Published: Thursday, March 29 2012 12:00 a.m. MDT
It seems clear to me that the two were fighting before the shooting, but there
are a lot of questions that probably will never be answered to anyone's
satisfaction.What started the fight? Did Mr. Zimmerman try to
physically restrain the boy and the boy was just trying to fight off this
stranger? Or did Mr. Zimmerman simply try to find out who this suspicious guy in
his neighborhood was, and the boy attacked him?Did Mr. Zimmerman
have opportunities after the fight started to let it go without having it
escalate into deadly violence, or was he justified in using deadly force to
defend himself?Was Mr. Zimmerman acting out of legitimate concern
for the well being of his neighborhood, or did he have prejudices and a lust for
power that propelled him into this confrontation?Will even a
thorough investigation ever reveal the answers to these questions?Finally, do many of the parties speaking out even care what happened, or do
they simply want to use this incident to further their own political agenda, so
they will ignore any evidence that may point to something different than what
supports their agenda?
Zimmerman is guilty! Already tried and convicted in the courts of Jesse Jackson,
Al Sharpton and the Black Panther Party, just like the Duke Lacrosse players.
Getting the case right is the only thing standing between justice and a
lynching.Politics has no place in this criminal investigation.
How about the fact that Utah is one of the 22 states that have such a "stand
your ground law"? Just how wise have we been on the issue of Guns? I think
A video of Mr. Zimmerman being taken in for questioning on the night of the
shooting has just surfaced. There is no evidence of bruising or bleeding. Also,
the lead investigator recommended filing charges, but his superiors overruled
him because "we'd never get a conviction".
Only fact that matters is that Trevon Martin is dead because Zimmerman chose to
pursue.He was told he did not need to pursue, and he ignored that
advice.Conservatives used to espouse personal responsibility, but
now they more often take a position of "blame the other guy". That
seems magnified when a gun is involved. Perhaps conservatvies worry that if we
find fault with the shooter, we'll find fault with owning guns, so the
shooter must always be right.
I dare say that more than a few people will get their fair share of 15 minutes
of fame from this case. It would be a pity if this man was hung by the hysteria
of the masses. We don't know the facts, but for some reason we get
indigent from what little we know, even the highest office in the land gets
involved. This man deserves a fair trial, in a court, not in the public meadia.
stand your ground law=legalized murder. Just annoy someone until
they finally cave into your provocation. Murder them. And then fall back on this
nonsense that you were merely "standing your ground."
Re: Mike in TexasIn two recent decisions the US Supreme Court ruled
that the 2nd Amendment applies to individual citizens and not the states.
Luckily for the man in Springville he had a loaded handgun in the closet when an
intruder broke into his home.I'm guessing you weren't in
favor of our adopting a state firearm .... the Browning Model M1911.
So when it's Josh Powell it's ok to convict the guy in the media, even
though he denied killing his wife. But when it's Trayvon Martin we should
reserve judgement. When it's comes to trials by the media, the only factor
that makes this different is the color of the victims skin. Just sayin
What facts have been verified? 1. Mr. Zimmerman was told to NOT
proceed by the 911 operator.2. Mr. Zimmerman and Mr. Martin had some
kind of altercation AFTER Mr. Zimmerman was told to NOT proceed.3.
Mr. Zimmerman shot and killed Mr. Martin.4. Mr. Zimmerman was not
inside his own home and he was not on his own property.5. Prior to
the "altercation", the only cause for alarm is that Mr. Zimmerman did
not recognize Mr. Martin.Those facts tell us that Mr. Zimmerman
could have prevented the altercation had he listened to the 911 operator. We can
suppose that, without an altercation, that Mr. Zimmerman would not have shot Mr.
Martin.A citizen is allowed to use deadly force to protect himself
or others who are facing a deadly threat. If Mr. Zimmerman claims that he was
facing a deadly threat, could he realistically claim that he was NOT
responsible, in large part, for that "deadly threat"?We may
know more after all the available facts are presented, but this looks like a
tragic killing that could have easily been avoided.
Florida's Governor, Zimmerman's attorney and many other legal experts
have stated that the Stand Your Ground Law does not apply in the Martin case. It
is the anti gun faction that is using this case to try the statute. "Judith Scully, the William Reese Smith Jr., Distinguished Professor at
Stetson Law, added that, for the law to apply, you have to prove you are the one
Re: Mike RichardsHow is this killing anymore tragic than the one
perpetrated by a black teenager,Shawn Tyson, who gunned down two Brits who
wandered into his turf last April. Why didn't Obama condemn that black man
for a double killing that was even more deplorable?Why was there no
outrage from the black community when the victims were white?
There seems to be much uncertainty as to whether Martin fought Zimmerman. There
are the alleged witness reports that Zimmerman was on the ground with Martin
pounding on him, but also the conflicting reports that Zimmerman had no
injuries. While reserving judgment and waiting for more (and reliable)
information to come from the official investigation, the observation that Martin
may have been hitting Zimmerman by itself is insufficient to defend
Zimmerman's action. Trayvon Martin could easily have been acting in self
defense himself, standing his own ground against a larger, older, armed
aggressor. We'll probably never know exactly what happened, but the fact
that Zimmerman left his car against the 911 operator's recommendation and
the report that Martin told his girlfriend on the phone he was walking faster to
avoid a man following him lend credibility to the idea that Zimmerman initiated
the aggression and that Martin was defending himself. The key question is who
initiated the violence.
Mr. Mountanman,Zimmerman hasn't been tried and convicted... ...or
jpjazz: "...Distinguished Professor at Stetson Law..."Given
the Wild West connotations of this case, you gotta love that title.
Re:Rifleman,Why make this a race issue? A LIFE was lost. Don't
be a pawn of those who are trying to make this a racist issue.
@Mike Richards;For once I'm in 100% agreement with you.@those defending Zimmerman's "self defense" argument.What if Trayvon was simply defending himself from someone he identified
as a stranger/stalker following him? What about his right to "stand his
ground"? Had the killing been the other way around, you can bet your booty
that Trayvon would have been arrested and held until a "thorough
investigation" was completed, yet he could justifiably have claimed
"self defense" from the man stalking him with a gun.
Re: Mike Richards"Why make this a race issue? "I
didn't make this a race issue. Jesse Jackson did.Like I asked
above: "How is this killing anymore tragic than the one perpetrated by a
black teenager,Shawn Tyson, who gunned down two Brits who wandered into his turf
last April. Why didn't Obama condemn that black man for a double killing
that was even more deplorable?"
Rifleman. I really don't care one way or another if the State of Utah
chooses to have a state gun. I am not concerned about image. I am however,
concerned about the passage of laws that are mostly done to pacify or edify the
Gun Lobby. At common law there have always been limits on self defense. For
example, you generally cannot use deadly force to protect property. Look up the
case law on the use of unattended spring guns for example. And there have been
cases where someone was killed while breaking in because of an unrelated
emergency situation. I don't know anything about the case you site, but I
do believe that we continue to invite violence with our unremitting push to
eliminate reasonable controls on the use of deadly weapons to the benefit
mostly of sellers of guns. Unwise, Unwise.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments