no. ****.Then that is what a jury must decide not us.
the outrage is that he hasn't been arrested to try him.
no. ****.Then that is what a jury must decide not us.
It doesn't matter if he's unarmed or not. A private citizen cannot just shoot someone on the street.
It gets a little gray IF the shooter in question has a permit to carry and IF the shooter in question was defending his life. The shooter in question definitely did NOT have a permit to carry. What he did was murder.
There is no open-carry law in Florida. Private citizens may have properly licensed handguns in their vehicle, but they must be secured in a glove box, other box with a lid, the trunk, in a snap holster (not on their person, either, on the car), etc. If Martin had attempted to carjack Mr Zimmerman by sticking a gun in his face, then Mr. Zimmerman could have lawfully shot him, AFTER retrieving his gun from wherever it was secured.
But that, is not what happened.
We can't have people doing this, guys. It's a short jump from this to people going out and shooting kids for playing their music too loud, or popping firecrackers, or a teacher waiting and shooting some kid in the parking lot because he is a disruptive punk, or a convenience store owner going out and shooting someone for stealing gas.
Vigilante justice went out in the 1800s already, and was decidedly made clearly unlawful during the civil rights movement in the 60s.
From Mr Zimmerman's history, this eventual outcome was predictable. Too bad for Trayvon Martin that nobody got him under control while it was still possible.
Following someone is not illegal. Did Zimmerman have the gun out? Did Trayvon know he had a gun? I doubt he did if he attacked him, which IS illegal.
no. ****.
the outrage is that he hasn't been arrested to try him.
I'm not an expert by any means and I am curious to hear what other's think he muttered at the 2:20 point in the tape.
Because, AGAIN, I CANNOT BELIEVE what I think I hear.
I don't want to say it because of the power of suggestion. If my kids were home I would have them listen & tell me what they think.
No the issue is that Zimmerman allegedly profiled a black youth, followed him, VERBALLY confronted him, was attacked by said youth and shot him in self defense.
The first illegal act was by Martin in attacking Zimmerman.... Profiling, following, and verbally confronting someone are not nice things to do but they are not illegal.... Breaking someone's nose and smashing their head into a sidewalk are illegal and if someone did that to me I would consider my life in danger (as you can easily die from your head being smashed into the sidewalk) and take any action I believed would save my life including shooting someone.
How do we know this did not happen?
The Governor of FL has a special prosecutor & linguist working on this very point, because if he said what you think he said, that makes this a federal civil rights case.
Look at it logically. There is no open-carry law in Florida. It is unlawful to carry a gun in public, unless you have a carry permit, which Mr Zimmerman did not. From his own version of events, he was beaten up by Martin, at which point Zimmerman shot him in the chest.
Where did he get the gun? Was he carrying it? If so, any defensive action Martin may have taken would be reasonable. Did Zimmerman run back to his car to get the gun, then shoot Martin? If so, that is murder. Intent was there. There was a chance to stop himself. If he went to his car to retrieve the gun, it isn't even manslaughter any more, it's just murder.
Using the very simplest of agreed-upon facts as reported (by the police), Mr Zimmerman is a private person not associated with law enforcement. This private person attempted to detain a teenage child, which is kidnapping. Then Zimmerman shot him in the chest. In every state killing someone in the course of a kidnapping is felony murder. That may not have been what Mr Zimmerman intended, but it's what happened because of the events he himself put in motion.
Have you read some news source that claims Martin attempted to carjack Zimmerman?
I cannot believe people are SERIOUSLY defending a man who stalked a teenager through his neighborhood & shot & killed him! A man who said "These assholes, they always get away" and "****ing ****s"...wow. A man who was told NOT to follow him & did it anyway. He knew **** well what he was doing, which is why he told the dispatcher to have the police call him instead of him meeting them at a set location- because he was in hot persuit of a boy wearing a scarrryyyyyyyy hoodie wielding a bag of skittles and he wasn't going to stay put until he found him. No one asked him to be The Hero of Sanford, protecting the residents from a series of break ins.
No, but I did read that he went back to his car and then Trayvon approached him. How do we know it wasn't taken from the car then?
The police have confirmed he had no permit to carry.
Simply asking him who he was and following him and demanding he stop to answer questions was attempting to detain him.
If someone (not law enforcement) followed your child, asking them who they were, what they were doing, stop I want to talk to you, what would you have trained them to do in that situation?
I edited on the permit to carry issue. That is just one of many points as reported that has changed over the course of the past month.
I think that if the media reported that it was in self defense (as the police found it to be) from the beginning, there wouldn't be as much outrage.
But like I said, I do think this needs to go to court.
Can you please show me this beginning you keep talking about, you repeatedly say this, but you obviously are talking about the past week or so...at first this was reported as nothing but self defense and it was a neighborhood watchman shoots a man dead since they had no idea who Trayvon even was...please go read about the beginning in February.
You are saying so many things that aren't true as fact, I am not sure if you are going by hearsay or what, but you need to find out for yourself.
A place to debate everything and anything!