If you are going to accuse me of bias, then you really should explain why you think Martin was acting suspiciously as it may help readers understand if you are bias or not.
Where did I say Martin knew that Zimmerman was armed? Are you intentionally misinterpreting what I said?
I would not claim that Zimmerman did nothing wrong. For one, he should have stayed in his vehicle and waited on the police. However, he broke no laws by not doing so, nor in his subsequent following of Martin. I do believe Martin initiated contact with Zimmerman. This is corroborated by both Zimmerman and Martin’s girlfriend. Based on physical evidence and the description of the altercation by witnesses, I believe Zimmerman was well within his rights, under Florida law, to use deadly force to defend himself. While what transpired is an absolutely tragedy, it was not criminal and not murder.
They’re not my prejudices. You’re the one arguing that Martin was familiar enough with armed thugs to be able to tell at a glance whether someone is armed or not. I have a military background and some familiarity with firearms, but I can’t just tell be looking at someone whether they’re carrying a firearm or not, unless they’re carrying it openly, which there’s no indication that Zimmerman was.
So, what exactly do mean when you say that it’s a "shame that he (Martin) didn’t take advantage of his 2nd amendment rights if not that you believe minor children (Martin was 17) should be able to carry firearms to defend themselves against people that are engaged in “unauthorized following”?
How do you have all this intimate knowledge of the event and of Martin’s state of mind? Were you there? Are you the girlfriend he called?
When someone is pounding your head against a concrete pavement, you don’t have the right to use lethal force to stop them? Are you just supposed to hope they get tired before the brain damage is too bad?
It’s not clear exactly what happened because the 2nd relevant witness was murdered. Did Zimmerman do something that Martin found threatening like starting to go for a gun? We will never know. But given that Zimmerman has had other incidents since then like beating women and threatening others with guns, I don’t think I find his testimony to be reliable.
Yes, it is your prejudices. You said that he would have a familiarity with firearms and thugs and then suggested this would put a different spin on Martin being an ‘upstanding citizen’. This pretty clearly means that you would think he would be less than an upstanding citizen if he knew about guns and thugs, maybe even a thug himself.
Well, I meant that he would be prepared to defend himself against an armed man. I didn’t realize that Second Amendment rights meant the right to kill someone. That’s what you said.
I can think reasonably about what Martin might have been thinking as someone in a car is staring at him, gets out of his car and follows him after he runs from him.
Martin may have concluded that Zimmerman meant him harm and he was defending himself. Given that Zimmerman shot him, this assumption was reasonable.
Zimmerman’s lawsuit is based on witnesses not being who and what they claimed to be.
To be fair, Martin also had prior incidents. I don’t think they need to be mentioned because they shouldn’t factor in how one views the circumstances of this event. Neither should Zimmerman’s subsequent acts after the fact.
Doesn’t appear people are interested in fair.
Depends on the incidents. Exactly what were Martin’s incidents? Did he beat women or threatens others with guns?
I’m still waiting for you to explain how Martin was suspicious.
Illegal drugs. How’s that?
Compared to beating women and threatening others with guns, I’d say that is very minor.
Most here would have said irrelevant.
Kind of makes me wonder why you responded to the post then.
It goes to the reliability of the witness.
Well, no. For example, you won’t say why you found Martin suspicious.
Are you saying he was trying to get shot?drcube:
Odd.
Most people run away when they see an armed man chasing them.
Particularly when they are not armed.
In that case, we cannot rely on any of the verbal testimony as everyone has something that would indicate unreliability.
No, just that it makes no sense for an unarmed man to confront and attack someone they know to be armed.
You are talking about a 17 year old whose brain and maturity are not developed. I’ve raised 2 17 year old boys. They are at a stage of looking like adults but with a childs brain.Emeraldlady:
No, just that it makes no sense for an unarmed man to confront and attack someone they know to be armed.
Zimmerman received training in November 2009.
What sort of training? Why did he not follow the protocols as per the dispatcher? Did he identify himself to the victim as security or skulk around unidentified? Gun culture is the big problem here.Emeraldlady:
Zimmerman received training in November 2009.
The course was provided when he obtained his permit to carry. I would imagine a course called gun safety would cover that. It may also have covered how to shoot and actually hit your target.
According to his statement, and corroborated by the 911 call, he was concerned the person he was following would sneak away before the police arrived.
Don’t know.
I am unfamiliar with “skulking”
You are entitled to that opinion.