BF2S Forums You be the judge! Trayvon Martin vs George Zimmerman

Macbeth wrote:

I have an essay on Pizzaro's conquest of the Inca due Monday. I have to drive down to my school and barricade myself in the library today and finish it or else it'll never be done. That said, I'll take my time to make one effort post about this subject. Long post but it's worth it. Trust me I wrote it!


Okay so the only two people who truly know what happened that day after Zimmerman got out of his car are Zimmerman and Martin. Martin is dead so we can never get his side of the story. Though we could get Zimmerman's side of the story, it's tainted because Zimmerman has the human trait of self preservation. So what Zimmerman says about what happened can at best be ''taken with a grain of salt'' and at worst completely disregarded. Since what happened is a mystery, let us deal with the four objective provable 100% did happen facts:

1. Zimmerman confronted Martin.
2. Martin was unarmed.
3. Zimmerman was armed.
4. Zimmerman killed Martin.

Now here comes in the "stand your ground law" and where things get confusing. Unlike Ohio's similar law, the burden of proof is shifted to the police in Florida. Meaning, the police have to prove you did not have to use force in Florida but in Ohio you have to prove you needed to use force. From Zimmerman's account, he was in right to use force. Now since the police have no proof of anything to discount his claim he was not charged. This decision was made by the states prosecution to not file charges because they had no proof to discount Zimmerman's claim.The lead homicide detective from the area, thought he should have been charged with at least manslaughter. The police were going on the four "knows" when they made that choice. The states law made the four knows less relevant than Zimmerman's testimony. Which demonstrates a problem with Florida law compared to the superior Ohio law. Full disclosure: I'm okay with stand your ground laws. From my understanding of them, Ohio seems to have the best.

Now I would side with Zimmerman if he was in fact attacked outright by Martin. But I cannot due to the fact that the confrontation was started by Zimmerman. His actions of following and confronting Martin nullify his cause for self defense. The Florida state Senator who wrote the law agrees with me, and beleives Zimmerman is not protected by the law due to his initiating the confrontation.

Finally, what role does race play in this? In America there is trend of thinking of young black people as criminals. It's racist but we just can't help it. Zimmerman especially couldn't help it. In the months leading up to the death of Martin, Zimmerman made 46 911 calls reporting black people in the his neighborhood. We know this for a fact. There are records and recordings and transcripts. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out that race had something to do with this case since Zimmerman has a fear of blacks in his neighborhood.

So in summation:
1. Based off of the 100% knowable facts- Zimmerman killed an unarmed man he confronted.

2. Florida state law is protecting Zimmerman while the police and the person who wrote the law both think he should be charged. There is something wrong with the law.

3. This case was caused by race and Zimmerman has a thing against black people.

Jaekus wrote:

1. I haven't stated any stance. Assume makes an ass of u and... if you want clarification, see Macbeth's post.
2. Straw man argument
3. You'll reserve judgement? Your post above contradicts that statement.
4. The guy who wrote the law doesn't agree with you.

Jae wrote:

So many questions about me. That hardly pertains to this discussion at hand, because this does not involve me, so it seems pointless answering them. Ever heard the saying "argue the point, never the person?"

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

I'm wondering two things- does anyone think this guy could get a fair trial if charged?

Does anyone think he would actually be found guilty?

There was video (video!) of 4 policemen beating the shit out of Rodney King, and they were acquitted of criminal charges. I don't see a potential trial here going any other way.

13rin wrote:

I'm just trying to understand when you find the use of deadly force acceptable during self defense, if at all.  But nice dodge, now can you dodge a wrench?

Last edited by Jaekus (2012-03-29 09:57:24)

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

my thread was better, anyway the more I read about this case the less informed I get.

Jay wrote:

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

my thread was better, anyway the more I read about this case the less informed I get.

I haven't read more than maybe a paragraph about the thing. I find it more amusing that you can tell the people that share a news source based on their displayed opinion and level of outrage. Muppets.