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

So a neighborhood watch member was patrolling the neighborhood that often has burglarly and sees a young man of large size with a hoody on in the rain at night. He follows the young man for a while and alerts 9/11 of "suspicious behavior" then goes back to his vehicle. Trayvon contronts him for the stalking and punches George. George is being pounced while on the ground, and reaches for his gun to shoot Trayvon.

So you believe Zimmerman's account despite the clear lies in his version of events?

Seems pretty clear Zimmerman is a lowing-esque nutball, cruising around looking for action.

Lets try a another look at it:

So a wannabe cop with a gun in a state notorious for racism was out looking for trouble in an average neighbourhood and sees an unarmed young man lighter than himself wearing typical teenager clothes in the rain at night. He forms a false view of the young mans actions and intentions based on his colour and clothing, in fact the man is simply walking legitimately from A to B. He follows the young man for a while and alerts 9/11 who ask him to leave it to them, nevertheless he gets involved, the circumstances of which are unclear but several aspects of his account are demonstrably false - there is no evidend he was either threatened or assaulted. The local Police investigate and characterise the death of the young man as an "unnecessary killing".

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2012-03-29 02:08:31)

- 7PM -> Suspicious? That's the time you go to the store when you feel like having some pop tarts.
- 140lbs, 6'3"? I'm 6'1' and 172lbs and I'm a goddamn twig.

Man, I feel like pop tarts. Damn, it's dark and raining, can't go to the store because the neighborhood watch might blow my head off?

Shifty, you're like 100lbs, correct? Could you take down a 220lbs guy and beat his head to the ground?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxyJ6OYLVzg

jsnipy wrote:

Astonished at why this guy has not been charged yet.

Equally astonished at how "they" try to blame his actions on a law that allows you to stand your ground.

The stand your ground law is the reason he wasn't arrested on the scene immediately.



Also - shifty you should have made this a poll you goose.

AussieReaper wrote:

jsnipy wrote:

Astonished at why this guy has not been charged yet.

Equally astonished at how "they" try to blame his actions on a law that allows you to stand your ground.

The stand your ground law is the reason he wasn't arrested on the scene immediately.



Also - shifty you should have made this a poll you goose.

Innocent until proven guilty is a fucking awful precedent, innit? Just because a gun is involved, does not make the shooter worthy of automatic jail time, sorry.

Ty wrote:

I'm just going to copy-paste my post in the D+ST Chat thread:
It's interesting to see what the focus is on. There's race for one and hoodies and.. Skittles... it seems to me that the key focus should be on laws like Florida's 'Stand Your Ground', which essentially gives people the right to use deadly force when they see fit. This Zimmerman guy, I doubt he's a racist but he's clearly a fucking idiot. It's one thing that American law gives this idiot the right to own a handgun, it's another to give this idiot the licence to become a vigilante - if he "reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another to prevent the commission of a forcible felony".

No.  The 'stand your ground law' does not give one the right to use deadly force when they see fit.  It is merely an extension of the castle doctrine.  Before a citizen when attacked had the obligation to retreat until they could no longer do so.  Criminals loved taking advantage of this as they knew that law abiding citizens wouldn't fight back, but they'd run away.  Kinda made for a 'target-rich' environment.  This law just removed the duty to retreat and extended the castle doctrine to ones car.  Actually in Florida, you can use deadly force to stop a forcible felony.  That was in statute way before this law.
The D's in FL were pretty against this, and have been waiting for any instance to go after it.  They're all but in a frenzy and the media has been all to happy to sensationalize this.  Sharpton, Jackson, Farrakan have descended to incite civil unrest, teens are using this as an excuse to 'walk out of school' and flash mob rob stores,  and TM's own mom has since trademarked his name to make a buck.  Hell, even the Bamster himself has decided to cash in by stating that, "had he a son, it would look just like..." ..  ??  Really? 

ty wrote:

Zimmerman perceived Martin as a threat, he can be forgiven for suspecting that. Following, confronting and ultimately killing him because of said suspicion? This should not be okay - but it is under 'Stand Your Ground'. A law that, I'm pretty sure, exists for the sake of gun-lovers who want reassurance that they'll get to use their weapons for their intended purpose.

Actually, the SYG law had nothing to do with this as Z is claiming self defense.  But since I'm pretty sure that you have no idea about what the law under attack is really about, I'll clarify it one more time for you..  The law tilted the scales back in favor of the victim by removing that provision that one has an obligation to run away from the criminal before defending himself. 

ty wrote:

Now Zimmerman obviously wasn't a person that can be expected to be reasonable but that's not really my point. My point is that Zimmerman should be charged with murder and the 'Stand Your Ground' law means he gets away with it. It makes no sense, you've got a guy running around who has shown that he is willing to use deadly force on anyone he believes to be a threat - and you actually have a law to keep him from being prosecuted.

He (Z) was a guy who had some problems (who doesn't).  I'd argue that TM wasn't exactly clean either.  However, Z was apparently concerned that law enforcement was not doing anything about the rash of burglaries in the neighborhood.  According to the Sanford PD, that 'kid' fit the description.  There is no law in Florida that states a person must follow the directive of a 911 operator.  According to Z he was walking back to his truck when he was attacked.  If that's true then who is more sane?  The guy leaving or the guy pursuing and then assaulting the one leaving?  Where did Z previously demonstrate that he was willing to use deadly force on anyone he believed to be a threat?  Ever been to Miami? 

ty wrote:

'Stand your Ground' essentially okays the practice of bringing a gun to a fist fight. Zimmerman didn't have reasonable grounds to use deadly force, that much should be clear. He was a big 27 year old man against a skinny black teenager armed with junk food. The question shouldn't be whether it was a shooting based on race or hooded sweatshirts regardless of whether it was that which made Zimmerman suspect Martin in the first place. It should be whether Zimmerman should be charged for shooting dead an unarmed civilian.

I agree with you that race wasn't a factor here.  Size has nothing to do with it.  You don't know the physical condition of Z.  He could have been out of shape, hasn't been to the gym in ages with some sort of physical ailment.  We do know that TM was a football player.  Football players are extremely athletic.  But I guess in your eyes Z should have laid there and let the 'kid' continually bash his head into the sidewalk.  Nah..  Actually I carry a gun pretty much everywhere I go.  It is as normal as putting my wallet in my pocket along with my keys, knife and phone.  But at the same time, I'm not a member of the neighborhood watch and I don't drive around at odd hours of the AM looking to see what people are doing.

ty wrote:

Why is this even a debate?

Because you're anti-gun and immediately bought into the media sensationalizing this before all the facts have been revealed.  There is nothing wrong with the 'stand your ground' law.

ty wrote:

Even if Zimmerman "reasonably" thought Martin was a threat, even if he was fearful for his safety before and/or after being confronted, even if he is forgiven for being a fucking idiot and ignoring the police officers order to not follow Martin. At the end of the day he fucked up. He was wrong, he had poor judgement and as a result he killed an innocent person. The law should not be patting him on the back and saying "there there, we all make mistakes" it should be saying "you fucked up buddy, time to pay."

He was on his way back to his truck when TM confronted him.   I'd say at the end of the day TM 'fucked up' by punching him in the face, straddling him and slamming his head into the sidewalk.  Is that your idea of an innocent person?  Furthermore, he hasn't been forgiven.  He very well may still go to jail.  The investigation isn't completed yet.  Governor Scott & the bamster have appointed their appropriate people to review this.  Hopefully the truth will come out and the media will actually report it and not some agenda driven, race baiting story.
But honestly, I dunno if we'll ever know the entire truth.  There were two people there, and one is dead.  Sad thing, but I'll take this as a further reminder to mind my own business whenever possible and to not go around punching people in the face and slamming their head into the sidewalk.  You never know nowadays who's carrying, lawfully or not.

-Sh1fty- wrote:

In light of all the media attention from this "racist hate-crime murder," I deemed it crucial for BF2s existence, as an assembly of highly intelligent and sophisticated individuals educated in criminal justice to judge George Zimmerman's actions on the night of February 26, 2012, in Sanford, Florida. We hereby yearn to discover the truth, and to determine Zimmerman's fate.

(I'm just f**king sick of all the media attention this crap is getting on account of race issues so lets get this court ruling freaking over with.)

- Trayvon Martin (2/5/1995 - 2/26/2012)

Trayvon Martin was an African-American teenager who attended Krop Senior High School. He was a junior and was interested in military aviation. He was suspended from school that day for his third time. Trayvon was 6 foot 3 inches and weighed 2140 pounds (64 kg).

AussieReaper wrote:

jsnipy wrote:

Astonished at why this guy has not been charged yet.

Equally astonished at how "they" try to blame his actions on a law that allows you to stand your ground.

The stand your ground law is the reason he wasn't arrested on the scene immediately.



Also - shifty you should have made this a poll you goose.

Yeah but after that 911 recoding should have been no issue charging him. Using a law as excuse to basically commit murder is not the laws fault.

fuck white people

So excuse me while I go write this essay and ogle the Asian girls, little yellow flowers that they are, on my campus.

i wish i was white so i could chase minorities, shoot them, claim self defence and not get charged with murder.

13rin wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

You are taking everything Zimmerman has said as fact.

He wants to believe.

Believe what?  I merely attempted to clarify what the "stand your ground law is" and what has been reported.
Nah, it's guys want to believe.  Drink the cool-aid and buy into the media lynch mob hype.  Go off half-cocked.  Gunz-r-bad m'kay?  Wear that hoodie.

But yea... I do want to believe that someone used deadly force only when necessary.  What do you want to believe?  Do you want to believe that someone unjustly murdered 17 year old?  Does that help you feel more hatred to firearms and those that have them?  Great perspective there. 

Look, there are only 2 people that know what really happened.  One of them is dead.  The story and evidence seems to back the survivors story.  If it comes out that Z was the aggressor and not defending himself?  Then I hope they fry his ass.  But as things stand now, the authorities had decided that the man was defending himself, after media sensation causing public outcry, the case is being re-reviewed.  And that's cool by me.  I'll reserve my judgement on him until when I read the investigator's conclusions.

The law here was not the problem.  Again, it isn't a good idea to meddle in other people's business and is even a worse idea to assault someone. 

But now Jaekus, you beg the questions...

Would it have been OK with you Jaekus for TM to pummel Z into a state of brain damage?  At what point during an assault would your permit him or anyone for that matter who's being beaten the "right" to defend his own life and well being?

How about you?  Would you ever defend yourself if attacked or would you run?  What if you could get away?  How about if someone attacked someone you cared about?  Would you fight back or intervene?  Or would you wait and hope for the best?  Maybe you'd grab a nearby object and use it as a weapon?

so youre saying its completely justifiable if some asshole got an itch up his ass, thought you looked suspicious, chased you and shoots you? as long as a person thinks you dont belong where you are its ok for that person to instigate a controntation, get his ass beat by you and pull his gun when hes losing the fight?

eleven bravo wrote:

i wish i was white so i could chase minorities, shoot them, claim self defence and not get charged with murder.

If it comes out that's what he's done then he needs to die.

eleven bravo wrote:

so youre saying its completely justifiable if some asshole got an itch up his ass, thought you looked suspicious, chased you and shoots you? as long as a person thinks you dont belong where you are its ok for that person to instigate a controntation, get his ass beat by you and pull his gun when hes losing the fight?

No, that's not acceptable and I understand exactly what you're saying. 

And we don't know if that's exactly what happened.