vladnuke wrote:why did zimmerman go after the kid
why be happy for this case, in any situation
a kid died outside his house because a man with zero authority decided that the kid was a threat
zimmerman shouldn't be allowed to be walking around in society, let alone have his gun back
how would you end up in his situation
are you talking about the one where he stalks and kills a teenager
if so, you can avoid that by not stalking kids
simple as that
see, what you posted isn't an equivalent situation. In that situation you have a real, credible, equal threat that you took witness to. Not what zimmerman had.
The scenario I posted is a real, credible threat, but it's a scenario often used to help train concealed carriers to get in the right mindset.
The scenario: You see a woman chased down, about to be raped, with a gun held to her head, and you are the only person around, you happen to be carrying, and the assailant doesn't know you're there.
You have 2 options:
Option 1: Call 911 and continue to observe.
Result 1: Woman is raped, then shot and killed. Police arrive, but the assailant has fled. The media reports on the situation, and mentions how you were a concealed carrier that did nothing to help this woman. People hate you.
Option 2: Shoot the assailant (Lethal force is justified to prevent a forcible felony.)
Result 2: Women is not raped, but it turns out she hates guns. When questioned by the police, she says she didn't really feel she was in mortal danger. You are now awaiting trial for manslaughter, and possible murder charges. The media reports that you're a trigger happy gun maniac with a wannabe hero mentality.
The concealed carrier will more often than not be considered the bad guy in the eyes of the media and public, and that's what people need to understand when it comes to the Zimmerman trial, and ultimate ruling.
Had Zimmerman not gotten out of his car, and Trayvon went on to break into a house, assault somebody else, or kill someone, Zimmerman would have been painted as the, "Guy who did nothing," and how, "As the neighborhood watch, he had a responsibility to keep the neighborhood safe." It's purely hypothetical, but those kinds of responses are very probable.
From a purely factual standpoint, we know that:
- This neighborhood has had a history of break-ins and crime.
- The last suspicious activity Zimmerman reported on, the suspects got away by the time police arrived.
- Zimmerman carried only pepper spray in the past. The decision to carry a gun was recommended to him by an animal control specialist when an unknown pit bull was loose in the neighborhood.
As evidenced in the 911 call, we can assume Zimmerman's motive for getting out of his car and pursuing Trayvon was at least partially influenced by the failure of police to arrive in time in the past. He also likely has at least some degree of mutual self defense for his neighborhood, a trait that's commonly shared by police, firefighters, military, etc. Normally people who volunteer to be a neighborhood watch have some degree of motivation to protect the families of that neighborhood.
From that perspective, we now have a logical reason as to why Zimmerman chose to get out of his car, and why he continued to pursue Trayvon, despite the 911 dispatcher saying he didn't need to do that. Now, while there's a logical reason why he got out of his car, it doesn't mean it was a good decision.
Now, when it comes to Trayvon, he didn't do much to help himself not look suspicious, and regardless of the racial issue, the stereotyped look of a, "hoodie," is based on multiple gangs and crimes that have been committed by people wearing the same type of outfit, which is why there's a stereotype that revolves around it.
A stereotyped look alone is not enough to warrant suspicion, but Trayvon wasn't simply walking to and from the 7-Eleven. He was reportedly walking through people's yards, between houses, and not looking like he had any particular destination, which (given the fact it was raining) would have been suspicious looking activity regardless of what a person was wearing, or what race they are.
At this point, none of them have done anything illegal, but they both are guilty of making poor decisions. Now, here's where the facts start to get blurred, and where the legalities of lethal force get a bit confusing.
If Trayvon was worried because somebody was following him, that alone does not give him the right to use force in self-defense, so if Zimmerman's story is true, and Trayvon attacked him from a concealed position, that is not self-defense. That is assault. The use of force for self-defense (including your hands) is only justified when confronted with a hostile act. Following somebody could be considered hostile "intent," but it is not a hostile "act" and therefore self-defense is not justified. Very important distinction.
We know from photographic evidence and medical reports that Zimmerman did have multiple lacerations on the back of his head, and bruising on the front of his face. We also have evidence of Trayvon having sustained injuries to his knuckles:
http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/aut ... s-h/nN6gs/It's hard to picture a scenario where Trayvon would be justified to act in self-defense, because there isn't any evidence from the autopsy report that indicates that Zimmerman attacked first, so either Zimmerman really sucks at attacking somebody, or he simply walked up and shot Trayvon, which can be disproved by the fact there is witness testimony of a fight on the ground taking place.
My theory on what took place?
I think Zimmerman followed Martin to ask him about his intentions, and determine if he belonged in the neighborhood. Martin, seeing that he was being followed, assumed that Zimmerman was going to attack him, and placed himself in an area where he would have the element of surprise and the upper hand. Martin then attacked Zimmerman, likely to teach him a lesson about following him. Zimmerman, having been attacked, concluded his suspicion that Martin was a criminal that didn't belong in the neighborhood, assumed he was going to be killed if he didn't act, and fired his gun in self-defense.
It's still a sad situation, and something that didn't need to happen, but the important thing to take away, is whether or not Martin was justified in attacking Zimmerman, which (as outlined above) if he attacked Zimmerman because he was following him, that is NOT a justified act of self-defense, and Zimmerman was completely within his right to use lethal force in defense of a hostile act being conducted by Martin.
