Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
engaging people is NOT a crime. The youth started a verbal confrontation that escalated into a horrific tragedy for all concerned
So, chasing someone down into someone else's back yard is "engaging" people. Asking that person why they are following you is "starting a confrontation" that warrants being shot out of fear of bodily harm.
Do society a couple favors. First of all, get sterilized. We don't need you contributing to the onset of idiocracy. Secondly, got for a walk in Zimmerman's neighborhood, and run away when you see him following you. Then you can come back and tell us how well it went.
If they were even sealed. Jimmyboy has a habit of making up "facts" much like his fact that Martin was a hulking black threat....and he made that up after a few of us questioned where the can of tea that Martin supposedly used to attack was.Other reports say he was on the high school football team, and it doesnt matter anyuway as you admit he was 6'3", but 140?
Jesus Christ, my daughter weighs 120 at 5'3" and she is a gymnist!
You are so stupid you cant see the implausible factoids you throw around likke horse manure on a farm.
BTW, dumbass, do you have any clue why the high school sealed Martins records?
Could it be that there are facts there that would undermine this witch hunt for Zimmerman?
ESADIAF.
I would suspect that the Records are sealed because he was a Minor.
I read that days ago. What is your point?I loved the " wanted to read the name on a street sign." The dude has lived there for years, and has Eric Cartman-patrolled it for years. THERE ARE THREE (Count 'em THREE!) whole streets in that entire complex.
It must have been a difficult thing to remember, I guess.
"I asked the subject in the red jacket, later identified as George Zimmerman (who was original caller for the suspicious person complaint), if he had seen the subject. Zimmerman stated that he had shot the subject and was still armed. Zimmerman complied with all of my verbal commands and was secured in handcuffs. Located on the inside of Zimmerman's waist band, I removed a black Kel Tek 9mm PF9 semi auto handgun and holster. While I was in such close contact with Zimmerman, I could observe that his back appeared to be wet and was covered in grass, as if he had been laying on his back on the ground. Zimmerman was also bleeding from the nose and back of his head."
"Zimmerman was placed in the rear of my police vehicle and was given first aid by the SFD. While the SFD was attending to Zimmerman, I over heard[sic] him state "I was yelling for someone to help me, but no one would help me." At no point did I question Zimmerman about the incident that had taken place. Once Zimmerman was cleared by the SFD, he was transported to the Sanford Police Department."
form the Police Report
IF Martin attacked Zimmerman, and that's a big IF, he was justified in doing it under the stand your ground law.I need you to explain to me how he was acting in self defense if he himself was following this boy and stalking him.
If, while Zimmerman was engaged in following Martin, Martin escalated to physical contact, then Zimmerman was acting in self-defense. It COULD be a case of following the kid "asking for trouble" but we don't have laws against asking for trouble. Zimmerman was completely in the wrong for following Treyvon Martin, especially since he had already been told to stop by the dispatcher. However, that STILL does not mean that the attack on Martin was racially motivated. Would this have gone any differently had Martin been white or hispanic? Likely no. A white kid in this predominently black neighborhood would have been even more suspicious to a hispanic living in a mostly black gated community.
IF Martin attacked Zimmerman, and that's a big IF, he was justified in doing it under the stand your ground law.If, while Zimmerman was engaged in following Martin, Martin escalated to physical contact, then Zimmerman was acting in self-defense. It COULD be a case of following the kid "asking for trouble" but we don't have laws against asking for trouble. Zimmerman was completely in the wrong for following Treyvon Martin, especially since he had already been told to stop by the dispatcher. However, that STILL does not mean that the attack on Martin was racially motivated. Would this have gone any differently had Martin been white or hispanic? Likely no. A white kid in this predominently black neighborhood would have been even more suspicious to a hispanic living in a mostly black gated community.
The right of self defense of MARTIN, the VICTIM, isn't being addressed. I noted that also.
The concealed carry permit is not an issue. Much more gun crime is committed by people who do not have a permit than us that do.
Maybe it is. The guy felt emboldened enough because he had that permit , that he pursued and engaged a citizen that was innocent and unarmed. If HE got a permit...this puts a cloud over the permit issue.
I'm not responsible for your racism.IF Martin attacked Zimmerman, and that's a big IF, he was justified in doing it under the stand your ground law.
Sure. If I think somebody is following me ,and I ask them what the fuck they are doing following me, I have every right to attack them and beat them until, they pull out a gun. Then it's a clear cut case of racism.
We ALL know white people and Hispanics hate all black people.
I read that days ago. What is your point?
His point, apparently, is that Zimmerman picks his nose, and the police did not even question him about the incident.
Apparently Zimmerman will be MIA within the next 30 days.
A grown man would shoot another person during a struggle
If Zimmerman really were being so violently attacked that he needed to scream the bloody murder heard on the tapes, he wouldn't have been able to pull out his gun, much less wrestle the kid prone to shoot him in the back.
physically hostile youth
This is nothing more than an assumption on your part, which doesn't even make sense considering all the known facts. Even if your contention were true, and Martin did engage in hostility with Zimmerman, at most it would have been Zimmerman who would have had a reason to fear for his safety. He was walking down the street and minding his own business, and this guy comes chasing him down for not apparent reason and corners him in someone's yard. The simple fact of the matter is that Zimmerman chased Martin down. Zimmerman admitted on the 911 tape that he was following after Martin. This fact alone eliminates Zimmerman's ability to claim self defense, because he was the one who created the hostile situation.
But, the police DID question him. The police disarmed him at the scene, had EMTs tend to his head wounds, handcuffed him, took him back to the station, and interrogated him in the interrogation room.I read that days ago. What is your point?
His point, apparently, is that Zimmerman picks his nose, and the police did not even question him about the incident.
It wasn't a back yard, it was a common area in the neighborhood. Zimmerman received wounds while in the presence of Martin - wounds to his head that were treated on the scene by EMTs. An eyewitness saw Zimmerman on his back just before the shooting. Zimmerman had grass stains on his back when the cops arrived. Zimmerman states that he called for help before the shooting and a witness statement indicates that someone was calling for help just before the gunshot.engaging people is NOT a crime. The youth started a verbal confrontation that escalated into a horrific tragedy for all concerned
So, chasing someone down into someone else's back yard is "engaging" people. Asking that person why they are following you is "starting a confrontation" that warrants being shot out of fear of bodily harm.
Do society a couple favors. First of all, get sterilized. We don't need you contributing to the onset of idiocracy. Secondly, got for a walk in Zimmerman's neighborhood, and run away when you see him following you. Then you can come back and tell us how well it went.
Where are you coming up with your 'facts' about Martin being 'wrestled to the ground'?A grown man would shoot another person during a struggle
If Zimmerman really were being so violently attacked that he needed to scream the bloody murder heard on the tapes, he wouldn't have been able to pull out his gun, much less wrestle the kid prone to shoot him in the back.
physically hostile youth
This is nothing more than an assumption on your part, which doesn't even make sense considering all the known facts. Even if your contention were true, and Martin did engage in hostility with Zimmerman, at most it would have been Zimmerman who would have had a reason to fear for his safety. He was walking down the street and minding his own business, and this guy comes chasing him down for not apparent reason and corners him in someone's yard. The simple fact of the matter is that Zimmerman chased Martin down. Zimmerman admitted on the 911 tape that he was following after Martin. This fact alone eliminates Zimmerman's ability to claim self defense, because he was the one who created the hostile situation.
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
This section of the law does allow anyone to use deadly force if he thinks it's necessary to defend himself in any place but Zimmerman did not act reasonably when he left his vehicle to pursue the teen. Sen. Chris Smith said he is preparing a bill that would not allow a self-defense claim in cases where the shooter appeared to provoke the victim.
That's all well and good, but if that was enacted tomorrow, the current statute, not the new one, would STILL apply to this case, and it says nothing about "provocation", no matter what Sen. Smith (or you) WISHES it said. The U.S. Constitution specifically forbids any Ex Post Facto law. Google it, if you don't know what that means.
You are applying the law unequally. If Martin reasonably thought he was in danger (and it turns out that he was) he had every right to use force against him.IF Martin attacked Zimmerman, and that's a big IF, he was justified in doing it under the stand your ground law.If, while Zimmerman was engaged in following Martin, Martin escalated to physical contact, then Zimmerman was acting in self-defense. It COULD be a case of following the kid "asking for trouble" but we don't have laws against asking for trouble. Zimmerman was completely in the wrong for following Treyvon Martin, especially since he had already been told to stop by the dispatcher. However, that STILL does not mean that the attack on Martin was racially motivated. Would this have gone any differently had Martin been white or hispanic? Likely no. A white kid in this predominently black neighborhood would have been even more suspicious to a hispanic living in a mostly black gated community.
Not unless Zimmerman attacked him first, Ravi, and that's what we don't know, and may never know with certainty. Zimmerman chasing Martin (unwise though it was) is NOT a crime. Zimmerman asking Martin what he was doing there is NOT a crime. Now IF Zimmerman did in fact grab Martin, or hit Martin, THAT would be a crime (assault and battery) and Martin could legally defend himself. However, there is (so far) no physical evidence or witness testimony that indicates Zimmerman did that. On the other hand, there is BOTH physical evidence and witness testimony that shows Martin DID strike Zimmerman-Zimmerman's injuries (as noted in the police report), and the account of an eyewitness who saw Zimmerman on the ground, on his back, with Martin punching and/or kicking him. That fact is NOT in dispute here; the only question is whether any unlawful act (assault) by Zimmerman preceded the assault by Martin.
BTW I never said that Martin DID IN FACT use the can of tea as a weapon: I simply laid out a scenario consistent with the known facts in which Martin COULD have done so, PROVIDED he had the can in his hand. If the can was in fact found in Martin's pocket instead of in his hand or on the ground, that scenario would be ruled out.
Yes it does....if you feel yourself in mortal danger.IF Martin attacked Zimmerman, and that's a big IF, he was justified in doing it under the stand your ground law.If, while Zimmerman was engaged in following Martin, Martin escalated to physical contact, then Zimmerman was acting in self-defense. It COULD be a case of following the kid "asking for trouble" but we don't have laws against asking for trouble. Zimmerman was completely in the wrong for following Treyvon Martin, especially since he had already been told to stop by the dispatcher. However, that STILL does not mean that the attack on Martin was racially motivated. Would this have gone any differently had Martin been white or hispanic? Likely no. A white kid in this predominently black neighborhood would have been even more suspicious to a hispanic living in a mostly black gated community.
No he was not, you stupid asshole. God, the stand your ground law means you defend yourself if someone attacks you. It doesnt give you the right to pre-emptively attack someone, you libtard.
Where are you getting the information that he was shot in the chest, not the back?Where are you coming up with your 'facts' about Martin being 'wrestled to the ground'?A grown man would shoot another person during a struggle
If Zimmerman really were being so violently attacked that he needed to scream the bloody murder heard on the tapes, he wouldn't have been able to pull out his gun, much less wrestle the kid prone to shoot him in the back.
physically hostile youth
This is nothing more than an assumption on your part, which doesn't even make sense considering all the known facts. Even if your contention were true, and Martin did engage in hostility with Zimmerman, at most it would have been Zimmerman who would have had a reason to fear for his safety. He was walking down the street and minding his own business, and this guy comes chasing him down for not apparent reason and corners him in someone's yard. The simple fact of the matter is that Zimmerman chased Martin down. Zimmerman admitted on the 911 tape that he was following after Martin. This fact alone eliminates Zimmerman's ability to claim self defense, because he was the one who created the hostile situation.
Martin was found face down on the ground when the cops arrived, but he had already been shot, in the chest, not in the back.
And what makes you think someone cannot pull out a gun simply because they screamed? How are those two actions mutually exclusive?
What "chase" are you talking about? Then let us know how following someone is prohibited by law (without a court order)?
You need to read the police report and the statute - your "facts" are wrong.
Where are you getting the information that he was shot in the chest, not the back?
His lawyer isn't very bright then, because "stand your ground" covers public places.This section of the law does allow anyone to use deadly force if he thinks it's necessary to defend himself in any place but Zimmerman did not act reasonably when he left his vehicle to pursue the teen. Sen. Chris Smith said he is preparing a bill that would not allow a self-defense claim in cases where the shooter appeared to provoke the victim.
That's all well and good, but if that was enacted tomorrow, the current statute, not the new one, would STILL apply to this case, and it says nothing about "provocation", no matter what Sen. Smith (or you) WISHES it said. The U.S. Constitution specifically forbids any Ex Post Facto law. Google it, if you don't know what that means.
There is huge political pressure building up to charge Zimmerman and if he is going to be charged, it would be based on the premise that the stand-your-ground law does not apply when the shooter chased after the victim. So Zimmerman's lawyer is now claiming that the statute on 'stand your ground' is not really applicable to this case because it is primarily when you're in your house as I posted before.
