I think you two guys have both made up your mind. I find it hard to agree with someone who say Zimmerman cannot prove his innocence. Why have a trial then?
I think the problem is that they keep throwing out details, and people are switching what they think based on that one fact.
We heard he might have called Trayvon a coon on 911 tape. If so, then he's going to federal prison for a hate crime probably
We hear the police told him to back off, and stay in his truck.. so we think he instigated this event
We hear he wasbeing beaten, and had a bloody nose, and head, and think.. maybe it was justified. I do wonder when the gun was pulled.. I think in a scuffle on the ground, if he did not have the gun drawn, but snapped into his holster, it would have been difficult to get out, and shoot Trayvon. Maybe he approached with gun out, and not ready to use it. Trayvon panicked and attacked.
There are so many possibilities. We simply don't know, and none of the "facts " so far are anything but heresay. I do believe that the probability is high that Zimmerman will be convicted, and that he had more responsibilty since he had a weapon, but this circus is just clouding over the facts. This will probably end up like the Kennedy assasination or the O.J. Simpson trial. We will never know which statements are true in a few years, and 50% will disagree with whatever verdict was passed down..lol.
This is a big mess. I am just waiting to see what happens.. Hell, Rodney King's attackers went free. At least wait till the trial before making a judgement.
Fitness Minutes: (14,985)
610 3/27/12 10:12 P
Guy guy call the police and announces he is stalking someone,then shoots the unarmed person in his own front yard. Then gets off because he was standing his ground? Sounds like a recipe for a lawless free for all. I have respect for people that do neighborhood watch but this is way over the line.
"Not having enough evidence" is code for "Stay away from messing with Second Amendment"
Zimmerman is guilty. He admitted to shooting an unarmed human being. If Floridians are allowed to shoot whomever they want and then be allowed to claim "Stand your ground" to avoid being detained then I'll never be visiting Disney World again.
I say detain him until he can prove justified means (he cannot) but until then keep him in custody until a jury of his peers can prove him innocent.
Too many factors that we, the public, DO know is enough to detain him at the very least.
To the question of if the roles were reveresed, yup, this wouldn't even make national news because the case would be resolved by now with death sentence pending.
If no injustice is evident in this case then how do you explain the following:
The need for a grand jury?
It WAS determined that no charges would be filed. Now there seem to be a backing off of the finality of that decision.
Police chiefs are leaving office.
I am not saying he is guilty of anything there is not enough information to determine that. Just as there is not enough evidence to determine that a crime was not committed.
Given the finality of the decision to use deadly force I don't know that citizens who choose to use weapons should be held to a lesser standard. If they do not avail themselves of the proper training, ignorance should not be a defense. I am not saying that this is evident or apparent in this case. I am just responding to your post about "higher standard". I do not believe you can accept the right to carry a weapon without assuming the responsibility for the same.
My point in broaching this subject is that if the scenario were different the standard would be different. If I am understanding your post. You are conceding that point in the event of a police officer. I still maintain that public attitude would be different if the shooter was black and the victim white.
Edited by: N0_EQL at: 3/25/2012 (15:13)
Fitness Minutes: (58,720)
3,055 3/25/12 10:00 A
You are presuming that an "injustice" has been done and therefore you have already decided that Mr. Zimmerman was not acting in self-defense and is, ergo, guilty of having committed an "injustice."
To say that this case was "lightly investigated" or "dismissed" is presumptive. Also I can guarantee you that if a law enforcement officer were involved there is always greater scrutiny. Peace officers are held to much higher standards than the average citizen due to their advanced training.
At the very least Zimmerman should've been detained until he was fully vetted and cleared of any wrong doing. The law enforcement on this case blinked and they blinked for a long time. Let's get justice done for all involved a.s.a.p.
Fitness Minutes: (58,720)
3,055 3/24/12 8:50 A
It is not really for me to say whether or not this was "justifiable" or not as I do not have full access to all of the evidence in the case and neither does anyone else out there in the media or comment pages or blogs.
It is, any way you took at it, tragic. The loss of of the life of young Mr. Martin, the effects on all of the families, the community both at the local and national level will be felt for a very long time. There is no way around this.
I am insanely frustrated however by the number of people out there who think that they know what happened and that this was simply a case of racial bias or prejudice. It is the knee-jerk reaction in many cases whenever a member of a minority is a "victim" in a case like. (I used "victim" because the facts of the case are not yet known and we really do not know what roll Mr. Martin may have played in his own death.)
Do not rush to judgement, lest ye be judged yourself.
I cannot do "nothing". So I decided to make my remarks here in "Guy's Lounge".
In the interest of full disclosure, I am a white, conservative, NRA member. I have from time to time had a "concealed carry permit". I also believe very strongly in the sanctity of human life. I would characterize myself not as Pro-life but as anti-abortion. I have a deep personal faith and a growing desire to oppose injustice.
I believe the death of Trayvon Martin ( http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/24/justice/flor ida-teen-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t1 )was an unnecessary, senseless tragedy. I also disagree with the initial finding that the shooting was "justifiable". Let me give several reasons.
First: To choose to carry a weapon carries with it a grave and heightened responsibility to our fellow men particularly to those who choose not to carry. In our state and in many others the motor vehicle laws place more legal responsibility on the drivers of larger vehicles for road safety than the operator of smaller lighter vehicles. IE: a person driving a car shoulders more liability on the road than a bicycle or motorcycle, a tractor-trailer has more than a car. The logic being that the operator of the larger vehicle is at far less risk of death or serious injury in an incident. He therefore places others at a "risk disadvantage". It therefore becomes incumbent upon him to be more prudent in the operation of his vehicle.
If that is true of vehicles should it not be more true of devices whose primary purpose is as a lethal instrument?
Using the same scenario if the shooter had been a police officer would the arguments for pulling the trigger use in this case be valid?
If the roles had been reversed and the young black man was the shooter would these same arguments be acceptable to you?
I do not believe an "I was scared and thought he might have a gun." is a valid enough reason to pull the trigger. Without warning or provocation. Life is too valuable. Not only the life of the person choosing to carry, but the life of the victim, bystanders, and members of the society at large.
SparkPeople, SparkCoach, SparkPages, SparkPoints, SparkDiet, SparkAmerica, SparkRecipes, DailySpark, and other marks are trademarks of SparkPeople, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
SPARKPEOPLE is a registered trademark of SparkPeople, Inc. in the United States, European Union, Canada, and Australia. All rights reserved.