At least in Michigan, for now, I have a chance to defend myself. I just hope I never have too.
The truth about the Zimmerman case!
- Thread starter runrunner
- Start date
At least in Michigan, for now, I have a chance to defend myself. I just hope I never have too.
Death, or at least extreme bodily injury, for sure. Once Zimmerman was down and Martin was on top of him, that alone would justify the use of lethal force. I do believe that in that instant, Zimmerman absolutely shot Martin in self-defense, and it was absolutely justified.
I also believe that Zimmerman himself created the situation to allow that to happen, by being a Mrs Kravitz on steroids. He was in his car on the way to the grocery store, and when he saw Martin he should have either kept right on going to the grocery store, or phoned the police and then kept right on going to the grocery store. Instead, he wanted to keep an eye on Martin (because "they always get away") and that alone was confrontational enough to cause this situation to happen.
But I can't prove what I believe anymore than the prosecution could.
IF Zimmerman wanted to keep a eye on Martin he SHOULD have done so while staying in his car.
I have NO problem with people in a neighborhood keeping an eye on "Strangers". It is the lack of watching, among several other things, that has allowed crime to thrive. Vigilance IS the key.
Is the ever a time of confrontation? Of course there is. The police are not able to protect 100% of the people or property 100% of the time. IF I were to see a "little darlin'" breaking into a neighbor's home I would first, call police, then second, insure that the break in never occurred, OR, hold the thug until police arrived. Citizen arrests ARE legal. Yes, I would be armed IF I was ever faced with that situation.
Brisco
Expert Expediter
Pulled what Off???
Politically / Socially Prosecuting a man who was protecting himself from greater bodily harm......and possibly death???
runrunner
Veteran Expediter
Conviction
Zimmerman wasn't faced with a situation of seeing someone committing a crime, he was faced with seeing someone he didn't know who was walking through the neighborhood while talking on a phone minding his own business. At that point, police protection for people or property wasn't needed at all. Zimmerman's actions eventually led to a needless death, and it shouldn't have happened.
Ya think Zimmerman is still "captain" of the Neighborhood Watch?
paullud
Veteran Expediter
As much speculation that has happened with this case we could, within reason speculate that we don't know Martin was completely innocent which might be why he reacted the way he did. According to Zimmerman's story he saw someone matching the description of burglars standing and looking in houses, it is very reasonable for him to investigate further.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app
paullud
Veteran Expediter
The most important part of the story never changed though. When something shocking happens there can be a lot of confusion and you start trying to fill in gaps, not intentionally lying but just trying to put it together.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app
Never said it was that way. There was, however, reports (don't know if they are true), of lots of "gang" activity and home invasions in the neighborhood. IF those reports are accurate it would lead people to pay closer attention to anyone who seemed out of place.
Funny, you only quoted the second half of what I wrote. In the first paragraph I said that IF I was concerned about Martin, I would have called police, stayed in the car, and keep an eye on him that way. Unless I though he was breaking into a house, doing damage to property or harming someone I would have never approached him.
I don't know what police response times are where this took place, it took the police over 45 minutes to respond when our house was broken into. That is more or less the norm. We are, for the most part, on our own. Either we take control or the criminals do.
I totally agree this was a needless death.
I have NO idea if Zimmerman is still "captain" of the Neighborhood Watch. He would likely not be my first choice. I don't know what the rest of the field is like either.
I don't know why you find that funny. I didn't quote it because I didn't want to respond to anything you said in that paragraph, as I had nothing of any value to respond with. But, if it'll make you happy, I quote it here and give you the response I would have given if I had waste the screen real estate in quoting it:
I agree.
There was gang activity and break ins in the area. The gangs attire was dark clothing and hooded sweatshirts(hoodies). Zimmerman sees someone he doesn't recognize wearing similar attire walking on the grass close to the windows of the houses. Those are the factors that led Zimmerman to think he could be a potential thief
Crimes committed at The Retreat at Twin Lakes gated condominium in Sanford in the year prior to Martin's death included eight burglaries, nine thefts, and one shooting. There were also 49 reports of attempted break-ins. All of that could certainly create an atmosphere of fear and anxiety in the neighborhood.
But, none of those crimes or attempted crimes were classified as "gang related" activity.
But, none of those crimes or attempted crimes were classified as "gang related" activity.
The gang activity was reference to the FBI investigation on Zimmerman . The local gang, whether they are in Sanford or in another nearby town are referred as "goons".
Lead Cop Told FBI Zimmerman Was Not A Racist | The Smoking Gun
Lead Cop Told FBI Zimmerman Was Not A Racist | The Smoking Gun
I don't know why you find that funny. I didn't quote it because I didn't want to respond to anything you said in that paragraph, as I had nothing of any value to respond with. But, if it'll make you happy, I quote it here and give you the response I would have given if I had waste the screen real estate in quoting it:
I agree.
It just seemed that you were taking some of my remarks out of context is all. I just took it wrong, sorry.
Thanks for the link.
From that article... "...the federal probe [into civil rights charges] could be hampered by the observations of the state’s lead investigator that the fatal shooting was not based on Martin’s skin color, nor was Zimmerman considered to be a racist."
One can't help but wonder how a federal probe could be hampered by, uhm, facts. <snort>
The federal probe is not about "facts". It is ONLY about eliminating the human right of self-defense. A RIGHT that Holder only believes is a "concept". It is all about domination of the People.
What really boggles the mind is how many people around the country want these self-defense laws changed so that you can't defend yourself.
For my money, the need for laws that allow for self-defense in the first place is retarded, since self-defense is a natural instinct of survival. I don't know the history and evolution of just how "self-defense in the home" and "self-defense in public" somehow became separated and two different things, but self-defense is self-defense regardless of where it occurs. (I'm also pretty sure that Obama didn't invent the notion that you can't defend yourself, so please don't even go there.
)
Even a three-year-old understands that when you get hit you hit back, because you don't want to keep getting hit. It's self-preservation at it's core. When you're threatened, you strike back in defense. My personal feelings on the matter is, you should be able to defend yourself in any manner in which you see fit. If you're standing there on the street and someone walks up to you and hits you, you should be able to just shoot them right then and there and be done with it. You shouldn't have to prove you were in fear of great bodily injury or death, because the action of being attacked should be sufficient proof for that.
The discussions regarding gun control as a result of the Zimmerman case are even more retarded than the self-defense discussions.
It's almost as retarded as the scores of Justice for Travon Rallies around the country this weekend.
For my money, the need for laws that allow for self-defense in the first place is retarded, since self-defense is a natural instinct of survival. I don't know the history and evolution of just how "self-defense in the home" and "self-defense in public" somehow became separated and two different things, but self-defense is self-defense regardless of where it occurs. (I'm also pretty sure that Obama didn't invent the notion that you can't defend yourself, so please don't even go there.
) Even a three-year-old understands that when you get hit you hit back, because you don't want to keep getting hit. It's self-preservation at it's core. When you're threatened, you strike back in defense. My personal feelings on the matter is, you should be able to defend yourself in any manner in which you see fit. If you're standing there on the street and someone walks up to you and hits you, you should be able to just shoot them right then and there and be done with it. You shouldn't have to prove you were in fear of great bodily injury or death, because the action of being attacked should be sufficient proof for that.
The discussions regarding gun control as a result of the Zimmerman case are even more retarded than the self-defense discussions.
It's almost as retarded as the scores of Justice for Travon Rallies around the country this weekend.
Last edited:
Obama, did not "invent" the idea of enforced "victimship", but he and his "kind" are taking it to new levels.
As to a 3 year old knowing better, most 3 year olds have more sense that Obama does.
It is amazing. Many who would take away the most basic of human rights, the right to self defense, often claim to be defenders of "civil rights". Like, Sharpton, Jackson, Pelosi, Biden, Obama, etc etc.
It is my opinion that the louder they scream about "civil right" the more likely they are to take them away. It would seem that the "power to the people" crowd from the '60's did not quite really mean it. What they meant was, "Power to the People we want to have power", and ONLY them!
Then there is the likely hood that they don't want us to be able to shoot attackers/home invaders etc because they are protecting their friends and relatives.
Obama and Co's idea of "gun control" is totally incorrect. SURPRISE SURPRISE, who would have thunk that?
Gun control is proper breathing, proper stance, aim picture, trigger squeeze etc. Obama knows NOTHING of the proper way to control a gun. Obama is only after PEOPLE control.
As to a 3 year old knowing better, most 3 year olds have more sense that Obama does.
It is amazing. Many who would take away the most basic of human rights, the right to self defense, often claim to be defenders of "civil rights". Like, Sharpton, Jackson, Pelosi, Biden, Obama, etc etc.
It is my opinion that the louder they scream about "civil right" the more likely they are to take them away. It would seem that the "power to the people" crowd from the '60's did not quite really mean it. What they meant was, "Power to the People we want to have power", and ONLY them!
Then there is the likely hood that they don't want us to be able to shoot attackers/home invaders etc because they are protecting their friends and relatives.
Obama and Co's idea of "gun control" is totally incorrect. SURPRISE SURPRISE, who would have thunk that?
Gun control is proper breathing, proper stance, aim picture, trigger squeeze etc. Obama knows NOTHING of the proper way to control a gun. Obama is only after PEOPLE control.
Last edited: