Excusing Trayvon

Are you holding GZ responsible for the actions of TM? Are you implying that GZ is responsible for TM punching him in the nose, bashing his head into concrete, doing an MMA ground and pound style of fighting? If you are then you are saying TM actions were justified just because GZ was observing him...that is so ludicrous!

Here in the USA we call the actions of TM aggravated assault which is a felony. So what part of the world are you from and do you folks call the actions of TM?

Furthermore, here in the USA we call the actions of GZ in the shooting death of TM self-defense justifiable homicide. What do you folks call it in your part of the world?

 

Did you miss it? Your viewpoint is not relevant as you were not a party to the case.
- - - Updated - - -

There is reasonable doubt about who caused what. The evidence supports Zimmerman's case despite the political pressure and the show trial's judge. This is one benefit of a trial by jury. Despite the political pressure the jury delivered a verdict appropriate within the facts and the law.

Your views, while fascinating to you, are completely irrelevant to justice.

 

Laws define elements of a crime and associated sentences. Laws are prohibitions on behavior. I suspect that the law to varying degrees and jurisdictions prohibit a person from confronting/escalating and using violence/deadly force in a circumstance that they created. The jury was neither presented evidence nor found it in testimony that would lead them to a unanimous verdict of guilty. Perhaps the State would never have had the evidence to prove the charge of murder even if it investigated for one hundred years but it certainly did not have it as it proceeded with its pitiful presentation during its losing venture.

 

The State didn't care about evidence other than hiding it. They still lost but wasn't completely embarrassed had everything been allowed. Judge Nelson must have felt sorry for them.

 

Well let me just say the jury didn't find George guilty of 2nd degree murder, nor did they find him guilty of manslaughter.

What do you think the jury was implying?

 

IT looks like Traybama's lip service has fooled the masses. Now they can get back to occupying Sesame Street.

 

Please. I'm not the one conducting the defamation campaign against the dead kid. that would be you and your fellow members of the Church of TravonDeservedIt. Where any negative comment about Martin is believed without reservation and repeated without question because in your religion, TrayvonDeservedIt.

Yeah, obvious. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rangi_and_Papa

 

Martin is dead. How was Zimmerman held responsible for the consequences of his action?

You don't know that Martin attacked Zimmerman or the other way around. Why do you make speculative assumptions against Martin?

 

No, I am holding Zimmerman responsible for the consequences of his own actions.

Zimmerman unnecessarily went after Martin armed with a deadly weapon.

 

No more or less than yours. Do you have a point?

There is no reasonable doubt Martin left his car to go after Martin armed with a deadly weapon.

Thanks for sharing your views. While fascinating to you, they are completely irrelevant to our discussion.

 

A SYG state like Florida does not and imposes no obligation to avoid conflict or retreat even if you are armed with a deadly weapon.

The real problem here is in the law that allows a person to unnecessarily create a confrontational situation armed with a deadly weapon with no obligation to avoid it or retreat if possible.

 

No I haven't, so I guess I'll never get the pleasure of gunning down someone.

 

The consequences of his actions can be sued for in civil court. As far as criminal legality is concerned, he was found not guilty of murder due to self defense.

 

So you think it is fun to "gun down someone"?

 

Civil court is not justice for criminal wrongs.

No kidding?

 

So no criminal wrongdoing. Your point then?

 

My point is that someone who arms themselves with a deadly weapon and goes and unnecessarily creates a situation where conflict or violence is more likely should be held responsible for he consequences of their action.

A "stand your ground" state like Florida imposes no obligation on a person, even after arming themselves with a deadly weapon, to avoid conflict and retreat to avoid a violent situation.

It is a bad law and let's killers get away with irresponsible actions.

 

Stand your ground did not apply in this case so that is a moot point. Fists are deadly weapons too. More people are killed here with fists than rifles (including those scary black ones). If you are going to go around with a deadly weapon (fists) and use them, expect a response which is called simple self defense.

 

Florida as a SYG state has no obligation to avoid a conflict or retreat as other states do. It should IMO, particularly when your armed with a deadly weapon.

 

This wasn't an SYG case.

 

If you wish to take a break from your defender's vigilance perhaps you'd enjoy this teenager, Mr. Temar Boggs, reputation? If you prefer to continue the crusade perhaps you might consider adding this teenager, Christopher, too. http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...teen-jury-says-self-defense-and-nobody-cares/

 

I do not know the particular content/elements of the FLA. law, SYG, but many laws are typically based on model codes. For this reason I suspect that it is unlawful to intentionally create a circumstance where your act incites another to violently respond so you may use force against them anywhere in the USA.

I know that some states do not obligate a would-be victim to flee from an aggressor but still I do not believe you can intentionally incite someone to violence and then kill them. Just my thought.

In Mr. Zimmerman's case he was claiming self-defense, a right that predates our Federal Constitution

 

Well, as we all know the people (jury) who decided the fate of GZ didn't find him responsible for the death of TM after following the jury instructions, weighing in all the evidence presented in court and observing the law of the state of Florida, and so consequently they found him NOT GUILTY!

So it really doesn't matter that you are still holding GZ responsible for the consequences of his actions.

It's easy for people now to say after the fact that it was unnecessary for George to keep an eye out for TM, but you got to put yourself in GZ's shoes that night to see it in GZ's perspective.

It was raining, a stranger GZ never seen before looked suspicious to him by the way he was aimlessly walking about, peering into homes, not appearing to be in a hurry to get out of the rain.

There were numerous break-ins, robberies prior to this night in the neighborhood. GZ was the guy who started the neighborhood watch and so he was watching this suspicious character and reporting it to the authorities.

With all said, I can't fault GZ for his actions that night, the reality is no one really can and that includes you!

Oh and one last thing to note, you can't find fault with GZ for having a concealed weapon on his person that night. He had a permit to legally carry a concealed weapon from the state of Florida.

People carry these weapons for their own protection and boy did he ever need his weapon that night after getting beaten up mercilessly by the enraged TM!