Trayvon Martin's murderer George Zimmerman is still a free man

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I agree. It's just too difficult to say right now and all the media attention sure isn't helping people see things objectively. No matter the outcome of the trial, it's going to be a shit storm afterward

It really, really is. If he gets acquitted, I don't even know what to expect.
 
Jive Turkey said:
And I find it amazing that indy is accusing others of abandoning threads when the going gets tough

He asked me to make more detailed posts. I did so on the topic of same sex marriage and he ignored them.

Ramifications, you guys.
 
To me, this remains primarily a gun issue.

Guns are why small crimes become big murders.
exactly. i don't care if martin did punch him. that only gave zimmerman the right to fight back with his fists (or better yet, he could've just gone back to his fucking house and called the cops). if i punch you in the face, it's totally cool for you to shoot me? even though i'm not waving a gun around too or even threatening to shoot you? it just seems a bit absurd to me.

i've still yet to hear anything that justified him being shot. yes martin delivered several blows to zimmerman, but there's obviously been no proof as to whether they were unprovoked or in self defense. i figure that'll come out in the trial.
 
exactly. i don't care if martin did punch him. that only gave zimmerman the right to fight back with his fists (or better yet, he could've just gone back to his fucking house and called the cops). if i punch you in the face, it's totally cool for you to shoot me? even though i'm not waving a gun around too or even threatening to shoot you? it just seems a bit absurd to me.

i've still yet to hear anything that justified him being shot. yes martin delivered several blows to zimmerman, but there's obviously been no proof as to whether they were unprovoked or in self defense. i figure that'll come out in the trial.

I don't completely agree with this, though I understand where you're coming from. It is possible and not all that uncommon to kill someone with your fists, especially when you're also slamming their head on the pavement. It's also possible to receive permanent brain damage to varying degrees. I knew a guy who got sucker punched outside a bar when I was younger; he fell and hit his head on the curb and was never the same person again afterward. If I was in a situation where I felt I was in this sort of danger, I would take every measure availale to make sure that doesn't happen. Does that apply to this case? I don't know
 
One would wonder about the safety of letting Zimmerman walk free. Regardless of self defense, being in a fight that was supposedly "that serious" is bound to have long term effects on someone. I doubt he'll want to go anywhere without his gun now. I view him as a massive liability. This is a guy that's paranoid enough to call the police over people just walking around a neighborhood. Now one of the people he was paranoid about went after him and he had to kill them.

He'll probably just be more trigger happy in the future.
 
One would wonder about the safety of letting Zimmerman walk free. Regardless of self defense, being in a fight that was supposedly "that serious" is bound to have long term effects on someone. I doubt he'll want to go anywhere without his gun now. I view him as a massive liability. This is a guy that's paranoid enough to call the police over people just walking around a neighborhood. Now one of the people he was paranoid about went after him and he had to kill them.

He'll probably just be more trigger happy in the future.

You might be right, but you can't lock someone up for that reason. And if he is innocent of any wrong doing, isn't that just placing blame on a victim? What if someone were to say the same about a rape victim. Again, it might not even be applicable in this case, but time will tell I suppose
 
You might be right, but you can't lock someone up for that reason. And if he is innocent of any wrong doing, isn't that just placing blame on a victim? What if someone were to say the same about a rape victim. Again, it might not even be applicable in this case, but time will tell I suppose

That's the trouble I have with this. I was raised around guns and I was always taught that even if I fear for my life, never try to shoot someone in a vital area, always try to disarm them if you can. Whether it's by hitting them in the head with your gun, or shooting an arm or limb, etc. Just because a gun can kill people doesn't mean you should use it for that. Seemed like Zimmerman was just aiming to kill (even if there was a struggle, he was more likely to miss or hit trayvon in the chest, not the back of his head). It was a kill shot. If he had disarmed Trayvon, and Trayvon was honestly being a violent maniac, then Trayvon would have been put away for assault.
 
Yeah, he was shot in the chest. If Zimmerman WAS just going for the kill shot, that wouldn't really be the best option.
 
Ya, the chest seems like a non specific area to shoot someone. It's the biggest area, so the mostly likely to be aimed at.
 
But I also found this which makes the whole bloody knuckles thing seem blown out of proportion

The official report, prepared by the medical examiner in Volusia County, Fla., also found that the 17-year-old had one other fresh injury – a small abrasion, no more than a quarter-inch in size – on his left ring finger below the knuckle.
 
Oh, I hadn't seen that previously. Just let's you know that media coverage on both sides are willing to manipulate public opinion at the cost of honesty.
 
there are definitely two sides, if not more

but this one?

The official report, prepared by the medical examiner in Volusia County, Fla., also found that the 17-year-old had one other fresh injury – a small abrasion, no more than a quarter-inch in size – on his left ring finger below the knuckle.

of the following possible sides, which might apply?

a. Zimmerman's side
b. Trayvon's side
c. incorrect side
d. correct side
e. right side
f. wrong side
g. likely criminal side
h. typical law abiding citizen side
i. ??
j. ??
 
The official report, prepared by the medical examiner in Volusia County, Fla., also found that the 17-year-old had one other fresh injury – a small abrasion, no more than a quarter-inch in size – on his left ring finger below the knuckle.

I think that is a neutral statement and probably correct. (unless the medical examiner missed the bruised and busted knuckles that the pro Zimmerman side has been going on about lately)

I think we should try and stay away from the two sides concept as much as possible and go for correct information if want to arrive at the place we call 'justice'.
 
Of course it's a neutral statement. Are you having trouble following the conversation?
 
What?! A chest shot is exactly where the majority would shoot.

It's the largest body mass. It's more of an obvious place to aim than an intended kill shot.... it could be both, but in the heat of the moment, it's probably a 'natural' place to aim. If he shot him in the head, I feel like there would've definitely been a different, obvious intent.
 
Jive Turkey said:
It's the largest body mass. It's more of an obvious place to aim than an intended kill shot.... it could be both. If he shot him in the head, I feel like there would've definitely been a different, obvious intent.

It's also where the heart and lungs are, it's the easiest kill shot for those that aren't trained marksmen in combat. The majority of murders involving a gun are chest shots.
 
It's also the biggest target. And with someone on top of you, your options are limited. Where would you have preferred him to shoot? The stomach is just as dangerous
 
BVS said:
That's not my point, my point is just that using a chest shot as evidence that it wasn't meant to be a kill shot is pretty silly.

But it's still fair to say it wasn't necessarily meant as one. I'm just saying intent can't be drawn in this case
 
I don't completely agree with this, though I understand where you're coming from. It is possible and not all that uncommon to kill someone with your fists, especially when you're also slamming their head on the pavement. It's also possible to receive permanent brain damage to varying degrees. I knew a guy who got sucker punched outside a bar when I was younger; he fell and hit his head on the curb and was never the same person again afterward. If I was in a situation where I felt I was in this sort of danger, I would take every measure availale to make sure that doesn't happen. Does that apply to this case? I don't know
oh i know what you mean i do know of examples too where someone killed someone else solely with their fists. but also zimmerman's a bigger guy than martin and also a little older, so surely you'd imagine zimmerman would win in a fight. to me it just seems like pulling out a gun was excessive force, especially since he went chasing after martin in the first place, and then did again after he called 911.
 
See, I almost came in here to make a post saying that it seems more and more likely that, despite how stupid the law may be, this was sounding more and more like a case of stand your ground. Then, the ME report about the knuckles gets quoted and suddenly I'm lost on how to feel all over again. The media is spinning this out of control, and at this point, I'm just going to wait until I hear all of the evidence at trial to form an opinion I suppose.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom