Florida legalizes murder: Trayvon Martin

[bobyclumsyninja]

Does anything reported so far conclusively refute Zimmerman's version of the facts? Nope.

The cries for help were un-muffled, Zimmerman apparently claimed Martin's hand was over his mouth during the fight. Z claimed those were his cries. Cries that at least 2 experts said weren't his. It's being reported that Zimmerman claimed he rolled up his windows to avoid a confrontation, yet he left his vehicle to go and look for this person.

If that has been reported accurately, does that all add up to you? Is there a point at which you might think..."oh, he's full of **** about what happened that night"?

[bobyclumsyninja]

Obviously you aren't an adult.

Are you saying it's childish to think that he'd definitely have mentioned Martin circling his vehicle on foot while on the phone w/ police?

@Colin. Picture Ted Nugent, in patriot garb, masturbating all over a rifle, and that's the thread so far. Now you're caught up.

[It is Fake]

Just today?
I've never accepted hyperbole as basis for a logical argument. Why start now?

Yes, you just used Boby's hyperbole to misconstrue what was said.

So, we will disagree.

Are you saying it's childish to think that he'd definitely have mentioned Martin circling his vehicle on foot while on the phone w/ police?

I'm saying it is childish to fucking disagree with Devil's call on the media and then use media HYPE to try and prove your version of events.

[Colin]

Picture Ted Nugent, in patriot garb...

If it wasn't such a serious subject - that would deserve a photoshop. As it is, I can't help but feel that if people weren't walking around carrying handguns, nobody would have been shot.

However, I'm a philosopher, not a politician. No need to turn this thread into a gun control clusterfuck.

The pertinent question seems to be:
Why was Zimmerman confronting Martin if he was scared?

Because he was packing heat, that's why - he knew that if the situation turned to violence, he could rely on his gun.
You can't play the self defence card if you initiated a confrontation. Especially if you are armed.

Since it's so much fun to speculate, here is my speculation:
Zimmerman confronted Martin, expecting him to submit to the threat of the gun. (maybe even tried a 'citizens arrest') Martin figured he was bluffing, and tries to call Zimmerman's bluff. Martin figured wrong, and copped a bullet as a result.

[bobyclumsyninja]

It looks to me like the biggest contributor to Zimmerman's trouble was the media that stirred up a **** storm to crucify an apparently innocent man when there would likely have been no charges otherwise.

@IIF ^^^ this is what I'm supposed to agree with, to be admitted into adulthood? If I don't agree with his gut, then I'm just a kid?

How old is his gut?

[tgace]

You can't play the self defence card if you initiated a confrontation. Especially if you are armed.

Not legally correct.

[tgace]

This guys a lawyer:

http://blog.richardhornsby.com/2012/...rst-aggressor/

...
Assuming George was the First Aggressor

Although it is my opinion that there is no evidence to support the conclusion that George Zimmerman was the aggressor as a matter of law. Let’s assume for the minute that Trayvon Martin was lawfully defending himself because he was provoked by George Zimmerman’s “pursuing” of him; the questions then need to be asked:

Did George Zimmerman forfeit his right to self defense entirely; and
Could Trayvon Martin respond with disproportional force to the initial “confrontation.”
The answer to both of these question is No. George Zimmerman did not forfeit his right to defend himself entirely and Trayvon Martin could not resort to Deadly Force simply because he was being “pursued” or was subsequently “confronted” by George Zimmerman.

Disproportionate Force Exception

Codified in Florida Statute 776.041(2)(a), the “Disproportionate Force” exception qualifies “The First Aggressor Rule” and provides limited circumstances by which an initial aggressor’s right to self defense is restored.

The exception holds that even if a defendant “initially provokes the use of force against himself” if the response is disproportionate to the initial provocation, then the defendant’s right to self defense is restored.

...

[JohnnyCache]

The cries for help were un-muffled, Zimmerman apparently claimed Martin's hand was over his mouth during the fight. Z claimed those were his cries. Cries that at least 2 experts said weren't his. It's being reported that Zimmerman claimed he rolled up his windows to avoid a confrontation, yet he left his vehicle to go and look for this person.

If that has been reported accurately, does that all add up to you? Is there a point at which you might think..."oh, he's full of **** about what happened that night"?

For me, when I decided he was full of **** is when he said he "reached for his phone"

bullshit. He was in a verbal confrontation and he stuck his hand in his pocket FOR HIS GUN.

[Colin]

Thanks for the blog link TG. I do find it distressing that Florida law would consider Martins alleged attack a disproportionate response, and yet not consider Zimmerman shooting Martin to be a disproportionate response.

...bullshit. He was in a verbal confrontation and he stuck his hand in his pocket FOR HIS GUN.

I believe this to be the case, too.

[tgace]

Being followed is not reason to use deadly force...having your head smashed into the pavement (if true) is....easy enough to understand.