids of other generations. George zimmerman a grown man. George was told to stop following. He was armed in a car. He should be und guilty because he completely pursues and killed someone. Imagine walking and someone following you. I would fight. Maybe he did injure georgr. All very natural reactions. And then what did george do. If hes let off rhey can still try him federally. George shouldnt have been armesmd should have stayed in his car and is a luar and a cheat. You dont deserve to die for being a bad kid. Trayvon was just a typical kid. Kids make stuoid decisions sometimes. We have to let our kids know unexoected things happen and we need to tey and avoid dangerous or risky behavior. As parents lets be a little more protective of our kids. This is a situatuon that could have been avoided. George should pay for his actions

Why should he have not been armed? He had a legal permit to be armed. Typical kids do not get caught with stolen jewelry, burglary tools and deal drugs. Sorry, but that isn't typical at all.

Actually he did. He was the neighborhood watch. You have to get "hired" for that...

Are neighburhood watch schemes not voluntary programmes?

It is voluntary work. I may have used "hired" incorrectly.

hanks for that - just trying to keep up. Like I said, I'm in an entirely different country, so things could obviously work differently here.

I knew a couple of 17 year olds who's parents let them enlist in the Army. Trust me... they weren't children. You can use the legal 18 year old age definition all you want, but Martin was in no way 'a child'.

I'm not using the legal definition. I'm using my memory of being that age and the CHILDREN Icurrently know who are that age.

I know and knew 17- and 18- and even 19-year-olds who enlisted in every branch of service who really were still children. Yes, they went out and did adult things, but they had a lot of growing up to do.

My old HS boyfriend joined the Marines at 19. We are in touch now as adults and I can tell you the person he was when he joined the Marines and went off gung-ho to fight a war is not the same person he is now. He was very immature even then. He was a kid.

I had a baby when I was 17. I had to grow up pretty quickly, but I really was still a kid in a lot of ways.

And if doing a few drugs makes someone a thug, I'd say a good 80% of the population are thugs.

But you are applying YOUR memories of what 'childhood' is. Being immature does not necessarily determine being 'a child'.

We should have set an over-under on the amount of posts that would be allowed before the topic would be locked down.

It's at about 105 now, I predict final amount of posts before the lock is 156, plus or minus 5

Honestly, after Casey Anthony walked... I have lost all faith in the Florida justice system.

When OJ walked I lost all faith in the justice system.

I was just waiting for "OJ" to come out. OJ is not on trial here, we are dealing with the present.

But it's ok to cite Casey Anthony? Your post tells a lot about who you are.

Third, this was a 6', 17 year old young man. Martin was hardly a 'child'. He was the one who came at Zimmerman first. He was beating the crap out of Zimmerman, the police photos and medical documents prove that.

Fourth, sorry but it was self-defense.

Size isn't the issue. Age is. Seventeen is a child. How mature were you at that age? I am the mother of an 18-year-old college student. I know her friends. They are still children.

As for self-defense/stand your ground, considering that Zimmerman was following Trayvon, couldn't the prosecution make a case that TRAYVON was standing his ground? Zimmerman is responsible by his actions for what happened. Now someone is dead. Had he at the very least remained in his vehicle, this would not have happened.

This was my point exactly. Wasn't Zimmerman off duty? Didn't Trayvon try to run to get away from Zimmerman? So if someone were to follow me at night, and I'm running to get away from them, and they catch up to me, throw some intimidating words around, at what point am I allowed to knock him out, not to kill him but just long enough to be able to get away? And just saying that I'm hardcore and can get him on the ground, and he shoots me while I'm trying to incapacitate him...he gets to walk and be told "oh you just made poor choices that night"?

Martin could have kept walking...

I think it's Zimmerman.
And what frustrates me is that EVERY night the argument shifts over to place the blame on Martin, Zimmerman, Martin, Zimmerman, Martin, etc.... SO frustrating!
I saw a few nights ago, that Martin was a regular THC user- and the forensics expert said that the body gets used to the effect of it, so it should not have caused any significant mental/physical change in Martin, which I thought was interesting. After googling THC and its effects, I read that it has a rather sedative effect on the human body, and that in fact, even if he DID consume high amounts of it, it would not make him aggressive, in any way.
This case is pretty interesting, but I am just frustrated by how long it's taking to solve! I think that one piece of huge evidence (though not exactly tangible) that should go against Zimmerman is that he gained weight so rapidly after the case opened- that he has some sort of guilty feelings about this whole ordeal in which he was involved. Also, his testimonies have changed so much, which is normal. But I still think he's guilty.
Also, Zimmerman was NOT in law enforcement, if I understand correctly. He was following them around, and had NO authority whatsoever to apprehend Martin and even after being told so by the 911 dispatcher, he did so. That should weigh heavily against him, in my opinion.
Nice to hear some news on these threads actually! Something different