[Daldolma]

Originally Posted by Bodeanicus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Against the advice of every Neighboorhood Watch organization's guidelines in the entire country. Zimmerman is not a policeman, despite his fantasies to the contrary. According to SYG, Martin had the right to defend himself against Zimmerman. Too bad he was black. Apparently, in Florida, they just send you on home for picking a fight, then killing black people. That is, until someone reports it to national media.



It's causing the unnecessary death of another human being through negligence, incompetence, and stupidity. In other words, it's manslaughter.



Martin had every right to defend himself from a strange man, who is not a security guard or police officer, following him. Or are all black teenage males "fucking punks" up to "no good." And Zimmerman is a proven liar. He and his wife both got thrown into jail for lying about their finances to a judge, remember?



Maybe he shouldn't harass strangers and he wouldn't get his ass kicked. If he hadn't had his gun, his fat pussy ass wouldn't have gotten out of the car in the first place. It comes down to that idiotic SYG law that never should have been passed by fat, old white baby boomers frightened to death of black people. This is what happens.



Wrong. It's the state's duty to investigate the killing of a human being by another human being, no matter the circumstances beyond "Hey Bob, it's just a dead ******. Let him go, you know how them coons are."

wow. there is a staggering amount of incorrect in this post. i'm going to go paragraph by paragraph.

Paragraph 1a - he doesn't have to follow the guidelines of neighborhood watch. should he have? sure. and trayvon should've run home or called the cops. a lot of different scenarios could have resulted in a much better outcome. but he has no legal obligation to follow those guidelines.

Paragraph 1b - it's highly questionable as to whether trayvon had the legal right to initiate physical violence with zimmerman. you claim that he was allowed to engage, in accordance with SYG. that depends upon a reasonable apprehension of harm. it would be a tough case to prove that trayvon reasonably believed zimmerman would harm him based simply on the fact that he followed him and asked what he was doing. it would be even tougher to prove that after initiating violence, it was necessary to pin zimmerman to the ground and continue hostile action. but most importantly, even if you were to prove that martin was justified and believed himself to be acting in self defense, that does NOT mean that zimmerman was not ALSO acting in self defense when he shot martin. martin could have attacked out of self defense, at which point zimmerman could have shot him in self defense. this would be a tragic misunderstanding based on two non-criminal instances of self defense. such is the law as it relates to self defense. it is mostly about reasonable perception -- not actual danger.

Paragraph 1c - your contention that zimmerman picked the fight is based wholly on supposition with no grounding in fact. we lose clarity as to the events that occurred in between zimmerman asking what trayvon was doing and both parties brawling on the ground. that intervening action is of paramount importance in determining who, in fact, "picked the fight".

Paragraph 2 - following a person and asking what they're doing is not grounds for a conviction of manslaughter. it is not negligent. it is not incompetent or stupid. it is nosy, maybe, which also is not a crime. you are making assumptions as to the intervening actions that resulted in violence. those assumptions are your own -- they're fabricated, not factual.

Paragraph 3 - again, you are advocating for trayvon's right to defend himself. again, this is an uphill battle and in no way relevant to the outcome of the zimmerman case. even if trayvon was acting well within his rights of self defense, so too could zimmerman have been.

Paragraph 4a - there is no evidence that he harassed martin. that is, again, supposition on your part.

Paragraph 4b - perhaps zimmerman wouldn't have gotten out of his car without his gun -- that only bolsters zimmerman's case for self defense. if you argue he's a pussy, you further support the notion that he feared for his life while being attacked by martin.

Paragraph 4c - SYG has not been mobilized by zimmerman nor is it relevant to this case in any way. SYG grants zimmerman the ability to defend himself without an obligation to retreat. according to testimony, zimmerman was pinned to the ground by martin. this would nullify his responsibility to retreat, even in a non-SYG state.

Paragraph 5 - correct. it was the state's duty to investigate. they did, and they filed no charges because there is insufficient evidence to properly charge that a crime was, in fact, committed. it was not until this became a cause celebre that a special prosecutor was appointed to initiate far further scrutiny than a case such as this would typically garner