Quote from Pin

And last, in my house, and most of my family, if we're in trouble, we're taught to beat the person until they are unconscious and then call for help. For your safety. Especially when armed.

That seems to be a useful defense mechanism.

I thought Zimmerman was Hispanic?

Following someone is not a crime and is not probable cause for them to think that you're going to harm them. You can be afraid and ask them to stop, but instead of attacking the person you should be the one calling for help.

Quote from Zed

I heard what I believe to be a recording of that call, although I only turned on the tv part way through and I don't know if it was a reconstruction or anything so correct me if I'm wrong. "'Are you following him?' 'Yeah' 'Ok, we don't need you to do that'". It's not a command, but it was a suggestion made as forcefully as someone who isn't allowed to give commands can do so.

"Sean Noffke, the dispatcher who was on the phone during Zimmerman's non-emergency call, testified regarding his own statements at that time. Noffke said that when he told Zimmerman "We don't need you to do that," he was making a suggestion, not giving an order. He said that dispatchers do not give orders because of liability issues..... Noffke also testified that he asked Zimmerman which way Martin was going, and that his question could be interpreted as a request to go and see which way he was going. He clarified his statement that dispatchers do not give orders, but suggestions for the safety of the caller." (source)

Quote from Azure Kite

While not a direct order, it does seem strange that he took it on himself to get out of his car with his gun, then follow this teen who left a store and was carrying skittles and tea.

Zimmerman's neighborhood had 8 burglaries, 9 thefts and a shooting in the year before Trayvon was shot.

He's also the neighborhood watch program coordinator, and three weeks before the shooting happened he called 911 to report someone who was looking into the windows of someone's house. He fled before the police could arrive, and 4 days later the house was robbed by the same person.


I don't see what's strange about getting out of his car to make sure he doesn't lose a line-of-sight of someone he thinks is suspicious, especially if a house was robbed just 3 weeks prior because of a similar situation. What's strange to me is how you think Trayvon buying skittles deserves to be mentioned twice, while all of these relevant details are being skipped over.

Quote from Azure Kite

And even bringing the gun out seems entirely too rash.

He didn't bring the gun with him for any specific reason that's relevant to this situation, he started carrying one due to pit bull attacks in his neighborhood. Unless you have evidence that he had malicious intent, there's nothing wrong with having a gun on your person, he has every legal right to do so.

Quote from Azure Kite

He had no defensive wounds.

Seriously?





Here's a normal picture of him, in case you don't see how swollen his nose is in the first picture.

If you think his first thought was "I have to shoot this kid" because he had a gun for self-defense and used it for that purpose, then I don't even know how to respond to you. If you can make claims like that without even bothering to check if he was actually attacked, then who knows what you're even basing your arguments off of.

Quote from Exilement

Seriously?





Here's a normal picture of him, in case you don't see how swollen his nose is in the first picture.

If you think his first thought was "I have to shoot this kid" because he had a gun for self-defense and used it for that purpose, then I don't even know how to respond to you. If you can make claims like that without even bothering to check if he was actually attacked, then who knows what you're even basing your arguments off of.

Those are not defensive wounds. Defensive wounds are wounds gained through attempting to resist, which means on the hands, forearms, or anywhere that you use to try defending yourself. Those are wounds that show that yes, he was indeed attacked, but they show nothing of him trying to actually resist being attacked.

I'd address all the misconceptions in this thread one by one, but this video is a nice blanket covering (and Exilement is doing a pretty good job as well)



This shouldn't have been an issue of race, but that's what it became. At the end of the day, he was found not guilty by a jury of his peers in a court of law. Is Zimmerman a racist pig who racially profiled a black kid? The evidence we have seems to suggest otherwise. Did he kill Trayvon in self defense? The evidence seems to suggest so. Until other facts come to light, that is what we can base our decision on. But people need to stop having knee-jerk emotional reactions and making it an issue of race.

Also, calling Trayvon a "child" makes it seem way worse than it was. Yes, he was legally not an adult yet, but he was far from a toddler.

Quote from Azure Kite

Those are not defensive wounds. Defensive wounds are wounds gained through attempting to resist, which means on the hands, forearms, or anywhere that you use to try defending yourself. Those are wounds that show that yes, he was indeed attacked, but they show nothing of him trying to actually resist being attacked.

He didn't say those were defensive wounds, he said he used the gun in self defense because of the wounds (something that's perfectly legal, and for good reason)

Quote from Azure Kite

Those are not defensive wounds. Defensive wounds are wounds gained through attempting to resist, which means on the hands, forearms, or anywhere that you use to try defending yourself. Those are wounds that show that yes, he was indeed attacked, but they show nothing of him trying to actually resist being attacked.

This feels like an awfully lazy way to disregard Exilement's arguments. He was obviously attacked, denying that because the wounds are not on the hands but on his head is ridiculous.

I misunderstood him, sorry about that.

Either way, I don't know what your point is. All you're doing is acknowledging the lack of injuries to his hands/forearms. That doesn't incriminate him of anything. Should his arms be injured? Do 100% of fights result in those kind of injuries?

For some reason you're so convinced they should be there, you think the absense of injury is a justifiable cause for suspicion. Unless that reason is actually based on evidence, and it incriminates Zimmerman beyond a reasonable doubt, then you're just parroting talking points.

Quote from Exilement

I misunderstood him, sorry about that.

Either way, I don't know what your point is. All you're doing is acknowledging the lack of injuries to his hands/forearms. That doesn't incriminate him of anything. Should[/] his arms be injured? Do 100% of fights result in those kind of injuries?

For some reason you're so convinced they should be there, you think the absense of injury is a justifiable cause for suspicion. Unless that reason is actually based on evidence, and it incriminates Zimmerman [i]beyond a reasonable doubt, then you're just parroting talking points.

My argument isn't that the wounds should be there. My argument is that Zimmerman acted in a way that, in my opinion, was uncalled for. Personally, I think he overreacted and put himself in danger, and while defending yourself when attacked is entirely justifiable, shooting should not be your first choice. The lack of any wounds on his hands or arms shows he resorted to a gun first, and seems suspicious. I'm not saying they should be there, only that their not being there should be questioned a bit further. No, this doesn't incriminate him beyond reasonable doubt, but neither does it make him easily innocent.

And no, 100% of fights end up with the victim having defensive wounds. But typically, 100% two-sided fights result in some form of defensive wound, either from defending yourself from harm, or trying to attack the other person, which will damage your knuckles. Really, I just find that there are some points not being addressed. Perhaps I'm just having a hard time seeing a point, but I do feel that use of a gun should be an absolute necessary, not a first response, especially when you yourself state it was being carried around because of dog attacks, not confrontations with other humans. But, everything that happened there is merely speculation, and neither I nor anyone aside from Zimmerman and Trayvon know how things actually went down.

Quote from Azure Kite

My argument isn't that the wounds should be there. My argument is that Zimmerman acted in a way that, in my opinion, was uncalled for.

Wasn't his uncalled for as well?. Seriously if I had a kid beating me up like that I would've shot too, it was a self-defense reaction in my opinion.

Supposedly Trayvon saw the gun, and could have grabbed for it, so Zimmerman had no choice but to preemptively and defensively use it. That's according to his testimony, anyway. But I do agree that it should have been a last resort.

Quote from Camila

Wasn't his uncalled for as well?. Seriously if I had a kid beating me up like that I would've shot too, it was a self-defense reaction in my opinion.

Wouldn't you panic if some guy much older than you was stalking you with a weapon at night after leaving his car? Fight or flight. Especially if this is apparently a dangerous neighborhood, which has been said before in this argument. Also:

Quote from Vertigo

Supposedly Trayvon saw the gun, and could have grabbed for it, so Zimmerman had no choice but to preemptively and defensively use it. That's according to his testimony, anyway. But I do agree that it should have been a last resort.

If Trayvon could see the gun, then that meant it wasn't concealed. That means it had to have been in his line of vision, so he clearly would have felt threatened. Especially if there had been a previous shooting.

It was concealed up until the point that he was on the ground and struggling. Did you check out the video I linked to?

Quote from Vertigo

It was concealed up until the point that he was on the ground and struggling. Did you check out the video I linked to?

It stated in the video that he lost track of Trayvon, and decided to check the street signs since they occasionally changed. Now, I can understand this, however, he could just have easily have stated where he was close to (a store). Now, I can understand this might not have occurred to him. It also stated that it was raining hard, and that he was half-blind on the ground. Though it says that Trayvon said "You're going to die tonight, mother******," it doesn't in any way give proof that he had seen the gun, seeing as he was on top of Zimmerman (which puts Zimmerman in his shadow), there is the fact it is raining (which obscures sight), and it is stated he may have been on drugs at the time (which aside from paranoia, also would mess with his vision). Zimmerman himself had two black eyes, and was in the same conditions, so he was unable to see Trayvon actually knowing about the gun in any way. There was also the statement that Trayvon had no wounds on his body aside from the knuckle wounds (from punching, a point I made earlier), and the bullet wound. This means that Zimmerman put up literally no defense. It is understandable, being punched in the nose and knocked on the ground, but typically, one can put up their arms, especially if Trayvon really was using a technique called the "Ground and Pound." There was no statement of such defensive wounds, only a statement that Zimmerman tried to crawl to the grass. I still remain with my thoughts that he overreacted in the shooting, though his self-defense was entirely justified. I'll also believe that Trayvon, in a mind-altered state, perceived Zimmerman as a threat, because he got out of his car to watch him (entirely legal, but easily taken as a threat).

Long story short, they both messed up, but Zimmerman was the one who actually killed, while Trayvon was supposedly the one who made actual threats and started the confrontation. The evidence points to in that direction, but with no actual concrete evidence (no pun intended), there is no proper way to decide whether or not Zimmerman's actions were completely justified. If he had resisted physically before drawing his weapon on a guess of Trayvon's intentions, then I'd wholeheartedly be on his side. It is the fact that most of this was guesswork, that I have a problem with him getting off scotch-free.

Fair point, sir. All we have to go by is the evidence we're given.

Quote from Azure Kite

It is the fact that most of this was guesswork, that I have a problem with him getting off scotch-free.

Yeah, nearly $1 million in legal fees and losing his job isn't enough, we should punish the innocent man even more!

Investigations aren't guesswork. If he says he acted in self-defense, if he says Trayvon jumped him first, then that's what happened as far as the law is concerned. Those who disagree need evidence on their side, and the prosecution simply didn't have it.

I doubt either of them would repeat their actions if given a chance to relive that night. It's easy enough to criticize what they did when we're comfortably typing away in our homes, but this was a life-or-death situation for both of them. They could've handled the situation better, but I don't think any of us should be criticizing them for it.