Trayvon shooting.

J_Oliver said:

So by your logic, if zimmerman attacked trayvon first, and trayvon had gotten a hold of zimmermans gun and shot him in self defense, trayvon would have been a murderer. But the situation in reverse was a good shoot?



Ummm, that's kinda exactly what happened... he didn't chase him down and tickle him to death...

Would you instigate a confrontation and shoot someone cause they got the best of you trying to defend themselves?
Cause I can guarantee one thing, trayvon didn't chase zimmerman down to attack him!

1000 to 1 odds says Zimmerman wouldn't have followed if he didn't have that bit of steel courage on his side. And if he's willing to insert himself into a situation just because he's armed, he's carrying for the wrong reasons to begin with.


Sent from my DROID2 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

First of all.. I have no idea where you're logic even begins to come from, but here goes:

That isn't even close to what he said. He elaborated on the situation that had happened, stating that if trayvon had beaten him into unconciousness "which he was well on his way to doing" that he could have taken Zimmerman's firearm away and used it against him. He made no mention at all of the hypothetical situation you're bringing up. TRAYVON WAS BEATING ZIMMERMAN, SLAMMING HIS HEAD INTO THE GROUND. A little excessive don't ya think? Having your head slammed into the ground is definitely a reason to fear for your life, and a very good reason to defend it.

Zimmerman didn't chase him down, did you read anything? At all? He followed him from a distance AFTER talking with law enforcement, so that he could notify the officers arriving on the scene where Trayvon was at. Sounds like a good neighborhood watch to me. Especially since Zimmerman's reports have helped in the past with problems in the neighborhood. Trayvon wasn't just standing around, he was lurking behind houses. Very suspicious behavior and worth notice from a neighborhood watch. Zimmerman didn't chase anybody down, he followed from a distance and lost him, before abruptly coming upon him again. So in your mind, that makes it ok that Trayvon just attacked him and started beating him to death?

Smith45acp said:

So exactly when/how does a fist fight (while you are armed) turn into a reason to pull the gun and shoot your adversary?

I know it's kind of a loaded question.

-On the one hand, I've had my ass kicked before and it's really not as bad as I thought it would be.
-But every time I've ever been in a fight there have been other people around that I really don't think would have stood by and let my already unconscious skull get stomped into the pavement if it came to that.
-But if we're talking about someone who I know has selected me for a purely criminal purpose like robbery, and there aren't other people around that I think would step in, why would I trust him to stop attacking me when I became incapacitated?

If a weapon of pretty much any kind comes out then mine will too, I'm assuming the other person to be unarmed for this scenario as Trayvon was.

Assume it's one on one, he appears unarmed, he's about your size, and there's no talking him out of the fight. What then?

Click to expand...

When the fistfight turns into a fight for your life. Having your head repeatedly slammed into the ground definitely qualifies as a life threatening situation.

hotrod said:

I love your quote at the end of your post. I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6. Is this your position only, and Mr. Zimmerman is ineligible for the same?

Click to expand...

Mr. Zimmerman and anyone else in this situation is entitled to the same.

I'm not ignorant, I know the facts of the case. I'm playing devils advocate from the point of view of an outsider in an attempt to figure out how this has blown up into the media stir that it is. I believe in the same situation I would have fired the shot, I just wouldn't have gotten close enough to provoke the confrontation. I see the conflicting accounts of zimmerman on top of trayvon and the accounts of trayvon on top of zimmerman. By zimmerman's own testimony, trayvon reached for his gun during the struggle... that's enough for me to call it justified. Then there's the witness that stated zimmerman shot trayvon after trayvon went down...

I draw my opinions from multiple sources, not just what I read on a forum. Or just one news source. I don't like the fact that because he was a young black man that Al Sharpton has stuck his nose in it and all of a sudden it's a race issue... don't get me started on that...

Sent from my DROID2 using Tapatalk

J_Oliver said:

Mr. Zimmerman and anyone else in this situation is entitled to the same.

I'm not ignorant, I know the facts of the case. I'm playing devils advocate from the point of view of an outsider in an attempt to figure out how this has blown up into the media stir that it is. I believe in the same situation I would have fired the shot, I just wouldn't have gotten close enough to provoke the confrontation. I see the conflicting accounts of zimmerman on top of trayvon and the accounts of trayvon on top of zimmerman. By zimmerman's own testimony, trayvon reached for his gun during the struggle... that's enough for me to call it justified. Then there's the witness that stated zimmerman shot trayvon after trayvon went down...

I draw my opinions from multiple sources, not just what I read on a forum. Or just one news source. I don't like the fact that because he was a young black man that Al Sharpton has stuck his nose in it and all of a sudden it's a race issue... don't get me started on that...

Sent from my DROID2 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Then I apologize for the tone of my prior post. Your other one made it seem like you just hadn't paid any attention to what was going on. However, I can respect wanting to look at it from all sides. I think the family is a big reason why it turned into such a media issue. I receive emails from an organization that deals with a lot of petitions, and his family has a few of them going around.. with hundreds and hundreds of thousands of signatures. I think the media is just taking advantage of the whole situation in any way they can.

ArmySoldier22 said:

Then I apologize for the tone of my prior post. Your other one made it seem like you just hadn't paid any attention to what was going on. However, I can respect wanting to look at it from all sides. I think the family is a big reason why it turned into such a media issue. I receive emails from an organization that deals with a lot of petitions, and his family has a few of them going around.. with hundreds and hundreds of thousands of signatures. I think the media is just taking advantage of the whole situation in any way they can.

Click to expand...

I probably should have stated my intentions to begin with. I have a scientists mindset in that I wanted true, unbiased responses from people. I agree 100% that the family refuses to believe their son could do any wrong. I have a 5 year old son and my response would have been: "What did he do." While trying to figure out what happened. I guess that's where my parenting differs from 99% of other parents...

Sent from my DROID2 using Tapatalk

rotorhead said:

Is it legal to claim self-defense if you are the one that initiated contact where no danger of loss of life was present prior to your contact?

Click to expand...

My understanding, at least in NC, is even if you initiate the altercation then try to leave and you stop your aggressive actions you are entitled to defend yourself if that attack continues. By attempting to leave/flee you regain your ability to defend yourself. It's not a good situation for sure. But if Zimmerman was returning to his truck as he claims and he was attacked, I could see this working for him.

Now, if he initiated a physical or verbal altercation this gets muddy very quickly.

This will likely hinge on about 30 seconds worth of information that we seem to have no witnesses for.

chiefjason said:

My understanding, at least in NC, is even if you initiate the altercation then try to leave and you stop your aggressive actions you are entitled to defend yourself if that attack continues. By attempting to leave/flee you regain your ability to defend yourself. It's not a good situation for sure. But if Zimmerman was returning to his truck as he claims and he was attacked, I could see this working for him.

Now, if he initiated a physical or verbal altercation this gets muddy very quickly.

This will likely hinge on about 30 seconds worth of information that we seem to have no witnesses for.

Click to expand...

Very much true. I believe I missed the part about him being attacked on the way back to his truck... sounds good to me... but IANAL, and I don't have to prove it in court.

Sent from my DROID2 using Tapatalk

Cutting through it all, though, certain questions remain. And this is part of the reason that anti-gun folks don't want guns allowed in public parks, etc. Would Z have done all that he did if he had not been armed? Would he have pursued and/or continued looking? No one other than Z will ever know for sure what was said and done in the last minute or so before TM was shot. But did Z say and do things differently than he would have if he had not been armed? Did he have more courage because he had a gun? I don't know and don't think anyone will ever know. But that's really part of the problem that gun opponents have. And gun owners need to understand and address these issues instead of side-stepping them.

In addition to all of this, another question would be whether TM would have done all that he did if he knew that Z was carrying a gun. I would think that most would agree that he would not have. Is that a reason to allow open carry? (This ignores the question of whether he would have seen it had Z been open carrying a gun -- but it raises the question.)

Of course, the response is that there have been many occasions that people have been injured because they were not allowed to carry a weapon at a public park, restaurant, store, etc. And, now we see of situations where the FL law allowed someone like TM to be shot because Z was allowed to carry a gun. If Z did not have a gun, would this altercation have occurred? Would Z have allowed himself to be there?

I suppose that there will be bad stories either way. We are humans and cannot be perfect. It boils down to questions about rights and safety and personal protection. The world is not a safe place. And we cannot have rules that protect all people at all times. And LEOs cannot be everywhere. And there will be criminals with bad intentions. And there will be mistakes when people fear situations unreasonably. And there will be times where people are not afraid and are hurt or killed.

I don't think that there are any bright lines or clear answers here. And there never will be. It's a shame that the incident forces everyone to jump to conclusions about who was right or wrong -- or about what laws should allow or not.

May TM rest in peace. And, just as importantly, may Z and TM's family find peace, too.