Teen Killed In Neighborhood Watch Shooting

[Droids]

Who is in self defense? A man with a gun and actively provocated a search, or a man without weapon on his way home?

This case rouses a question. If people encounter a stranger with a gun to search him, does he has the right to self defend himself? In this case, a murderer said he killed for self defense. That opened the door to bandit to rob people without any risk. If he failed, he could kill the victim then claim he is self defense. That is the point.

I don't know too many murderers that call police to come check out someone they are about to murder, nor cry out for help in residential neighbor for close to a minute before wanting to murder someone.

[Isuckatpvp]

Took you this long to understand the law? ffs no wonder our country is going down the crapper.

Guess the solution is that I carry a gun at all times just in case someone I think is suspicious decides to break the law by defending themselves. That way I can kill them as I'd be defending myself.

Again, glad I understand.

---------- Post added 2012-03-27 at 04:19 PM ----------

I don't know too many murderers that call police to come check out someone they are about to murder, nor cry out for help in residential neighbor for close to a minute before wanting to murder someone.

Well I know of one idiot who decided to do just that and ended up killing someone.

[Droids]

Guess the solution is that I carry a gun at all times just in case someone I think is suspicious decides to break the law by defending themselves. That way I can kill them as I'd be defending myself.

Again, glad I understand.

---------- Post added 2012-03-27 at 04:19 PM ----------

Well I know of one idiot who decided to do just that and ended up killing someone.

And what happened? Why would you leave that out?

[Isuckatpvp]

And what happened? Why would you leave that out?

What happened where and what? He called the cops, was told to stay in his car, decided to confront someone, ends up killing him because he didn't listen to the dispatch. Does that about cover it?

[whyusocrazy]

Guess the solution is that I carry a gun at all times just in case someone I think is suspicious decides to break the law by defending themselves. That way I can kill them as I'd be defending myself.

Again, glad I understand.

---------- Post added 2012-03-27 at 04:19 PM ----------

Well I know of one idiot who decided to do just that and ended up killing someone.

If they punch you first and you're in one of these stand your own ground states then yes. Hell I would even argue in every state there is a case.

[Droids]

What happened where and what? He called the cops, was told to stay in his car, decided to confront someone, ends up killing him because he didn't listen to the dispatch. Does that about cover it?

Really, I need to ask?

What happened to the person who killed someone?

[Isuckatpvp]

If they punch you first and you're in one of these stand your own ground states then yes. Hell I would even argue in every state there is a case.

Do you really believe this situation is what they were looking to create the law for? Honest question.

---------- Post added 2012-03-27 at 04:28 PM ----------

Really, I need to ask?

What happened to the person who killed someone?

According to him or the police? Because the guy who actually CAN enforce laws said he didn't believe Zimmerman's story. Further, if he was having his head slammed into concrete for minute, he either has the strongest head ever created, or someone is lying. Further, his injuries were so bad the police decided they'd question him for a few hours before getting him medical treatment. . .down at the station. Sure sounds like he was in danger of losing his life to me.

[KingHorse]

What happened where and what? He called the cops, was told to stay in his car, decided to confront someone, ends up killing him because he didn't listen to the dispatch. Does that about cover it?

Can we stop it with the "THE COPS ORDERED HIM TO LEAVE TRAYVON ALONE!" lie? Because, as you may not know, it didn't happen.

The 911 operator (who is not an officer of anything at all) told him "They don't need you to do that" when he said he was following the kid. That is not an order.

So, in conclusion, a person with no authority to give orders made a very noncommittal statement that he was doing something that didn't need to be done. Not even that he shouldn't do it, just that it didn't need to be done.

Can we stop it now?

[Tinykong]

Even though someone died as a result of this situation, it's important how it plays out and the public opinion over it, because protecting gun rights and the ability to use them is important.

It's better to be allowed to carry and use firearms and never have to use them, than to be barred from carrying and using them and not having one when you need it. Criminals will always have access to illegal firearms, and if we take away the right for law abiding citizens to carry and use them in self defense, we give the upper hand to nefarious individuals.

[Marimba]

According to him or the police? Because the guy who actually CAN enforce laws said he didn't believe Zimmerman's story. Further, if he was having his head slammed into concrete for minute, he either has the strongest head ever created, or someone is lying. Further, his injuries were so bad the police decided they'd question him for a few hours before getting him medical treatment. . .down at the station. Sure sounds like he was in danger of losing his life to me.

Where did you get the minute figure? Once or twice would have been enough for me.

[Droids]

Do you really believe this situation is what they were looking to create the law for? Honest question.

Stand your ground doesn't apply here.

Zimmerman didn't shoot Trayvon while "standing his ground."

Zimmerman shot Trayvon while Trayvon was on top of him bashing his head into the concrete for close to a minute while Zimmerman was calling out for help.

Standing your ground is an action you take pre-emptively before any physical violence happens, and you believe there will be.

Self Defense is an action you take after there is already a physical assault occurring.

[Isuckatpvp]

Can we stop it with the "THE COPS ORDERED HIM TO LEAVE TRAYVON ALONE!" lie? Because, as you may not know, it didn't happen.

The 911 operator (who is not an officer of anything at all) told him "They don't need you to do that" when he said he was following the kid. That is not an order.

So, in conclusion, a person with no authority to give orders made a very noncommittal statement that he was doing something that didn't need to be done. Not even that he shouldn't do it, just that it didn't need to be done.

Can we stop it now?

For real? If you want to play the semantics game, feel free to. I think any reasonable person would understand that "they don't need you to do that" was not someone making a suggestion to not exert themselves. It was her being as polite as possible and telling him to "stay the **** in your car".

---------- Post added 2012-03-27 at 04:35 PM ----------

Where did you get the minute figure? Once or twice would have been enough for me.

How about the post below yours? Will that suffice? People are just making **** up.

---------- Post added 2012-03-27 at 04:36 PM ----------

Stand your ground doesn't apply here.

Zimmerman didn't shoot Trayvon while "standing his ground."

Zimmerman shot Trayvon while Trayvon was on top of him bashing his head into the concrete for close to a minute while Zimmerman was calling out for help.

Standing your ground is an action you take pre-emptively before any physical violence happens, and you believe there will be.

Self Defense is an action you take after there is already a physical assault occurring.

Whatever man. I'm already done with you folks and I just started. Keep moving your goalposts.

[Tinykong]

Further, his injuries were so bad the police decided they'd question him for a few hours before getting him medical treatment. . .down at the station. Sure sounds like he was in danger of losing his life to me.

The legal requirement doesn't have grey areas about how much threat there is, or the likelihood of death, just that a reasonable person could have felt their life was in danger. That's an important distinction, because a reasonable person would assume that if you asked an assailant to stop hitting you, and they do not, they are going to continue beating you until one of two things happen: they are stopped by someone else, or you die from the attack. According to his recount of the events, his calls for help went unanswered. At that point, it is reasonable to assume your life is in danger, and self defense up to and including deadly force is the only option left.

Unless you've been attacked by someone intent on doing you harm, it's easy to say "oh man what a wimp his life wasn't in danger." However, you don't know the mental state of the person beating you, or what their intentions are. If you think they are going to stop at some point, and just take it, the risk of being wrong is your life.

[Duravian]

OP posted a vid by the Young Turks. From that moment on, I knew this thread was 100% liberal biased.

[Droids]

For real? If you want to play the semantics game, feel free to. I think any reasonable person would understand that "they don't need you to do that" was not someone making a suggestion to not exert themselves. It was her being as polite as possible and telling him to "stay the **** in your car".

---------- Post added 2012-03-27 at 04:35 PM ----------

How about the post below yours? Will that suffice? People are just making **** up.

---------- Post added 2012-03-27 at 04:36 PM ----------

Whatever man. I'm already done with you folks and I just started. Keep moving your goalposts.

Go figure, when you confront someone with facts, they fold and make snide remarks.

Take it easy bro.

[Fuzzzie]

OP posted a vid by the Young Turks. From that moment on, I knew this thread was 100% liberal biased.

One poster does not dictate the course of a 102 page thread. This has been around for a while.

[Duravian]

One poster does not dictate the course of a 102 page thread. This has been around for a while.

I didn't mean every single person in the thread. I meant the topic of the thread was liberal biased. Sorry for not making that clear.

[DuckieMage]

According to him or the police? Because the guy who actually CAN enforce laws said he didn't believe Zimmerman's story. Further, if he was having his head slammed into concrete for minute, he either has the strongest head ever created, or someone is lying. Further, his injuries were so bad the police decided they'd question him for a few hours before getting him medical treatment. . .down at the station. Sure sounds like he was in danger of losing his life to me.

He was asked if he needed medical treatment. He said he did not. He later went to the hospital.
In the moment, if we go by what Zimmerman said, he was attacked and in self-defense, killed a man. He is full of Stress, Psychological Trauma, and Adrenaline. He might not have felt any side effects to his attack for hours. He was then questioned for hours? He was probably so out of it, he didn't even know what was going on with his body.
I think a lot of people are under-estimating or over-estimating both Zimmerman and Martin. We do not know how hard, or how frequently Martin might have been hitting Zimmerman's head to the ground. If they were struggling, Zimmerman might have gotten a few knocks to the head. At this point, Zimmerman might have gone, "I can't take this anymore," and pulled out his gun and fired.
We might also assume, Martin wasn't out to kill Zimmerman, but rough him up and wasn't using his full strength. He might have punched Zimmerman, which caused them both to fall to the ground, Zimmerman's head hits the pavement and the struggle begins.
There is no[edit] proof of either story. We can not say, "Zimmerman deserved it/Martin deserved it."
Both parties could have done thing differently.

[Fuzzzie]

I didn't mean every single person in the thread. I meant the topic of the thread was liberal biased. Sorry for not making that clear.

It's cool, but the discussion has evolved into a pretty general thread about the issue. I'm sure any bias is lost

[gnomemonster]

Yes, this kid was black, but that is NOT why he was shot. Did being black make him suspicious? No. Did dressing like a thug and having gold teeth make him suspicious? Yes. (You can google and easily find pictures of him at an older age than 14, the rioters do not want you to see them though.)

People will make anything racial if they can, to add wood to their fire. This could have been a racist killing, but the evidence does not point to that. You cannot just jump to conclusions. Racism is not completely dead, but the longer that we try to make everything about race, the longer it will stick around. And he is not a child, but an adolescent. I am leaning on the shooters side for the fact that people like to call anything racists, without seeing the facts. The kid even has a "thug" record.

This country really needs to progress.