George Zimmerman is in police custody

[sbell111]

Was the gun he had concealed? I cant remember, I thought they talked about that.

He was legally carrying it in a concealed holster per the police report.

 

[eliza61]

He wasn't doing 'his neighborhood watch' thing. He was doing his 'coming home from the grocery store' thing. Either way, he was carrying his weapon lawfully.
Objection. Facts not in evidence. The primary definition of 'accost' is to Approach and address (someone) boldly or aggressively. According to Zimmerman, he was not approaching Martin at the time of the altercation. He was returning to his truck. Also, according to the girlfriend's statement, it was Martin who made first verbal contact.
If while cutting through these yards cluelessly someone asked them 'What are you doing here?', would they punch him in the nose?
First, I object to the term 'targeted'. Second, I agree completely that this is the United States of America. In this country, a person can legally 'wander around' with a loaded weapon. He can also discharge this weapon as necessary to defend his lief.

LOL. You just can't go to the store and buy a bag of skittles while wearing a hoodie. I guess along with "driving while black" we have to get some "walking while black" rules also for living in the United states of America.

Obviously certain people can't "legally wander around" in this country. Isn't much of a "right" if doing so will cause you to end up with a couple of slugs in you.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

LOL. You just can't go to the store and buy a bag of skittles while wearing a hoodie. I guess along with "driving while black" we have to get some "walking while black" rules also for living in the United states of America.

Obviously certain people can't "legally wander around" in this country. Isn't much of a "right" if doing so will cause your demise.

Here's the thing that I think is a real bitter pill to swallow for a lot of folks who've all but convicted Zimmerman.

Was Zimmerman in the wrong right up to the point of approaching Martin? Probably. Does that in & of itself automatically make what he did next wrong? Absolutely not.

 

[sbell111]

LOL. You just can't go to the store and buy a bag of skittles while wearing a hoodie. I guess along with "driving while black" we have to get some "walking while black" rules also for living in the United states of America.

Obviously certain people can't "legally wander around" in this country. Isn't much of a "right" if doing so will cause you to end up with a couple of slugs in you.

Umm, are you serious or are you kidding around?

'Legally wandering around' doesn't include 'slug'ging someone in the nose or slamming his head into the sidewalk.

 

[LuvsDragonflies]

Anyone able to find the statistics on how many "stand your ground" killers have been simply let go by the police without any kind of arrest?

 

[kidshop]

Umm, are you serious or are you kidding around?

'Legally wandering around' doesn't include 'slug'ging someone in the nose or slamming his head into the sidewalk.

Is there proof that this happened, or is it just Zimmerman's word? Trayvon can't tell us what happened to him. Does it matter to you what really happened to him...is it important? Maybe he was defending himself with the alleged punching and head slamming. is he allowed to defend himself against a threat?

But I guess a loaded gun wins all uncertain situations, and if you make a snap decision and kill someone, oh well. A fight without a loaded gun may have been just 2 beat up people. But this is america and George won.

 

[ols386]

Umm, are you serious or are you kidding around?

'Legally wandering around' doesn't include 'slug'ging someone in the nose or slamming his head into the sidewalk.

Unless they are being stalked and feel that their safety or even their life is being threatened.

If the stand your ground law can be used to defend Zimmerman, then it could also be used for Trayvon...except that he is not here any longer.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

Unless they are being stalked and feel that their safety or even their life is being threatened.

If the stand your ground law can be used to defend Zimmerman, then it could also be used for Trayvon...except that he is not here any longer.

Your 2nd point is one I've contended all along.

HOWEVER, back to your first point, there is a line that must be crossed before you can in fact stand your ground. Following someone does not cross that line. Asking, "what are you doing here?" does not cross that line. If Zimmerman STARTED a physical confrontation, then the line's been crossed. We may never REALLY know if Zimmerman crossed that line, nor for that matter may we ever really know if Martin did.

Was Martin in fact just as guilty (or even more so) of "taking the law into his own hands" as everyone seems to think Zimmerman was? We may never know how this whole thing would have ended had Zimmerman been unarmed. Maybe he'd be dead?

 

[sbell111]

But I guess a loaded gun wins all uncertain situations, and if you make a snap decision and kill someone, oh well. A fight without a loaded gun may have been just 2 beat up people. But this is america and George won.

A fight without a loaded gun could have also resulted in one man's death due to getting his head slammed repeatedly into a sidewalk. I know that if it were me and someone was slamming my head into the sidewalk that I would reasonably fear for my life and do anything to stop the person, including killing him.

Unless they are being stalked and feel that their safety or even their life is being threatened.

Following someone for a short distance does not meet the legal definition of stalking, nor would one reasonably believe that his life is threatened. Further, slamming a person's head into the sidewalk would not be deemed 'reasonable force' in such a scenario when the other person has made any threats or taken any physical action against you.

If the stand your ground law can be used to defend Zimmerman, then it could also be used for Trayvon...except that he is not here any longer.

'Stand your ground' has nothing to do with this case. It is straight up self-defense.

 

[LisaR]

He was legally carrying it in a concealed holster per the police report.

Zimmerman had a legal gun and the proper permit to carry that gun. Zimmerman also had a concealed holster as confirmed by the police.

What the police don't know is if Z was chasing Trayvon around the neighborhood brandishing his gun and threatening Trayvon with it. There aren't any witnesses that can confirm that Z left his gun holstered the entire time and only took it out to use in self-defense.

Z says Trayvon was going after his gun. Again, there isn't any witness that can confirm this story. Where was the gun when Trayvon was going after it? All we have is Z word that it was holstered. Is it possible he had it out and was threatening Trayvon with it, hence the reason he went after it? If it was holstered, and Zimmerman had his jacket on and partially zipped, how would Trayvon even know Zimmerman had a gun to begin with?

Unfortunately, because there aren't any witnesses until seconds before the shooting, I honestly don't think we will ever know the facts of this case.

 

[sbell111]

HOWEVER, back to your first point, there is a line that must be crossed before you can in fact stand your ground. Following someone does not cross that line. Asking, "what are you doing here?" does not cross that line. If Zimmerman STARTED a physical confrontation, then the line's been crossed. We may never REALLY know if Zimmerman crossed that line, nor for that matter may we ever really know if Martin did.

It should also be noted that the mere fact that a person starts a confrontation does not forbid them from making an argument of self-defense.

A person who is the initial aggressor in a physical encounter may be able to claim self-defense if the tables turn in the course of the fight. Generally a person who was the aggressor may use nondeadly force if the victim resumes fighting after the original fight ended. If the original aggressor attacked with nondeadly force and was met with deadly force in return, the aggressor may respond with deadly force.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

Anyone able to find the statistics on how many "stand your ground" killers have been simply let go by the police without any kind of arrest?

Any time there is a fatal shooting, there is a series of steps that are to be taken including a toxicology testing of the shooter. They'll also check his hands for powder residue (along with the victim) to get a better idea of (a) who actually pulled the trigger and (b) what position the shooter & victim were in. There are other things as well, but arresting the shooter is not automatically among them. That said, it is clear many of these basic steps were ignored - that has nothing to do with the stand your ground law. It's just bad police work. Had these steps been taken, we would not only have evidence of Zimmerman's guilt if he's guilty. We would also have evidence of his innocence if he's innocent. Failing to take these steps served nobody's interests.

 

[Too Far From Home]

Anyone able to find the statistics on how many "stand your ground" killers have been simply let go by the police without any kind of arrest?

According to a few articles on the web, Florida went from an average of 12 lawful deaths/year to 36 lawful deaths/year after the "Stand your ground" law was passed. We have no idea how many of those deaths could have been avoided had this law not been passed. The law has the effect of allowing a self-defense argument when someone dies in a conflict and there are no witnesses.

It's not about gun rights, as most of these deaths were not by gunfire. It is about an irresponsible law that automatically protects killers when there are no witnesses - raising the bar for prosecution to absurd levels.

Even if Zimmerman is found guilty, this law need to be repealed.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

It should also be noted that the mere fact that a person starts a confrontation does not forbid them from making an argument of self-defense.

A person who is the initial aggressor in a physical encounter may be able to claim self-defense if the tables turn in the course of the fight. Generally a person who was the aggressor may use nondeadly force if the victim resumes fighting after the original fight ended. If the original aggressor attacked with nondeadly force and was met with deadly force in return, the aggressor may respond with deadly force.

Absolutely. Which brings us back to my original point. Even *if* everything Zimmerman did prior to the shooting was wrong, that in & of itself does not mean the shooting was unjustified.

 

[LuvsDragonflies]

A fight without a loaded gun could have also resulted in one man's death due to getting his head slammed repeatedly into a sidewalk. I know that if it were me and someone was slamming my head into the sidewalk that I would reasonably fear for my life and do anything to stop the person, including killing him. ~ sbell111

Not necessarily. The question remains, Would Zimmerman have escalated his following of the teen if he didn't have a gun to rely on and use? or would he have listened to the dispatcher?

If he felt "safer" approaching the kid because he had a gun, it's premeditation because he knew he'd pull the trigger if he got into trouble.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

Not necessarily. The question remains, Would Zimmerman have escalated his following of the teen if he didn't have a gun to rely on and use? or would he have listened to the dispatcher?

If he felt "safer" approaching the kid because he had a gun, it's premeditation because he knew he'd pull the trigger if he got into trouble.

Point 1) speculation
Point 2) just plain wrong. Sorry.

 

[LuvsDragonflies]

Point 1) speculation
Point 2) just plain wrong. Sorry.

Really? You think Zimmerman would have ever approached the kid without that gun? I don't. Not even for money.

And sorry, not wrong. If he approached the kid with even the thought that he would use the gun if he got into trouble, it can be considered premeditated. Even thinking about it for a split second before pulling it out.

Proving that, however is the crux of the matter, isn't it?

As for it being speculation, all of it speculation. Haven't you been paying attention?

 

[Gumbo4x4]

Really? You think Zimmerman would have ever approached the kid without that gun? I don't. Not even for money.

I think so too, but it's still speculation. And honestly irrelevant.

 

[MrsWendy]

A fight without a loaded gun could have also resulted in one man's death due to getting his head slammed repeatedly into a sidewalk. I know that if it were me and someone was slamming my head into the sidewalk that I would reasonably fear for my life and do anything to stop the person, including killing him.

Following someone for a short distance does not meet the legal definition of stalking, nor would one reasonably believe that his life is threatened. Further, slamming a person's head into the sidewalk would not be deemed 'reasonable force' in such a scenario when the other person has made any threats or taken any physical action against you.
'Stand your ground' has nothing to do with this case. It is straight up self-defense.

You are correct. And Mr. Martin may have been attempting to defend himself against someone who threatened him with a gun. Despite what you said, it is reasonable to believe that one's life is threatened when someone approaches you with a gun. Since we don't really know the manner in which Zimmerman approached Martin and how the fight started, it's not possible to know which one was actually defending themselves. I'm curious why you seem to be giving the benefit of the doubt to Zimmerman.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

And sorry, not wrong. If he approached the kid with even the thought that he would use the gun if he got into trouble, it can be considered premeditated. Even thinking about it for a split second before pulling it out.

Disagree. That in no way meets the definition of premeditated.

Every time I get in my car, there is a chance I could run over a toddler who dashes into the street. If it were ever to happen (God forbid), does the fact I knew that ahead of time make it premeditated? Of course not.