George Zimmerman Emerged From Hiding for Truck Crash Rescue

Really? Which is against the law. Walking in your own neighborhood, asking a question, or beating someone?

 

The evidence all points to Martin attacking unprovoked. So I will stick with the evidence as opposed to your pre conceived bias.

How do you claim to know whether or not Zimmerman tried to use proportionate force? He tried to defend himself through other means, shouting for help, fending off Martin with his hands the best he coud, until he was pinned down on the ground being pummeled, so your assertion doesn't even stand up to minimal scrutiny.

WRONG< Trayvon was in no imminent danger, in fact he pursued Zimmerman and confronted him!

 

I say good for him. He helped at a time when help was needed. But...this in no way excuses him for killing an unarmed kid who had committed no crime.
He can save 4 people a day for the next 20 years, it doesn't change the fact of what he did.
Let's not forget, had the court done it's duty in protecting the juries integrity by not letting them have UNSUPERVISED visits with family and friends...had the court NOT let a known CCW advocate with a looming book deal, in as a witness....Zimmerman would be behind bars paying for his crime where he belongs, not out tooling around looking for accidents to get involved in.

 

SO the guy who voluntarily mentored black kids, also helped some strangers out of a wreck??

Why that RACIST BASTARD!!!

 

you do realize that helping out a black person or even five black people...doesn't diqualify you from prejudice or racist behavior, right? It's silly to think that it does. We could all just say "well yesterday I helped a black lady with her groceries...so clearly my antiquated wrongheaded ideas about young black men is not racist"

 

I'm not sure why you keep insinuating that Zimmerman wanted to ask Trayvon a question... According to his own recreation, when he was eventually asked by Trayvon "What's your problem?", he didn't ask anything (or identify himself).

Are you asking why a teenager who was being followed around at night by a random stranger felt he might be at risk? It seems pretty obvious to me, especially when that potential psycho failed to give any reason for his actions or identify himself when confronted.

- - - Updated - - -

What question did Zimmerman ask when given the opportunity? According to his own recreation - none.
Since when is defending yourself against a probable psycho (the only conclusion Trayvon could have come to given Zimmerman's actions to that point) a crime? Sounds like SYG to me...

 

What evidence? Would you consider someone stalking your kid around the neighborhood at night reason to believe the person is up to no good?

right, a guy who undertook MMA training 3 times a week not only couldn't fend off a teenager, but didn't leave a single mark on him at all (other than a bullet wound)...

Zimmerman followed Trayvon in his vehicle, then got out and followed him on foot! Eventually, Trayvon stopped trying to run away (as he had the legal right to do under SYG) and asked Zimmerman what his problem was. That's according to Zimmerman - the only person with a motive to lie in an attempt to make Trayvon look bad - and it still sounds like Trayvon was within his rights.

 

Nope. Already know that he could have been home in seconds but decided to take out the 'cracker' who pissed him off.

 

To me who has been at the scene of many roadside accidents to check to see if I could help I am thankful that there are people like him who stopped. And, he didn't know if the victims were dead, injured, whether there was a gas leak and sparks, he just stopped and ran to help and unless somebody is going to try to say he would have ran away if it had been more serious than it was ..... he is a hero..

Me too.

Me too and no it is not as there are many who just pass by even when they are the first on scene.

 

He should have called and asked the 911 dispatcher again, and if they said wait, he should have left those people in there to die. That would be the right thing to do.

 

Given that he wasn't doing anything wrong, he had no legal obligation to run home. It's called "Stand Your Ground".

 

Finally! Someone uses that law in the right context....sort of, but at least it has to do with retreat. It is a defense though, so it doesn't work to give you a right to do something, just a justification in a criminal context. He had the right to be outside by default, and their is no duty to run from strangers anywhere.

 

Under varying circumstances, none of them. It is perfectly legal to beat a boy bumper senseless if he doesn't back off and leave you alone, or if it looks like he has a weapon.

Z admits that Martin became aware of the weapon. Z had no right to expect Martin to let him keep it.

 

See how you react when you are surprised by someone laying in wait for you. Guess what you would "ask" after a punch in the nose.

- - - Updated - - -

LOL, yeah, after pounding him he became very aware.

 

Once again, for those who might not be aware of the facts that have been presented numerous times...

After being stalked around the neighborhood, Trayvon asked Zimmerman "What's your problem?"
Zimmerman didn't identify himself as neighborhood watch, security, or anything else. He didn't try to ask any questions, or given any reason why he was following a teenager around the neighborhood at night.

That's when Trayvon understandably assumed the worst and punched him. It's called defending yourself. If Trayvon had been pale and named "Chuck", this wouldn't be an issue.

 

That was a misuse of the Castle Doctrine. Both had every right to be there. Both, as citizens have the duty to behave themselves. One decided that violence was the answer and the Castle Doctrine only comes into play when you are threatened with harm. While being attacked, simple self defense applies. The reason it was not relied on in court is because it didn't apply. If you don't understand that, you don't understand the Castle Doctrine.

 

If you are interested in the facts, then you wouldn't say such silly things. Stalked? That has a well defined legal description that did not apply. Are you saying that Zimmerman didn't have a right to be in his own neighborhood? You even point out that Martin initiated the conversation so who do you think has a duty to behave themselves? Then you even point out that Martin was the aggressor. I don't know how much more disjointed your thinking can be if you claim those are facts then reverse the meaning.

 

stalk
verb (used without object)
1. to pursue or approach prey, quarry, etc., stealthily.
2. to walk with measured, stiff, or haughty strides: He was so angry he stalked away without saying goodbye.
3. to proceed in a steady, deliberate, or sinister manner: Famine stalked through the nation.
4. Obsolete . to walk or go stealthily along.
5. to pursue (game, a person, etc.) stealthily.
6. to proceed through (an area) in search of prey or quarry: to stalk the woods for game.
7. to proceed or spread through in a steady or sinister manner: Disease stalked the land.

Yeah, I used stalked. At the point when you start having to twist the definition of individual words to find an argument, the argument is over.
Both had a legal right to be in the area, which is why Trayvon had a right to defend himself from someone who chased him around the neighborhood without any justification or explanation.

 

You are hilarious. Chased? Look who is twisting in the wind and ends up proving that Zimmerman had every right to defend himself using Martin as the example.

 

There is no disputing the fact that Zimmerman was harassing Trayvon without cause by following him around at night.
There is no disputing the fact that Trayvon was defending himself from a (understandably) perceived threat.
There is no disputing (given that Saint George said so during his reenactment of the night) that Trayvon asked him what his problem was before there was any physical confrontation, and Zimmerman never identified himself or explained why he was following Trayvon.

I believe that pretty much means there is no RATIONAL dispute left. I'll choose not to respond to any irrational posts, as I'd just be repeating myself anyway.

 

Castle Doctrine has to do with being in your home. It didn't apply here.

 

this point of view seems to be pretty common, although there are no facts to actually support it. In all reality we have no facts other than an unarmed teen got into an altercation with an armed man, who was following him.

we have no facts pointing towards:
who initiated the conflict
who threw the first punch
who was relenting in the fight right before the shot was fired.


so far we have mostly supposition.

 

We do have to make a certain legal distinction. People keep saying that it's not "illegal" to follow someone. while that my be technically "kinda" true, it's also NOT legal to follow someone. For instance ....if i'm out late at night and someones following me, I can call the police and they will send an officer to investigate. So no, following somone is not your legal right. It's a lazy interpretation of the laws. I beg anyone that thinks following somone is "legal" to go follow a woman for about 10-20 minutes, see how that works out for you.

refer to the judges decision in the trial to remove any wording that "following someone is perfectly legal" because, as she said...it's not legal.

 

Your mind is far too MSNBC polluted for me to reason with. I have listed the evidence, EVIDENCE- not opinion.

 

This summarization is absolute genius. thank you for posting this.