Not sure how he's a trigger happy vigilante...do shovels have triggers now?

It's worth mentioning this is likely scripted, and not real. A real defendant would be insane to volunteer that race was such a factor, or that he attacked a kid with a weapon from behind.
Googling their names, or neighborhood watch attack with shovel turns up nothing. Seems like this would have been big news if it happened.
Color me suspicious.

Considering he could be locked up and/or beaten and/or killed by the cops or neighborhood watch for much less, it's probably great parenting to condition him to be overly paranoid about the consequences of bad behavior.

Oh don't hate them for their race.Hate them for their Player Class--Gangsta,where anyone who figures out how to string a dozen words together in front of a microphone feels entitled to Phat Lootz,or they blame "the Man" for their failures and consider random acts of violence and theft their Just Retribution we somehow owe them. I can appreciate Good Music of any sort,and acknowledge the Art and Craft of its creating auible sculpture with sound and voice. However,I will say I can do so without buying into a whole subculture that thinks wearing your pants half off is a fashion statement. I don't see the Enya Posse in Blue Wold on their faces and sporting designer kilts running around(although we should!). To quote a line from Animal House "Stoned Drunk and Stupid is no way to go through life,son.",and that's what the subtext of the subculture amounts to. Flashy glamour is nice,but none of it matters in the face of Real Work and the instinctual Need to get it done. This seperates the Artist from the Mob,wanting to devote time away from a constant party and to physical and emotional labour to conjure something meaningful magical and new. Stepping back to admire the fruits of your handywork is a high no mass of shiney strangers can ever hope to beat. Someone in that Flashmob has orginizational skills...300 people is quite a turn out. Wouldn't it be Nice if they had much enthusiasm for something Positive,like a neighborhood watch? twittering about crimes happening to the police can help keep their neighborhoods safe,which are crawling with drugs and shoot outs."Yo Dawg! The Bruthah from that Bodega Shooting is here on Main Street!" Maybe if the "Hood wasn't such a Scarey Place,businesses would come in. And if they didn't feel it was their right to steal,they might find good jobs from the new businesses and earn a living instead of demanding one.

But one has to have Morals for that. I see none in that video. People who don't mind rampaging in front of a sea of security cameras.Can you convince such people to Play Nice at all,or past the point when doing the right thing inconveniences you?Do people sometimes need the threat of Guns even to keep civil? Suddenly snide remarks about Evolution suddenly make SENSE. But its SOcial Evolution at play here,and at fault. WE are Rome trying to convince a native of the Province they conquered to kindly not shit in the street. Sometimes you need clubs for that. But something tells me these people need their lives managed for them. Maybe wall up a ten block radius of a poor neighborhood,move all the families out nd let them play hip Hop as a live action video game where the bullets are real and cameras everywhere record the drama Live! The ultimate Reality TV Urban Experience fully packaged and ready for heavy merchendising! They can compete for resources and earn fabulous prizes,and hopefully only shoot themslves instead of the rest of us just trying to get on with life.


The Hip Hop experience...Unrated on Pay Per View.Visit our Website and Twitter your opinion on the utterly SICK way DJ Do Wah Ditty Diddy Dum Diddy Do had his ear shot off in the fight for the corner of 134th street and Avenue F! Log in with your SmartPhone and soak up all the sleeze with the HoodieCam!

It'll happen. You'll see. It's very Roman.

>> ^shang:

He's a hero in my book, but many would call me a "redneck hick" so I really don't give 2 shits about retarded political correctness. I do believe in a right to protect your home and neighborhood. And I have pulled a gun and fired it on a trespasser before, my situation we had trouble with groups of guys "cruising" the roads late at night drunk, in a small town where usually only half a dozen cops on duty any particular shift, cops were called and told to call back if they were seen again.
This time they had stopped car got out and being loud, cursing, raising hell, my and neighbor called police and were waiting when my neighbor was threatened, I went inside got my gun, fired it once into air, they scattered except 1 ran at me and I shot him, course being scared in the moment I hit him in the thigh and he didn't die but him and his friends were locked up and the guy I shot wound up having to pay restitution to me and my neighbor the judge ruled which even surprised me.
anyhow that was nearly 18 years ago today and yes it was bunch of black thugs but hell trespassers get shot every few months in these areas and in plenty of rural areas.


I guess if you picked a car and decided it was going to be the guys "cruising", followed it, and provoked it by following you might have an analogy.

1) No trespassing if the guy is on the sidewalk and has reason to be in the neighborhood (which he did).

2) No proof of any wrongdoing besides Zimmerman's word, and Zimmerman's word is garbage. Not even one witness to the events...just parts and pieces through multiple people who "know" Zimmerman and are going to make assumptions based on him being neighborhood watch and the captain of it at that... an "authority" if you will. They'll argue Trayvon's past comes into question because he was supposedly caught with marijuana and probably "dealing" it. But of the two, Zimmerman has a police record which is used as an example of him "learning from his mistakes". And he and his wife got caught for perjury within the last month.

So....I'm not seeing someone who "did everything right and above board" here.

While in your circumstance you were on your own property and had saw your neighbor get threatened and had someone charge you. It's about as clear cut as it gets when it happens on your own property. Be a little different if you shot the guy near his house when he was on his way home after you followed him into a dark walkway when he ran from you.

If he's a hero, we're screwed.

Hmmm, interesting trailer, but I feel like there was already a trailer for this almost a year ago and then it disappeared. I would have said maybe because of the whole neighborhood watch thing, but then again, I think it was far before the whole Trevon Martin thing that it disappeared. I wonder if it had to be completely retooled because of bad test audiences or something... hmm to the internets to do some research...

>> ^Locque:

>> ^Ryjkyj:
>> ^kymbos:
Yeah, if you're raising awareness you might need to post a link to a more coherent description. Did Marky Mark assault someone?>> ^Locque:
>> ^conan:
Yes. The racist fucker you beats people half to death, then goes to jail two days for it and then living his life being convinced he'd "payed for his mistakes" and that telling folks he hasn't have a problem finding sleep. Fuck him.
Yes i repeat myself on that topic but i have the feeling raising awareness is the least thing i can do, even if it's of no use.

Wait...what? Did I miss something?


Yup.

I genuinely don't believe in holding something against him for what happened in another lifetime- don't get me wrong, I'm no Marky Mark fan at all, but that stuff is ancient history and neither of us know him. He might still be a shitbag, but he could be a saint. None of us are privy to his private life really, or who he is as a person. If it had happened say, in 2006, maybe then it would seem more relevant, but nothing about his life or character now seems to resemble what it was then. To be honest, pronouncing doom on him for something he did when he was 16 makes one look pretty bad in my eyes. Having said that, I dunno, maybe he is still the same unrepentant racist douchebag. But I have considerable reason to doubt.


In my view of the world there are things that can be forgiven or forgotten, but being a racist dickhead and assaulting others (this is not schoolyard beating we're talking about) are not among those things. But it seems you just have to be a) president or b) actor / singer or c) a stupid white self-proclaimed neighborhood watch guy and suddenly the otherwise strict moral codes of US culture don't apply to you ;-)

@Porksandwich:

According to Zimmerman, he was carrying his weapon in plain sight. So if he's telling the truth, I assume Martin would've seen it. Now, this is still all just speculation, but whatever the events leading up to the confrontation, if I felt I absolutely needed to hit someone who I knew had a gun, I would absolutely make sure that person was unconscious before the end of my assault. All this shit about how Martin had a responsibility to back off once he'd subdued Zimmerman is crazy. As if you would hit someone who had a gun and then back off and tell them to calm down.

Anyway, I could speculate forever, but what I don't have to speculate on is this: I support an American's right to carry a gun, even in public. There's a reason though, that most (practically all) neighborhood watch groups have policies about patrolling unarmed and in groups. The reason is to avoid vigilante justice, and even just unfortunate confrontations or misunderstandings that end in tragedy. The recommendation in ninety-nine percent of watch groups is that even if you have a license to carry a gun, you do not carry it on patrol and you always patrol in groups to avoid situations that escalate to unnecessary ends.

All that said though, the law is still open to interpretation. Even if Martin loses a murder trial, he could still appeal a conviction in a higher court and bring the whole thing back to square one. Unfortunately, this tragedy is just a another messed up event in a sometimes shitty world that people sometimes have to learn to live with.

Sorry for the reeeaaally long post @marinara but I was trying to be brief:

1. "Zimmerman was not part of any REGISTERED neighborhood watch group."

Zimmerman did indeed say that he was "captain" of his neighborhood watch, and I can't find any proof that he wasn't, do you know why? Because there is no documentation regarding his neighborhood watch program, because it was unregistered and existed only in the heads of two or three people. And, might I add, it was certainly not "official".

When a person forms a neighborhood watch, it might be important to take into account the community that they live in. What if the community doesn't want a neighborhood watch program? What if they do, but they feel they don't want you representing them, as some people in Zimmerman's community clearly felt?

The fact is that Zimmmerman's self-appointed title carried no legitimacy at all. If my friend Cletus and I want to call ourselves the neighborhood watch, we can. I can call myself "secretary treasurer" and he can call himself "supreme overlord". But it has no more meaning than when my friend Nick and I get together and call ourselves a "fourteenth level archer", and "Nargok, the dwarven battlemage" (respectively). Only, in the case of the neighborhood watch titles, one must consider the community they are attempting to represent. This is why most watch programs (like the one you linked to) register themselves with the National Sheriff's Association, or some other organization.

2. "Oh and I documented a procedure for neighborhood watches to arrest people and a simple google search will correct you of the idea that the watch should not carry guns."

What you documented on the "City of Oxnard, Police Department" website was that citizen watch volunteers (who are registered) are encouraged to make arrests when they have seen a crime being committed, in particular, when they see someone committing the crime of vandalism. All US citizens have the right to make a citizen's arrest, but no one has the right to arrest or detain anyone for "suspicious behavior", even if that person is walking down the street wearing a hoodie, and looking skeptically at the person following them.

As to the gun, the same Oxnard website you linked to, on the same page, advises that no one carry a weapon at all, except for a heavy-duty flashlight that might be used to defend one's self in an emergency. Unfortunately, a Google search relating to neighborhood watch organizations carrying guns is inundated with articles and polls regarding this tragic case. The fox news polls indicate that a minority of people questioned think neighborhood watch members should carry guns, but those people do not reflect the views of any actual organization (that exists outside of its member's heads) that I know of.

I'd like to refer you to the response to the NY Times from Curtis Sliwa, founder of the Guardian Angels. The Angels are one of the most prolific watch organizations in history, with chapters all over the world. They were founded in the late seventies in NYC when the areas they patrolled were considered wastelands. Despite several attempts on the founder's life, and the loss of a few of its members over the years, they still do not advise carrying guns.

3. "...why do you insist on saying martin was an unarmed child? This is absurd."

I say it for two reasons: the first is that Martin was unarmed. There are no eyewitness reports, or even statements from Zimmerman that I've heard, that indicate that Martin attempted to use his bag of Skittles or his can of iced-tea as a weapon. The second reason I say it is that according to the US legal system, Martin was still a child at the time of his death. If he were in the "Child Protective Services' program, he wouldn't have gotten out until he was eighteen, which is the age that US citizens officially become adults (unless they're insane). Some children are tried as adults in the US, but child-victims are never represented as adults.

I understand if you think it's more appropriate to refer to Martin as a teenager, or possibly an adolescent, or even a young adult. But I don't think so, and I'll tell you why: I'm thirty-one years old. I'm not much older by comparison, but when I see a seventeen-year-old kid, I rarely think to myself, "he's got everything figured out". In fact, I rarely think that about most adults. Sure, I think most kids are smarter than people give them credit for, but I don't think Martin was mature enough to know the law and develop an appropriate response to being pursued for no reason by a man armed with a gun. And the US legal system hasn't made a determination in his case yet anyway.

Oh and I documented a procedure for neighborhood watches to arrest people and a simple google search will correct you of the idea that the watch should not carry guns.

Third, why do you insist on saying martin was an unarmed child? This is absurd.

How can Martin not be 100% innocent? I don't get how you think he could be at all culpable.>> ^Porksandwich:

To be clear on this. I don't think either Zimmerman or Martin is 100% innocent in this. I just feel that Zimmerman is the one who caused the whole event to happen.
There are some articles where police admit they have about a 1 minute window of where they don't know what happened.
There is Trayvon's girlfriend who said she was on the phone with him where she heard some specific questions asked by both parties and then some pushing or other something and the line went dead. If her story is true, they can verify it by cell phone logs as to when the line went dead and if she was on the phone with him when she claims.
If they can verify she was on the phone with him, her story actually lines up with what some of Zimmerman says. But they have not released what Zimmerman said the exact conversation was. He claims that Trayvon said something like "You got a problem?" and zimmerman said "no" and trayvon said "well you got one now" and hit him. Girlfriend says nothing like that was said, but the line may have been dead by then. So does Zimmerman admit to pushing or that Trayvon pushed him? Do the questions they asked each other line up with what the girlfriend heard? Does the girlfriend think Trayvon was scared/concerned/pissed/whatever?
What was the orientation of the fight? Zimmerman says Trayvon was beating his head and slamming it into the ground. How was Trayvon standing over him? Was he straddling him? Was he off to the side? Was he above Zimmerman's head? Was he sitting on his chest and beating him?
How did Zimmerman shoot Trayvon and not end up underneath him when he collapsed? Report says he fell with his arms underneath him face down in the grass. You could assume he grab for his chest when he was shot, but how did Zimmerman avoid him? How did Zimmerman not end up with blood on him? Do his clothes match with what he said happened when you look at it again and look at the clothing? The grass stains do, but does the blood?
We are to believe that Zimmerman was on his back and drew his gun from his waistband holster (they don't specify when he kept it). So his access to this gun is going to be impaired if Trayvon is sitting on him pounding his face. Plus he's going to be on his back when he shoots unless Trayvon let him up.
Far too many questions for Zimmerman to not be kept for the 48 hours they are allowed to hold someone while they investigated the case. They questioned him and let him go. Perhaps they answered all this and never released it. But then you have Zimmerman not being tox screened and them sending a narcotics detective instead of a homicide detective to do the investigation (according to http://abcnews.go.com/US/neighborhood-watch-
killing-911-tape-reveals-racial-slur/story?id=15966309).
I'm not saying crucify Zimmerman or that he needs to have a bounty on his head. But the questions and no answers or address to them is not a positive sign that this crime was investigated properly. And since it has been weeks after the fact when the federal investigators were brought in, the chance of determining it given the iffy police work up front is going to be a lot less possible. That still does not mean Zimmerman's accounting is accurate until they exhausted possibilities. Not just go with what seems most apparent. If Zimmerman were fabricating, he'd pick the best explanation given the scene if he had planned or taken anytime at all to make something up. Plus his recollection of events are going to be driven out his natural bias in the situation, any person's view point would be.
Also in a gated community with a rash of breakins, I would think there would be some home security and other security cameras installed to try to curtail it. Especially on the "clubhouse" Zimmerman references in his 911 call.

To be clear on this. I don't think either Zimmerman or Martin is 100% innocent in this. I just feel that Zimmerman is the one who caused the whole event to happen.

There are some articles where police admit they have about a 1 minute window of where they don't know what happened.

There is Trayvon's girlfriend who said she was on the phone with him where she heard some specific questions asked by both parties and then some pushing or other something and the line went dead. If her story is true, they can verify it by cell phone logs as to when the line went dead and if she was on the phone with him when she claims.

If they can verify she was on the phone with him, her story actually lines up with what some of Zimmerman says. But they have not released what Zimmerman said the exact conversation was. He claims that Trayvon said something like "You got a problem?" and zimmerman said "no" and trayvon said "well you got one now" and hit him. Girlfriend says nothing like that was said, but the line may have been dead by then. So does Zimmerman admit to pushing or that Trayvon pushed him? Do the questions they asked each other line up with what the girlfriend heard? Does the girlfriend think Trayvon was scared/concerned/pissed/whatever?

What was the orientation of the fight? Zimmerman says Trayvon was beating his head and slamming it into the ground. How was Trayvon standing over him? Was he straddling him? Was he off to the side? Was he above Zimmerman's head? Was he sitting on his chest and beating him?

How did Zimmerman shoot Trayvon and not end up underneath him when he collapsed? Report says he fell with his arms underneath him face down in the grass. You could assume he grab for his chest when he was shot, but how did Zimmerman avoid him? How did Zimmerman not end up with blood on him? Do his clothes match with what he said happened when you look at it again and look at the clothing? The grass stains do, but does the blood?

We are to believe that Zimmerman was on his back and drew his gun from his waistband holster (they don't specify when he kept it). So his access to this gun is going to be impaired if Trayvon is sitting on him pounding his face. Plus he's going to be on his back when he shoots unless Trayvon let him up.

Far too many questions for Zimmerman to not be kept for the 48 hours they are allowed to hold someone while they investigated the case. They questioned him and let him go. Perhaps they answered all this and never released it. But then you have Zimmerman not being tox screened and them sending a narcotics detective instead of a homicide detective to do the investigation (according to http://abcnews.go.com/US/neighborhood-watch-killing-911-tape-reveals-racial-slur/story?id=15966309).

I'm not saying crucify Zimmerman or that he needs to have a bounty on his head. But the questions and no answers or address to them is not a positive sign that this crime was investigated properly. And since it has been weeks after the fact when the federal investigators were brought in, the chance of determining it given the iffy police work up front is going to be a lot less possible. That still does not mean Zimmerman's accounting is accurate until they exhausted possibilities. Not just go with what seems most apparent. If Zimmerman were fabricating, he'd pick the best explanation given the scene if he had planned or taken anytime at all to make something up. Plus his recollection of events are going to be driven out his natural bias in the situation, any person's view point would be.

Also in a gated community with a rash of breakins, I would think there would be some home security and other security cameras installed to try to curtail it. Especially on the "clubhouse" Zimmerman references in his 911 call.

>> ^Porksandwich:

>> ^Darkhand:
>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
@Darkhand.
Did you even listen to Cenk's point?
A heavy adult male with a gun stalks an unarmed teen, then claim self-defense..
What logic are you using to conclude Zimmerman is somehow not guilt of murder?
What if Zimmerman had stalked a 17 year old white girl, then shot her dead after she fought back?
What you need to see more evidence then?

Someone stalking you, whether anyone likes it or not, is not a just cause for you to turn around and beat the crap out of them.
If Martin turned around and punched him and knocked him on his ass I think that would have been a justifiable amount of force. But continuing to beat on him as some people suggesting to "knock him out" you don't understand how the body works. You can't tell the difference between "Oh yeah I knocked him out" and "Awesome! Internal bleeding and his brain is swelling now I can get away".
Does everyone here really believe because Zimmerman was being over zealous they feel he deserves to get knocked down and have someone sit on top of him and continuously punch him in the head?

According to the SYG law, which they claim let's Zimmerman walk away with no charges. Yes Trayvon had the right to defend himself from a pursuer if he felt that he was in danger. The level of damage he could inflict was dependent on how much danger he thought he was in. The law defines everything as "reasonable" for the level it has to meet. If someone chased you down in a vehicle, you escaped him and he continued looking until he found you again. That to me is reasonable grounds to assume this person means you harm.
Plus, I still have trouble fathoming how Trayvon got within striking distance of Zimmerman in the first place. I find it entirely unlikely that he would approach his stalker. So I believe that Zimmerman cornered him or caught him in a hiding spot. It just never would have happened if Zimmerman would have 1) not followed him 2) not got out of his vehicle.
And I'll just throw this out, carrying a gun carries with it a certain expectation that you will use said gun otherwise carrying it will end up getting you shot if you draw and don't use it. I think Zimmerman felt confident due to his gun and his willingness to use it. Substitute any other rational adult and they would not hunt down a kid and approach him to within striking distance, it's too predatory to continue forward once you've gotten within speaking distance of someone who has tried to evade you once already. Keep in mind that Trayvon had not committed a crime to warrant the amount of attention Zimmerman was giving him, nor the need to approach him beyond the distance a loud speaking or even shouting voice would carry. I certainly would not approach a kid on public property who ran away from me initially. I may be more inclined to hunt them down if they were on my private property or in a dangerous area, but neither of those fit this scenario.
The act of pursuing someone who is trying to get away is by it's nature aggressive. Martin had the right to defend himself from a stranger demonstrating aggressive behavior. The language and frustration Zimmerman expressed on the phone call also suggests he was not pleased to have someone get away on his watch, and perhaps semi-racist in nature.
On the flip side. If Trayvon had chased Zimmerman and still ended up shot to death, would this conversation even be happening? Trayvon would have been provoking the encounter and even if he never laid a finger on Zimmerman, the law states you can use deadly force if you believe someone means to great bodily harm or commit a felony.
It's a joke that Zimmerman has the right to "defend himself" with deadly force, in an encounter he forced upon a teenager against all advice and all material that Zimmerman had presented at a neighborhood watch meeting. The presenter came forward and spoke about it. Under the law he has to meet criteria as the aggressor. I do not believe the police have released information showing he fulfilled those criteria, and his immunity under SYG should be forfeit.
The language on the call "coon", the lack of a tox screen, and the various other screw ups by police. PLUS not holding him until they at least interviewed everyone they could find within a block of the shooting. Now all of those people are potentially tainted by Zimmerman's presence, the media coverage, and the bias of the sources of this information. It's up to the second investigation to hopefully see that they screwed the pooch and see if it was because they are incompetent, racist, or covering up for Zimmerman.
I don't blame anyone for being outrageously pissed and concerned over this. It essentially means you can walk down the street, stalk any lone person, and shoot them dead if they have anything in their hand you can claim looked like a gun or say anything like "I'll kill you...........................if you come any closer." Just the last part won't make it out of their mouth if you have your gun good and ready to blow a hole in them.


Pork that's the problem though even your own article says "I have my doubts, I don't see how" but we don't know all the facts.

This law should not be under scrutiny until it's actually used and if it actually gets zimmerman off.

And the problem with your Theory about Martin being able to continuously pummel Zimmerman while he is on the ground is not true. Once Zimmerman is on his back the "Perceived Threat" is neutralized. It works the same way here in jersey with self defense but I can't use a gun. I answer force with equal force. Once my opponent is disabled I can't keep wailing on them.

Being stalked, in my opinion, does not allow you to feel like your life is in danger. Martin used his cellphone to text his girlfriend, why didn't he call the cops and try to get help?

But then again I'm not a lawyer OR a judge and nobody else is. So everything I say here could be wrong. We don't have all the facts so anyone claiming to know EXACTLY what happened is wrong.

It's just funny because it seems to me that liberals are siding with Martin and Conservatives and siding with Zimmerman. Everyone seems to have their own set of "Facts" and nobody is willing to believe that their own side (Liberal Media or Conservative Media) is injecting facts that may or may not be 100% credible into the case.

Everyone seems to be using this case as a means to push their own policy whether it's gun control reform, minority rights, or personal security. Everyone seems to just be ignoring the tragedy that some kid has had the rest of his life taken from him. Because really that's all we do know!

The Young Turks narrative is certainly biased and emotional. However:

1. Zimmerman was not part of any registered neighborhood watch group. Period.
2. No neighborhood watch group in the United States advises carrying a gun, confronting a suspect, or doing anything other than calling the police when you see suspicious behavior.
3. According to the site you linked to, I don't see anything they list as "suspicious behavior" that can be applied to Treyvon Martin.
4. Plenty of people in America wear guns on their hips. Assuming they are always cops would be completely ridiculous. (I'm not sure why the fact that he displayed a gun makes you feel better?)
5. Zimmerman's injuries, though MAYBE caused by Martin, were a direct result of his escalating the situation contrary to the advice of both police and neighborhood watch guidelines.

I don't think Zimmerman ran out to shoot someone, he ran out to catch someone, and when things didn't go his way, he started screaming, because he realized he wasn't Charles Bronson.

Zimmerman chased down an unarmed child for no crime other than walking home. There was no justifiable reason for him to escalate the situation to the point where Martin felt he needed to physically defend himself. Not one. Martin's murder was a direct result of Zimmerman's actions, not Martin's, whatever the motive.

http://www.hlntv.com/article/2012/03/21/police-report-martin-death-details-scene-shooting
is dox for the holster and injuries,
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/witness_supports_self_defense_story_hJ7s3EBd9LtYlZaE41WzFP
for the eyewitness
http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmermans-attorney-friend-speak-trayvon-martin-incident/story?id=15999256#.T3AonlQrs9Q
neighborhood watch commander documented above

>> ^Darkhand:

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
@Darkhand.
Did you even listen to Cenk's point?
A heavy adult male with a gun stalks an unarmed teen, then claim self-defense..
What logic are you using to conclude Zimmerman is somehow not guilt of murder?
What if Zimmerman had stalked a 17 year old white girl, then shot her dead after she fought back?
What you need to see more evidence then?

Someone stalking you, whether anyone likes it or not, is not a just cause for you to turn around and beat the crap out of them.
If Martin turned around and punched him and knocked him on his ass I think that would have been a justifiable amount of force. But continuing to beat on him as some people suggesting to "knock him out" you don't understand how the body works. You can't tell the difference between "Oh yeah I knocked him out" and "Awesome! Internal bleeding and his brain is swelling now I can get away".
Does everyone here really believe because Zimmerman was being over zealous they feel he deserves to get knocked down and have someone sit on top of him and continuously punch him in the head?


According to the SYG law, which they claim let's Zimmerman walk away with no charges. Yes Trayvon had the right to defend himself from a pursuer if he felt that he was in danger. The level of damage he could inflict was dependent on how much danger he thought he was in. The law defines everything as "reasonable" for the level it has to meet. If someone chased you down in a vehicle, you escaped him and he continued looking until he found you again. That to me is reasonable grounds to assume this person means you harm.

Plus, I still have trouble fathoming how Trayvon got within striking distance of Zimmerman in the first place. I find it entirely unlikely that he would approach his stalker. So I believe that Zimmerman cornered him or caught him in a hiding spot. It just never would have happened if Zimmerman would have 1) not followed him 2) not got out of his vehicle.

And I'll just throw this out, carrying a gun carries with it a certain expectation that you will use said gun otherwise carrying it will end up getting you shot if you draw and don't use it. I think Zimmerman felt confident due to his gun and his willingness to use it. Substitute any other rational adult and they would not hunt down a kid and approach him to within striking distance, it's too predatory to continue forward once you've gotten within speaking distance of someone who has tried to evade you once already. Keep in mind that Trayvon had not committed a crime to warrant the amount of attention Zimmerman was giving him, nor the need to approach him beyond the distance a loud speaking or even shouting voice would carry. I certainly would not approach a kid on public property who ran away from me initially. I may be more inclined to hunt them down if they were on my private property or in a dangerous area, but neither of those fit this scenario.

The act of pursuing someone who is trying to get away is by it's nature aggressive. Martin had the right to defend himself from a stranger demonstrating aggressive behavior. The language and frustration Zimmerman expressed on the phone call also suggests he was not pleased to have someone get away on his watch, and perhaps semi-racist in nature.

On the flip side. If Trayvon had chased Zimmerman and still ended up shot to death, would this conversation even be happening? Trayvon would have been provoking the encounter and even if he never laid a finger on Zimmerman, the law states you can use deadly force if you believe someone means to great bodily harm or commit a felony.

It's a joke that Zimmerman has the right to "defend himself" with deadly force, in an encounter he forced upon a teenager against all advice and all material that Zimmerman had presented at a neighborhood watch meeting. The presenter came forward and spoke about it. Under the law he has to meet criteria as the aggressor. I do not believe the police have released information showing he fulfilled those criteria, and his immunity under SYG should be forfeit.

The language on the call "coon", the lack of a tox screen, and the various other screw ups by police. PLUS not holding him until they at least interviewed everyone they could find within a block of the shooting. Now all of those people are potentially tainted by Zimmerman's presence, the media coverage, and the bias of the sources of this information. It's up to the second investigation to hopefully see that they screwed the pooch and see if it was because they are incompetent, racist, or covering up for Zimmerman.

I don't blame anyone for being outrageously pissed and concerned over this. It essentially means you can walk down the street, stalk any lone person, and shoot them dead if they have anything in their hand you can claim looked like a gun or say anything like "I'll kill you...........................if you come any closer." Just the last part won't make it out of their mouth if you have your gun good and ready to blow a hole in them.