This is like OJ all over again, the american public, compeletly fueled my media hysteria is jumping to conclusions based on skin color. No one knows what happened for sure. Witnesses say that Trayvon had Zimm on the ground and was beating the piss out of him. I think a clearer picture will emerge since it is probable that the FBI is doing a deconstruction of the audio that was recorded of the scuffle. MY thougts on it are this.

If indeed, Zimmerman approached Martin, asked him what he was doing, or even if he used a racial slur, he is guilty of nothing more than bad character and judgement. These are not punishable offenses under the law. If Zimmerman assaulted Trayvon initially, then he is responsible for murder because starting a fight, and escalating to deadly force in my book is murder.

If on the other hand all Ziimmerman did was ask the kid what he was doing, Trayvon had no right to punch him, kick him, or slam his head into the ground. In that case, I think you should be allowed to blow his head off.

Everything else is media fluff. Who cares if the kid had skittle and ice tea. And it's hilarious that when I heard the description about how some white guy killed a black kid on the radio, when I get home, I see the shooter to be a half white/ half Peruvian dude who looks like a mexican. The sensationalism of this is killing me. And now we have mobs of people on both sides defending both the shooter and the shootee based not on the facts, but on the emotional drama the media has forced on us.

He was acting in his volunteer capacity has neighborhood watch captain/leader. I know that official neighborhood watch programs disapprove of the things George did but that is not the case. Its was not a registered group. Regardless Just because he was operating outside of protocol and he followed him. DOES NOT make him a cold blooded murderer.

Nope the fact he shot an unarmed 17 year old kid makes him a cold blooded murderer

If indeed evidence proves that yravon was beating the crap out of Zimmerman when he was shot will you all chagne you minds about him being murdered in "cold blood'?

There is footage of Zimmerman walking into the police station that night. There are no visas bruises. No signs of blood. (on a light shirt) His shirt appears clean. So he wasn't defending himself.

I think it is sick that Zimmerman has been hung with no trial. He is in hiding for hi slife, cannot see his family and has groups such as the black panthers with a price tag on his head.

Blame the police for that. By them not doing their job they failed Zimmerman and they failed Trayvon.

Thu 03/29/12 08:06 AM
Um I see this is the wrong group for me so I will politely exit...because this ain't debate..its hate

Yup. I'm in tears reading the racists in this topic.

No, shooting someone does not automatically make you a cold blooded murderer. I know a few thousand veterans that would agree with that statement so be very cautious of your broad sweeping generalizations. Neither does the age of the victim.

Im glad you are willing to accept grainy security video from 4-6 hours after the injuries occurred as solid proof.

Please quote the racists comments, with your brief explanation of why you feel that it is discriminatory towards someone of another race, so that I can report them to a mod.

Dont make accusations you cant corroborate

Yup, no one has a right to attack another human being. I stand by what I said, if Zimmerman started it, he's a murderer. If Martin started it, Zimmerman defended himself. Legally, there might be reprecussions like a reckless endangerment charge or such that Zimmerman could face IMO, but if Martin attacked him, it was not murder. But I am also curious as to why it seems to some that owning a firearm gives a person MORE rights than the average citizen. Didn't Martin have the right to "Stand his Ground"?

And no, Zimmerman really doesn't look white to me. He looks more like a dirty, bloated Ricky Ricardo. But if you think I am making this about race...I am not. Doesn't matter what color these people skin is, but you can see a slant by both sides of the media based on skin color, and I dare say you can see bias in these debates based on skin color as well. I think a lot of people think that they are not racist because they don't use racial slurs and that is not the case.

---

You make a good argument, but I still contend that even if Martin made first physical contact, Zimmerman is still the aggressor and culpable. Zimmerman purposefully pursued Martin in a hostile manner. I say hostile because he pursued him with a gun and with the attitude that he would not get away. Whether or not you believe his statements of they always get away and F***ing "whatever" ( I think it sounded like thugs) were racially motivated or not, it can be argued that it demonstrates hostility and intent. It is not a far reach that that was also conveyed by his demeanor. Just from the facts that are known, I feel it is enough to arrest, charge, and continue the legal process. And I cannot imagine any other fact being revealed that could change my mind. Martin wouldn't have died that night in that manner if Zimmerman did not pursue him with a gun.

As far as him being white, the police thought he was white, that is what they put on the police report. And who knows what Zimmerman considers himself. But you can have and act with racial prejudice even as a "non white".

People get charged with vehicular manslaughter for pure accidents. I think it is crazy that a law exists that could make it possible that someone could be killed due to poor judgement and decision making and not have to be held accountable.

Why is he not arrested? I know the state attorney has it now, but why no arrest? Even if charges were later dropped, why no arrest?

I think we are mostly in agreement. But to be clear, I am not saying that in this case, no matter what fruit this investigation bears, that Zimmerman is not some how to be held accountable. I am just making the case that it is not murder. The problem with this whole thing is the uncertainty of it all and the lack of intial, thorough invetigation by the police. I think I said this before, but to reiterate, no matter what Zimmerman said unless it was a verbal threat, it wouldn't be legal to attack him. It all comes down to who the physical aggressor was. If it is the case that Martin threw the first punch, it's tragic, but we need to teach our children ( and he still was a child legally) that violence in any other way other than defense can end tragically.

I got you, I understand what you are saying. And I do think we mostly agree. The only point of contention is that I believe Zimmerman would be the aggressor, regardless. Oh and I believe he could legally be charged with second degree murder, but I don't know if they would be able to get a conviction without a super tight case. There are so any little scenarios that could have gone down In tht last minute. Like did Zimmerman purposefully or accidentally flash his gun before the altercation began, stuff we will probably never know. But still, in my opinion, it doesn't matter, I still see him as the aggressor. I suspect he will indeed get arrested and charged with something.and I foresee both sides arguing stand your ground. What an incredibly badly written/ implemented law. Any law tha gives permission to kill should not be so dependent on subjective feelings and interpretations.

I also agree there should be some kind of punishment, but I am not sure the lack of judgement he showed rises to a murder case (if he was attacked). But common sense dictates that if you are not a police officer and you run down a person during the night dressed in a track suit while carrying a pistol....things just might go badly. The burden of proof in a self defense case is always on the defender, especially when

A: not on your own property
B: other person is not armed

Agreed, but still think he is the attacker even if Martin laid hands on him first, and unless there is a witness that saw that, all we would have is Zimmerman's word which is not evidence. Are you allowed to strike first if someone else is coming at you aggressively and you feel they will strike you? If someone swings after you and miss, then you hit them? Who attacked whom? Of ourselves not saying any of this happened, just arguing that zimmerman is the attacker in my eyes because he pursued the kid in a hostile manner (explained ht I meant by that earlier)

And second degree murder is definitely a possible charge, but again, the prosecutor is likely to choose the charge they feel they can convict with, and if it goes to trial, maybe instruct the jury to insider both. But I jump ahead, he as not even been officially arrested.

This s from Oklahoma, but it is a similar law. I like the way they explain it.

---

No person may be convicted of murder in the second degree unless the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt each element of the crime. These elements are:

First, the death of a human;

Second, caused by conduct which was imminently dangerous to another/other person(s);

Third, the conduct was that of the defendant(s);

Fourth, the conduct evinced a depraved mind in extreme disregard of human life;

Fifth, the conduct is not done with the intention of taking the life of any particular individual.

You are further instructed that a person evinces a "depraved mind" when he engages in imminently dangerous conduct with contemptuous and reckless disregard of, and in total indifference to, the life and safety of another.

You are further instructed that "imminently dangerous conduct" means conduct that creates what a reasonable person would realize as an immediate and extremely high degree of risk of death to another person.

I really wish people would stop referring to Trayvon as a kid! He wasn't a child, he was 17, months away from being able to vote. Not to mention in size, much larger than the man who shot him. If indeed evidence proves that yravon was beating the crap out of Zimmerman when he was shot will you all chagne you minds about him being murdered in "cold blood'?

Now as stated before, evidence will prove where the gun was when it was fired and show who was struggling with who. Some reports are saying that Trayvon was on top of and beating Zimmerman. Evidence and balistics will prove that in time.

I think it is sick that Zimmerman has been hung with no trial. He is in hiding for hi slife, cannot see his family and has groups such as the black panthers with a price tag on his head.

What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

Yeah, that is problem with citizen's arrests. There is a fine line betwenn Neighborhood watch and being a vigilante. If Martin had actually been commiting a crime, a violent one at the time of the confrontation, like assaulting another person or rape, Zimmerman's the big hero. But that isn't the case. That is the risk when you involve yourself in these affairs instead of just observing and collecting evidence for the police. Even if the kid was up to no good, but it was something minor like jacking car radios or buying some weed, a little commone sense dictates that it is not enough to warrant shooting them.

But the area of aggressor is a grey one at the moment. I still don't think you have the right to pummel someone under any circumstances if they are not attacking you....but I can see how if I were 17 and lacked the decision making skills I have now, and a middle aged guy in a track suit with a pistol started chasing me down on a public street that I would likely be scared. And being scared leads to one of two things, Fight or Flight. Like it was said earlier, Stand your Ground should not be a law that only applies to people carrying guns.

I think we have almost complete agreement. I'm sure if Martin had shot Zimmerman I would be saying that just because someone verbally harassed you or even pushed you doesn't mean you had the right to shoot them.

I see you have a gun in your profile. Do you actually walk around with your gun in a holster on your person? I'm terrified of them, they can make things so easily final in an instant. I work in a prison, and speak with guys with all kind of charges. For the one with murder charges, especially the young ones who got caught up in the heat of the moment, who will have to develop their critical thinking and pronlem solving skills in prison is just sad. Not to mention the ones ho lost their lives and any chance of fulfilling their potential. Imagine, if Zimmerman was not carrying his gun, no one would be dead and possibly facing murder charges. Maybe bruised and bloodied, but not dead. Families might've been mad, but not not the hurt of a death or the fear of listing a son to prison. Just so sad. The police were on their way, he should have just waited, if he indeed was a burglar like he suspected and he got away, so what no one would have been dead. He didn't even say he suspected him of having committed a crime, just looked suspicious. And from his own experience, he should have known that most suspicions he had was unfounded. 46 911 calls? ( although not all had to do with suspicious persons).

Ok, I'm rambling... Thanks for the great convo.

And yes, what did happen to innocent until proven guilty? Oh...that's right...you get shot by the wannabe-watchdog for buying some Skittles and Arizona iced tea. Clearly these are the people who should be administering justice to those of us who like to wear hooded sweatshirts.

Why didn’t he have blood on him from shooting Trayvon in the chest? How far away was that kid when he shot him? If you shoot someone or an animal at close range you would be a bloody mess and Zimmerman was most certainly not a bloody mess and Zimmerman had not changed his clothes when he had went to the police station.

Possibilities:

1.) Trayvon was innocent.
2.) George Zimmerman is innocent and was defending himself.
3.) Trayvon was not innocent and attacked Zimmerman.
4.) George Zimmerman was not innocent and was not defending himself.
5.) I'm a dragon rawr...

Fact:
We don't know all of the information regarding this case (since the media has done such a poor job with distributing it), so debating this topic based upon what you've seen on television or have heard from your friend(s) is ultimately pointless given the fact that we can't be don't have all of the stringent details.

"There's a huge chance that this is not Zimmerman's voice," said Primeau, a longtime audio engineer who is listed as an expert in recorded evidence by the American College of Forensic Examiners International. "As a matter of fact, after 28 years of doing this, I would put my reputation on the line and say this is not George Zimmerman screaming."

Owen, a forensic audio analyst who is also chairman emeritus of the American Board of Recorded Evidence, said he also does not believe the screams come from Zimmerman.

Software frequently used to analyze voices in legal cases shows a 48% likelihood that the voice is Zimmerman's. At least 60% is necessary to feel confident that two samples are from the same source, he said Monday on CNN. That means it's unlikely the screams came from Zimmerman, Owen said.

Both experts stressed they cannot say who was screaming. They have no samples of Martin's voice.

Anyone who looks at this case and is supporting the murderer over the dead teenager is a racist.

I didn't vote for Obama I was already considered a racist... thanks though. *insert stereotype about blonde women*

I know this wasn't in response to me, but I don't get it. Surely you are not calling yourself a racist? And I didn't see anyone mention Obama, or did I miss it? A little confused...

But I would be curious to know why she said that or have her elaborate what she meant. I'd like to understand her point of view.

Possibilities:

1.) Trayvon was innocent.
2.) George Zimmerman is innocent and was defending himself.
3.) Trayvon was not innocent and attacked Zimmerman.
4.) George Zimmerman was not innocent and was not defending himself.
5.) I'm a dragon rawr...

Fact:
We don't know all of the information regarding this case (since the media has done such a poor job with distributing it), so debating this topic based upon what you've seen on television or have heard from your friend(s) is ultimately pointless given the fact that we can't be don't have all of the stringent details.

And yet you joined in with information you received from the media. If you are smart enough to be discerning and critical about second hand information you receive from the media and whomever else, why can't everyone else? Simply because they form a different opinion from you, doesn't mean they have no critical thinking skills. (your opinion being that you don't have enough information to draw a conclusion)

I can concede that I do not know all the details, and may never, but there is enough question about the situation for a probable cause arrest. And that is what I hear everyone asking for, an arrest and vetting of the evidence and the accounts using the judicial system. Surely you have no objection to that?

In any case, I don't come from the school that blames the media for thus and that. I think I have pretty good critical thinking skills and know how to seek out information. And I truly believe if the media did not get involved by reporting a news story that there wouldn't be an investigation going on now, the Sanford police had pretty much closed the case and was not providing any information to the parents. They are the ones that did a poor job. And they are the ones reporting and leaking piecemeal information. The media didn't shoot Trayvon, the media did not tell the parents that they should feel that justice wasn't served, etc, etc, etc.

And at the point that there is enough information to debate I am sure you, the proper debate authority, will let us know after you have had a conference with the Sanford police department, the parents on both sides, and the state attorney. Because surely you won't be getting any information from media or friends/acquaintances.

I am being a bit snarky, but it seemed like the best approach. Seriously though, I think the debate is healthy. I think we all should examine our core beliefs and have them challenged from time to time. I also take no issue with questioning our justice system to ensure that there is equity. Question: do you feel that there exists enough probable cause for an arrest and thorough investigation?

>"I can concede that I do not know all the details, and may never..."

That's enough said. If we don't know each and every detail about the case, why on Earth would we attempt to draw logical conclusions? There are a numerous amount of possibilities that could have arisen on the night with Trayvon and Zimmerman, but until we know everything, what's the point of debating it if information can be released in the next hour contradicting everyone's thoughts about the case?

The short answer is......................this is the debate club, it was created for any and all debates as long as people are enjoying themselves. We didn't know all the details about the Casey Anthony case but we still enjoyed debating and discussing it with each other, and when updates came in, discussion points changed. Nothing wrong with a lively debate.