George Zimmerman - Florida Unarmed Teen Shooting

[JeremiahMN]

It wasn't that long ago that people here were bashing a MN permit holder who shot and killed a person who had robbed someone else. Several people, before the facts came out, were absolutely CERTAIN he had violated the law and would most absolutely be charged. How did that ultimately resolve?

I forget that in the blind defense of any permit holder, walking around with skittles and ice tea, is just the same as robbing someone.

[Humphrey Bogart]

Justice for George

Where can I contribute to the 'Justice for George' fund.

This guy has been beaten by a 6 foot 3 inch Thug and his life is a mess.

I want to (along with thousands of others) send this guy at last $10 so he can receive 'Justice'

Where do I send it?

At the very least it set's the 'Justice' argument on it's head.

This guy needs $100,000.00 to get his life back and $10 times all of us can EASILY do this...just point me to the website please.

[Pinnacle]

It's pretty simple. He was a gun enthusiast with a permit to carry. He can't be at fault because it will make gun owners look bad. We must defend this guy at all cost, even though common sense (if you've heard the 911call) would point to him being the aggressor. Stand up for the 2nd amendment, blame the victim!

You are almost right here.... Almost.

The facts of the matter as we know them without being a lawyer, or in Florida, or basically having anything to do with this case is an interesting dicsussion.

I somewhat agree with you - but we need to remember that we only know a very little bit - and there are people that know a lot more than we do about the FL Statutes and the circumstances of the case.

If you look at my posts, I am pretty fair and down the middle - calling out FACTS as we know them, and encouraging less speculation and work with FACTS.

Should we Defend this guy because he is a permit holder only? ABSOLUTELY NOT but, here is the thing - as I have posted and encouraged since I started to comment here - work with the facts and less with emotion. These things have a way of working themselves out.

Do I think that Zimmerman is innocent? Hell No HE SHOT SOMEONE so he is an actor in the death of another person either justified or negligent (TBD) - the real question is DID HE MURDER THAT KID - the answer to that question is NOT AT ALL CLEAR based upon the limited informaiton that we have. (Remember that there are NO CHARGES against this guy, and trust me a DA makes his bones on Charging and Prosecuting People.) LIke I said before, time will tell.

Just be cool, let the facts come out as they do in time and the answers will appear. This case is similar to others where a lot of folks were ready to BURY the permit holder, and well, that didnt happen.

Right will prevail, have some faith.

[Pinnacle]

It wasn't that long ago that people here were bashing a MN permit holder who shot and killed a person who had robbed someone else. Several people, before the facts came out, were absolutely CERTAIN he had violated the law and would most absolutely be charged. How did that ultimately resolve?

I forget that in the blind defense of any permit holder, walking around with skittles and ice tea, is just the same as robbing someone.

Dude, really....??


Relax, take a deep breath and count to 10. NOBODY shoudl judge anyone here. The facts arent all in - and remember that the DA Down there had 3-WEEKS to think this one over.

Funny how he is waling free.

[dismal]

Proof that Zimmerman is a racist...

[url]freebeacon.com/registered-dem-killed-trayvon/[/url]

sent from my droid.

[tman]

I forget that in the blind defense of any permit holder, walking around with skittles and ice tea, is just the same as robbing someone.

Nice try.

Skittles and ice tea are irrelevant as the fact that Zimmerman had a religious icon in his pocket at the time. (OK, I made that up, but it illustrates the irrelevance of the **** that Martin had in his possession.)

Zimmerman recognized that Martin did not live in his neighborhood. He understood that there were on-going thefts and burglaries. He wanted the man to be checked out. He didn't want the police to lose him, so he followed.

Anything wrong with that so far?

[jdege]

I forget that in the blind defense of any permit holder, walking around with skittles and ice tea, is just the same as robbing someone.

If Martin had been engaged in robbing someone, Zimmerman wouldn't have been justified in shooting him.

The reason Zimmerman may have been justified in shooting Martin was because Martin was on top of him, bashing his scull into the pavement.

The only reason Zimmerman may not have been justified in shooting Martin would have been if he'd assaulted Martin in the first place.

What Zimmerman said to the 911 dispatcher, or what the 911 dispatcher said to him, has no relevance. What racial slurs Zimmerman may or not have made have no relevance. Whether Zimmerman followed Martin, or did not, Whether Zimmerman should have followed Martin, or not, none of it has any relevance.

Did Martin pose an immediate threat of death or grievous bodily injury to Zimmerman? Clearly the answer is yes.

That means that Zimmerman was justified in using deadly force in response, unless Zimmerman had assaulted Martin in the first place. Not followed, not approached, not challenged, but actually assaulted. Did Zimmerman attack Martin? If not, his use of deadly force was justified.

[goalie]

You know what the definition of "awesome" is? It's people having very, VERY passionate opinions about subjects of which they have insufficient (or no) evidence/information with which to form an informed opinion.

Justa say'n.....

[BemidjiDweller]

I forget that in the blind defense of any permit holder, walking around with skittles and ice tea, is just the same as robbing someone.

If Martin had been engaged in robbing someone, Zimmerman wouldn't have been justified in shooting him.

The reason Zimmerman may have been justified in shooting Martin was because Martin was on top of him, bashing his scull into the pavement.

The only reason Zimmerman may not have been justified in shooting Martin would have been if he'd assaulted Martin in the first place.

What Zimmerman said to the 911 dispatcher, or what the 911 dispatcher said to him, has no relevance. What racial slurs Zimmerman may or not have made have no relevance. Whether Zimmerman followed Martin, or did not, Whether Zimmerman should have followed Martin, or not, none of it has any relevance.

Did Martin pose an immediate threat of death or grievous bodily injury to Zimmerman? Clearly the answer is yes.

That means that Zimmerman was justified in using deadly force in response, unless Zimmerman had assaulted Martin in the first place. Not followed, not approached, not challenged, but actually assaulted. Did Zimmerman attack Martin? If not, his use of deadly force was justified.

This.

[jdege]

You know what the definition of "awesome" is? It's people having very, VERY passionate opinions about subjects of which they have insufficient (or no) evidence/information with which to form an informed opinion.

I understand that you are addressing the group, but your post immediately followed mine, so...

There's a reason why all of my posts in this thread have been in the subjunctive.

Justa say'n.....

Ditto.

[trex021]

I forget that in the blind defense of any permit holder, walking around with skittles and ice tea, is just the same as robbing someone.

If Martin had been engaged in robbing someone, Zimmerman wouldn't have been justified in shooting him.

The reason Zimmerman may have been justified in shooting Martin was because Martin was on top of him, bashing his scull into the pavement.

The only reason Zimmerman may not have been justified in shooting Martin would have been if he'd assaulted Martin in the first place.

What Zimmerman said to the 911 dispatcher, or what the 911 dispatcher said to him, has no relevance. What racial slurs Zimmerman may or not have made have no relevance. Whether Zimmerman followed Martin, or did not, Whether Zimmerman should have followed Martin, or not, none of it has any relevance.

Did Martin pose an immediate threat of death or grievous bodily injury to Zimmerman? Clearly the answer is yes.

That means that Zimmerman was justified in using deadly force in response, unless Zimmerman had assaulted Martin in the first place. Not followed, not approached, not challenged, but actually assaulted. Did Zimmerman attack Martin? If not, his use of deadly force was justified.

Excellent post. +1

[Fearless Leader]

Can someone please tell me why black people always claim everything is racist??

[CraigJS]

Why do trolls try to bait people ?

[jdege]

Why do trolls try to bait people ?

A more apropos question is - why was Martin acting so suspiciously, when he had every right to be where he was?

Why, when he was seen walking down the street, in a community where he had every right to be, did he pull up his hood and run away?

[CraigJS]

What does my quote, have to do with your response? It was directed to the previous post. Or am I missing something here?