Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[leftysergeant]

Lefty, do pedestrians ever get get in your way and ask you questions? And if so, roughly how many do you kill per week?

Never had one follow me down the street and get in my way at night.

First one who does will have three choices, go away, get on the ground, or eat lead.

 

[Tony]

Nope. Zimmerman had a right to shoot the moron that beat him to the ground, then kept beating him.

Not if Z initiated the confrontation. I can't stalk you, physically confront you, then have a legitimate claim of self defense when I kill you for reacting to my threatening behavior. This is compounded by the fact that Z never identified who he was or that he was part of the neighborhood watch.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Then why did Zimmerman shoot him in the chest?

Bad aim.

 

[RandFan]

Where on earth do you get that from? Is there any report that the gun was drawn (or used to threaten) before the actual moment of the shooting?

I'm asking you a hypothetical. Just as you provided a hypothetical with the "bashing head in" comment.

Zimmerman had a gun, right? It is beyond the realm of possibility that Martin saw the gun?

 

[crimresearch]

You realize your entire post can apply to either GZ or TM, right ?

That is exactly right (minus Lefty's sandbox adjectives) and very much the point.

And only one of them is left to persuade a prosecutor or a jury *why* they reasonably felt their life was in danger to the point of using deadly force against someone punching them.

 

[bynmdsue]

Ca-ching!

Sabrina Fulton is seeking marks for the phrases “I Am Trayvon” and “Justice for Trayvon,” according to filings made last week with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. In both instances, Fulton is seeking the trademarks for use on “Digital materials, namely, CDs and DVDs featuring Trayvon Martin,” and other products.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/trayvon-martin-trademarks-769123

 

[AvalonXQ]

Not if Z initiated the confrontation. I can't stalk you, physically confront you, then have a legitimate claim of self defense when I kill you for reacting to my threatening behavior. This is compounded by the fact that Z never identified who he was or that he was part of the neighborhood watch.

I disagree. If you stalk me and physically confront me, then I beat you to the ground and keep beating you, you have every right to shoot me dead to stop the beating.

The moment Zimmerman was on the ground and Martin kept punching, he was justifiably dead.

 

[crimresearch]

I disagree. If you stalk me and physically confront me, then I beat you to the ground and keep beating you, you have every right to shoot me dead to stop the beating.

The moment Zimmerman was on the ground and Martin kept punching, he was justifiably dead.

Still waiting for you to provide that legal cite discarding proportionate force.

 

[Tony]

I disagree. If you stalk me and physically confront me, then I beat you to the ground and keep beating you, you have every right to shoot me dead to stop the beating.

Disagree all you want. You are wrong. A murderer doesn't get to claim self defense if his victim was responding to the murderer's initial threats or violence. If events happened as we are assuming they happened, Martin is the only one who can legitimately claim self defense.

 

[leftysergeant]

I disagree. If you stalk me and physically confront me, then I beat you to the ground and keep beating you, you have every right to shoot me dead to stop the beating.

The moment Zimmerman was on the ground and Martin kept punching, he was justifiably dead.

The punk had no right to confront Martin or interfere with him in any way. You do not have a right to kill somebody for defending himself. Any rational person would think that the fat lunatic stalking them in the dark meant to harm them.

 

[RandFan]

I disagree. If you stalk me and physically confront me, then I beat you to the ground and keep beating you, you have every right to shoot me dead to stop the beating.

The moment Zimmerman was on the ground and Martin kept punching, he was justifiably dead.

No. That's wrong. The fact that Martin is dead disproves your theory. The police don't shoot to wound for a very good reason (if the person trying to kill you is left alive you could end up dead like Martin).

 

[AvalonXQ]

You do not have a right to kill somebody for defending himself.

The moment the thug got on top of Zimmerman to keep punching him, he wasn't defending himself anymore.

You don't get to just sit there and beat on someone, no matter what you suspected they might have originally wanted to do to you.

 

[Tony]

The moment the thug got on top of Zimmerman to keep punching him, he wasn't defending himself anymore.

You don't get to just sit there and beat on someone, no matter what you suspected they might have originally wanted to do to you.

The thug in this case is Zimmerman.

 

[RandFan]

The moment the thug got on top of Zimmerman to keep punching him, he wasn't defending himself anymore.

Yes it does. You have the right to render your assailant incapable of killing you. The fact that Martin is dead proves that Zimmerman was not yet incapable of killing Zimmerman.

You don't get to just sit there and beat on someone, no matter what you suspected they might have originally wanted to do to you.

Yes you do. Martin is dead because he was not able to render Zimmerman incapable of killing Martin. That's why when the police the people shoot people they shoot them dead and not just to wound.

 

[AvalonXQ]

The thug in this case is Zimmerman.

The thug in this case is Martin.

 

[Dancing David]

Why? That is a pretty standard holster arrangement.

Um, not for the people I knows what packs a pistol. They either use a fanny pack or an actual holster

 

[TheL8Elvis]

The thug in this case is Zimmerman.

Why didn't you say so earlier - we could have shortened the thread considerably !

 

[AvalonXQ]

Zimmerman was a paranoid bravo who had no business pursuing a teenager buying Skittles.

And if the teenager had just kept walking instead of accosting the bravo and getting violent with him, he'd still be alive today.

 

[RandFan]

And if the teenager had just kept walking instead of accosting the bravo and getting violent with him, he'd still be alive today.

Are you stating facts or speculating?

 

[Roadtoad]

The thug in this case is Zimmerman.

The thug in this case is Martin.

We don't know. We know nothing.

We don't know why Zimmerman pulled his gun. We don't know if Martin made a grab for it. We know NOTHING. Right now, what we have is a lot of words from folks who claim to have seen something. We don't know their agendae, we don't know what anyone hopes to accomplish with any of this.

Most of us are waiting for the complete facts to emerge, (likely to come in a court of law), before we come to a conclusion.