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.
@RiflemanWhere is Shawn Tyson now and where is Zimmerman?Why is this case only being investigated now after a public outcry?
Re: Mike in Texas"For example, you generally cannot use deadly force
to protect property."No one is suggesting that deadly force
should be used to protect property, and I least of all.The 2nd
Amendment permits me to defend my life and the lives of my loved ones, and the
US Supreme Court concurs that this amendment applies to individual citizens and
not the states.You are far more likely to get killed by a drunk
driver than by someone with a firearm. Perhaps we should put more controls on
access to alcohol ..... or automobiles.
My question is that per the video that showed Zimmerman after the shooting,
there isn't any blood on his shirt! If he shot Martin in self defense, how
far away from him was he? When someone gets hit in the chest, the blood is
going to splatter, and if you were in combat with an unarmed person, one would
suppose that you had to be pretty close to them when the shot was fired.
Otherwise, just pull the gun and take control of the situation.No
blood is pretty telling to me.
How is this case different than other cases? The difference is that we know who
the shooter was, and until the social media campaign to bring some public
interest to it the killer had been told he was not going to be charged. This
murder happened on February 26th. So while the new prosecutor has only had the
case since Thursday, the Sanford PD has had it for 2 months.
@ Rifleman: The right to bear arms may belong to the people, not the state, but
that doesn't mean people can go around willy-nilly shooting each other -
which was the point of Mike in Texas.As for the comparison with this
case and the shooting of the two white tourists by Shawn Tyson: the murder of
James Cooper and James Kouzaris was fully investigated at the time it occurred
and a suspect was identified, charged, tried, and ultimately found guilty and
sentenced.The murder of Trayvon Martin has never been fully
investigated - which is the source of the outrage. There is no debate that
Zimmerman was following Martin. There is no debate that Zimmerman shot Martin.
Zimmerman had the right to defend himself, but so did Martin. Why weren't
the circumstances investigated? Why was Zimmerman given a pass?There is no comparison between the two cases. (It is hard to have an outcry
over the police not doing their job when they have done it.)
Actions have consequences. Years ago I had a friend who worked at a pizza hut.
One night he kicked someone out of the restaurant for being rude. When he
closed up that night, the guy and two others were waiting for him and his
coworker in the parking lot. The first thing he did was take his crowbar and
lock it into his truck. The reason was that he didn't know what he would
do with it in the middle of a fight.The local police are going to be
well-trained when they carry guns. A neighborhood watch program is good, but
their training should basically be how to call 911 if they see something and how
to stay out of trouble.Laws have consequences. Having a law that
says you can stand your ground like this means that you may get things like this
happening and there isn't anything that can be done to satisfy the dead
man's relatives who feel that justice should be served. I don't think
Zimmerman should have done this, it should have been illegal, but it
To Rifleman: The difference is that Tyson was, arrested, tried, and convicted of
murder. He is currently serving a life sentence. I don't think you find
anyone arguing that one murder is better than another. People are just
questioning the actions of our legal system in the aftermath.
Kalindra said "The murder of Trayvon Martin has never been fully
investigated"Trayvon Martin was shot and killed on February
27th. Were you expecting the investigation to be completed on Feb. 28th?
@flyingfinfirst off the police had already swept it under the rug and had
no plans to investigate further, secondly i notice you did not bother to refute
the rest of kalindra's post or any of the other responses to your post as
rifleman that point out the person that shot the tourist was put on trial and
If a police officer had shot Treyvon, there would had been a full investigation
and the officer would be on paid leave. What have they done in this case except
accept Zimmerman's statement that it was self defense against a boy with a
pack of skittles?What will stop someone from stalking zimmerman and
If Martin attacked Zimmerman first that still does not answer the question of
the case. Martin was being followed by some guy he didn't know. Martin may
have attacked Zimmerman out of concern for his own safety. Although guns are
guns and are not a problem in and of themselves, I think the problem is in the
mentality of those who like to arm themselves to the teeth, hoping for some
desperate struggle where they get to defend themselves with the gun. I think
Zimmerman is among that group. It sounds like,aside from the fact that he may
face charges, Zimmerman still feels awful about killing a young man who attacked
him with his fists. It's a lesson for the arm yourself and hope for trouble
crowd - Even if your self-defense fantasy comes true, it will not feel as good
as you had hoped.
@ Flying Finn: "Trayvon Martin was shot and killed on February 27th. Were
you expecting the investigation to be completed on Feb. 28th?"No
- but I expected it to be started sometime before the middle of March.Why are you and Rifleman so opposed to an investigation into the circumstances
of this case?
Martin is depicted as a choir boy and Zimmerman as a monster. Neither seems to
be accurate, but either way, wearing a hoodie is not a capital offense.
The media in general has not been presenting "facts" in this case. The
media has been presenting opinions and hype. Unfortunately, the "facts"
are not known. Zimmerman isn't as big as the old pictures used show him and
Martin is not as young (or small) as the old pictures of him show him. Did an
altercation need to happen because a young man was walking through a
neighborhood? No. Should someone be able to defend theirselves if they are
threatened with bodily harm? Yes. Did Martin just walk through the neighborhood?
I don't know. Was Zimmerman truly threatened with bodily harm? I don't
know. This much is known... If Zimmerman had not followed Martin, he would not
have been put in a position of deciding whether force was necessary. Does that
error in judgement alone justify putting him away for a few years? I don't
know, however, I have to wonder how I would feel if either individual was my
This killing is different because the teenager who killed the two men from my
country has been arrested, charged, gone to court and been found guilty. These
are both terrible things to have happend. Mothers have lost their beautiful
sons here. The difference is the police were not going to arrest and charge
anybody for killing Trayvonn. If this fuss had not been made Zimmerman would be
home and dry and justice would not have been served and more importantly seen to
be served. I don't think Trayvonn's parents want revenge, they want
justice. If someone had done this to one of my sons, I would move heaven and
hell to get this man brought to justice and I wouldn't have cared if he had
written grafitti on a door at school, or smoked the occasional joint, my son did
that at 16 and is now a teacher. The man who did this to this child needs to be
brought to justice
To Rifleman | 2:01 p.m. March 29, 2012You said: I didn't make
this a race issue. Jesse Jackson did.Actually, that’s not
accurate. George Zimmerman is the one who made this a racial issue. He is the
one who voiced the racial slur (one I can’t repeat here and still have
this message posted) when he got out of his car to follow Martin.
They are trying to start a race war. This is a perfect opprotunity for activists
who claim they are for equal rights and racial unity to capitalize on. I
don't see through their lies for a minute. It the people who aren't
racist who get labelled as racist and it's phony activists who are the real
racists. They fear unity. The government wants racial division so they will have
more power over people. They don't care about living in harmony and peace
with one another.