George Zimmerman verdict just in . . .

[zako85]

That much is obvious, but if Zimmerman hadn't tried to play Dirty Harry then Martin never would have felt threatened and attacked an armed man.....

There is no question in my mind that both of them overreacted and both are guilty of bad judgement.

[Daniel]

There is no question in my mind that both of them overreacted and both are guilty of bad judgement.

Exactly. As ridiculous as what I'm about to say sounds, people are focusing on the legalities of the matter far too much, sure Zimmerman was doing nothing illegal (which is true), but did he actually need to pursue someone whose only crime (which wasn't actually a crime) was to look suspicious? This is what set off the chain of events which could have resulted in either of them being killed. If Martin had smacked Zimmerman's head into the pavement properly then the same laws would have applied.

As for the trespass, what a load of rubbish, if someone is chasing me then the law isn't going to prosecute me for trespass if I feel like I'm threatened and choose to hide one someone elses property.

[markabilly]

Exactly. As ridiculous as what I'm about to say sounds, people are focusing on the legalities of the matter far too much, sure Zimmerman was doing nothing illegal (which is true), but did he actually need to pursue someone whose only crime (which wasn't actually a crime) was to look suspicious? This is what set off the chain of events which could have resulted in either of them being killed. If Martin had smacked Zimmerman's head into the pavement properly then the same laws would have applied.

As for the trespass, what a load of rubbish, if someone is chasing me then the law isn't going to prosecute me for trespass if I feel like I'm threatened and choose to hide one someone elses property.

In moments such as this, no one gets a law book out and has the time to read through it or do anything else but react. Hindsight afterwards is always far clearer vision than foresight in what has become a life or death struggle for Zimmerman requiring instant action. What is illogical is how many think that what Martin was doing was okay, but Zimmerman attempting to talk to Martin was not okay. Zimmerman was attempting to protect people from being robbed, while they were at home. What is wrong with that? Nothing. Martin was being an example of the thug whose attitude is don't mess with me, homie, I will just whup your head.....

[markabilly]

What I find disgusting is the people using this incident to further their own political agendas based on race. What is even more illogical is people, including a certain person in the White House, claiming we should "honor Martin". Honor him for what? Mentoring two black kids or helping people who had been the victims of violent crime in their homes like Zimmerman did? No, sir. Or getting himself killed while doing this to someone's head?

[Daniel]

In moments such as this, no one gets a law book out and has the time to read through it or do anything else but react. Hindsight afterwards is always far clearer vision than foresight in what has become a life or death struggle for Zimmerman requiring instant action. What is illogical is how many think that what Martin was doing was okay, but Zimmerman attempting to talk to Martin was not okay. Zimmerman was attempting to protect people from being robbed, while they were at home. What is wrong with that? Nothing. Martin was being an example of the thug whose attitude is don't mess with me, homie, I will just whup your head.....

For gods sake Markasilly, where did I say that Zimmerman was wrong to shoot Martin when he was attacked? Please quote the post where I say that

[Daniel]

For gods sake Markasilly, where did I say that Zimmerman was wrong to shoot Martin when he was attacked? Please quote the post where I say that

Then again, if Markasilly actually read my posts then him and his inbred hick colleagues wouldn't be able to characterise me as some sort of oppressed yurropean I suppose

[vhatever]

Exactly. As ridiculous as what I'm about to say sounds, people are focusing on the legalities of the matter far too much, sure Zimmerman was doing nothing illegal (which is true), but did he actually need to pursue someone whose only crime (which wasn't actually a crime) was to look suspicious? This is what set off the chain of events which could have resulted in either of them being killed. If Martin had smacked Zimmerman's head into the pavement properly then the same laws would have applied.

As for the trespass, what a load of rubbish, if someone is chasing me then the law isn't going to prosecute me for trespass if I feel like I'm threatened and choose to hide one someone elses property.

He followed someone who clearly dressed and acted suspicious in a neighborhood that had a recent, massive surge in crime. Also there was a gang in that area whose members predominantly dress in dark clothes with hoodies No honest person would fault him for being a concerned citizen. In fact, it's sounding an awful lot like the blaming a girl who got raped for dressing a certain way scenario.

i'll take 20 wannabe cop george zimmemerans living on my block over just one wannabe thug trayvon martin, as would any sane, honest, non-racist person in the USA.

[Starter]

Where did point 4 go? Just saying

You mean this one?

4)

You Americans have a warped view of the value of life.....

I guess if you count valuing your own life over that of someone trying to beat your head in as warped, then yes guilty as charged.

[Bagwan]

From the stated facts in this thread , this is how I feel about it :
Zimmerman was well-known by his neighbours to be doing this . They had no issue with it that I have heard , and encouraged him to do so .
He was well-known by the police to be doing this as well , who encouraged it as well .
He was , after the phone call was initiated , apparently asked to keep a close eye on Martin .

To this point he was right in all he did .

It was suggested , as would be the norm , that he leave it to the police from there , however , he acted to keep the suspect in sight , which was the former instruction .

It's hard to know , given that I have no idea what the actual terrain in the specific area was , but the suggestion here seems to be that the act of disappearing from sight was a suspect move in itself .

They found nearby , not right at the scene , burglary tools , which more than suggests that not only was Zimmerman right about this young man being suspicious , but that the young man had ditched the tools and gone back to deal with his pursuer so as not to be caught "red-handed" with them .

At this point we need to remember that Zimmerman had a gun .
He had not drawn it , walking into what had to have been , effectively , an ambush .
Though likely pretty high on the adrenaline of keeping the "perp" in view , with senses on overload , he hadn't walked in ablazing .
He expected him , clearly , to try to flee .

He didn't , and the two began to fight .

Leaving stashed the burglary tools says that Martin either didn't think that Zimmerman had a gun (going back at all unarmed says that , too) , that he wanted to either appear innocent upon their meeting , or not be open to greater charges in the end by using a weapon for the beating .
And , we mustn't forget Martin's state of mind , either , full of adrenaline as well as a wash of teenaged hormones , having just decided to stash his tools , and guilty of being suspicious .

There does not seem to have been any discussion , as the concealed weapon would have appeared before it did .
Thus , a sort of ambush is more likely .

It seems pretty likely that the gun , itself , emboldened Zimmerman to leave his car , but as it only appeared after the two were on the ground , it doesn't suggest he was trying to apprehend anyone , but rather that he was trying , as instructed , to keep him in sight .

It doesn't really make sense that when you are beating on someone , you stop to shoot them as well .

But it does make sense that you'd shoot someone if they were beating on you .

[Daniel]

You mean this one?

4)

You Americans have a warped view of the value of life.....

I guess if you count valuing your own life over that of someone trying to beat your head in as warped, then yes guilty as charged.

No, the bit where you said this

4) There is nowhere in the trial testimony where Z approached M - in fact exactly the opposite seemed to have been true. So who was the aggressor? Who initiated physical contact? Who used their weapon late in the situation instead of at the beginning? Hardly the act of a "cowboy" looking to shoot someone.