So glad the federal government is involved. They're better, and smarter, and will pursue justice at whatever cost.
Too bad for the shooter. He's already been convicted in the media and in public opinion whether he deserved it or not, and we'll probably never know what happened. In which case, the shooter needs to remain free.
We all know what "self defense" means, and as citizens who carry we should already be very aware when lethal force is and is not appropriate. Regardless of where we live in the country, if you are the initial aggressor of a situation that results in you shooting someone, I'm fairly sure the local law would not call it self-defense.
Recent reports in the media suggest the kid that was shot was on his cell phone with his girlfriend during the encounter with the shooter. He was being followed/pursued by the shooter, and was attempting to lose the guy.
All the facts are not in yet, and by no means am I trying to say what happened. Just saying what I'm hearing.
The 911-operator told the shooter not to confront the kid, and he still did. He went out of way to do so.
Bottom line, the kid was unarmed and got shot. Not good publicity for the 2nd amendment community.
Why should the shooter remain free?
There's no good reason for him to NOT be locked up.
He shouldn't have even confronted the kid, let alone SHOT an unarmed kid.
The guy should be charged with murder, he killed a kid that wasn't a threat to his life, and if he was, it was because HE created the situation.
*swyped from the evo so excuse any typos*
Bottom line, the kid was unarmed and got shot. Not good publicity for the 2nd amendment community.
He shouldn't have even confronted the kid, let alone SHOT an unarmed kid.
What I have learned about this case so far:
Z = Zimmerman M= Martin
Just the facts as we know it.
1) Z called the police to report a suspicious person. Was told it was not needed to follow him, and sad "ok" in response.
2) M saw that someone was following him and was on the phone with his girlfriend who has coroborated that M ran, and lost site of Z.
3) Z while on the phone with Non-Emergency police line said he lost the kid.
4) At some point later 911 calls roll in, and a direct witness comes outside to see M on top of Z and Z crying for someone to help him. This is recorded on another persons 911 call.
5) Z claims M confronted him and attacked him, got him on his back and would not relent the attack after Z, and a neighbor yelled for him to stop.
6) The eye witness did not see the beginning of the fight, and went inside before the end of the confrontation and never saw the gun in play, within 30 seconds of the witness going inside the shot is heard.
7) Z was bleeding from the back of his head, from his nose, and had grass stains on his back. (no info on any possible injuries for M, coroners report would provide this once it is available)
8) All of the facts have not been made public, but all of the original witness statements corroborate Z's statement. (except for the people like Cruncher who changed there story days later)
This is all we the public know at this time, and it is why probable cause for Z's arrest has not been established. The biggest problem with trying to judge this case is the huge gap in knowledge between #3, and #5. Which is where all of the real legal questions live. Police may have more information than this, but so far no arrest, which makes me believe if there is additional info, it is not anything which contradicts Z's account.
Hey, Mods - Let's please use those forum tools and MERGE these threads so we're not repeating ourselves five time over, ok? Thanks!
Onward...
4. According to the police report, Zimmerman's back was sopping wet from where he'd been on his back, in the grass, as Trayvon pummeled his face with blows from his fists. Zimmerman's nose was bloodied, as was the back of his head, from where Trayvon had repeatedly slammed struck him in the face and slammed his head into the ground.
5. Again, according to the police report, the eyewitness observed Trayvon sitting on top of Zimmerman, bludgeoning him repeatedly as Zimmerman screamed for help. The eyewitness headed inside to call 911, heard a gunshot, and looked out the window to see Trayvon lying on the ground, apparently dead.
Conclusions, based on BEHAVIOR, rather than racism, very misleading media portrayals, and family bias:
A. Whether Zimmerman initially approached Trayvon or not is immaterial.
Here's what else IS true: Obama is a reprehensible opportunist praying on the black and minority communities in the midst of this tragedy to engender support for reelection.
Didn't Trayvon Martin have a right to defend himself from a potentially homicidal attacker?
Regardless of where we live in the country, if you are the initial aggressor of a situation that results in you shooting someone, I'm fairly sure the local law would not call it self-defense.
Japle said:Under Florida law, the use of deadly force is not justified in a case that doesn’t involve a well founded fear of imminent death or great bodily harm from a forcible felony.
If witnesses come forward to say that Z did something to threaten M, put him in reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm (DOGBH), M had the right to defend himself.HankT said:Isn't this going to be a situation where both sides claim "self-defense?"
You think that someone that size & athletic ability, sitting on top of someone probably at least twice his age, beating him & pounding his head into the ground is somehow not a threat?the_hustleman said:The guy should be charged with murder, he killed a kid that wasn't a threat to his life, and if he was, it was because HE created the situation.