The Sanford Florida incident....

[Morbidbattlecry]

I think this whole event poses a really good question. Where do you draw the line between defending your life with lethal force and just living your life. Like someone posted above, Sure you could never leave your house and never have to worry about getting into a violent situation. But for obvious reasons that won't work. On the flip side if you go pick a fight with someone that you started and then shoot that person in self defense, that isn't right ether.
Unfortunately i believe that this verdict says the second option is ok.

[BaiHu]

Morbid, I suggest you go back and read through this thread. There are a lot of professionals (not me) who can shed light on your opinion and I think you'll be enlightened by the facts in doing such.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

[Tamara]

if you go pick a fight with someone that you started and then shoot that person in self defense

If you think that in any way describes what happened, you obviously paid absolutely no attention to this case whatsoever, because the defense absolutely and flatly disproved that narrative.

In the time between when Trayvon disappeared from Martin's view and the time of the confrontation and beatdown, Mr. Martin had several minutes to travel the four hundred feet to his home. Now who came back looking for a fight?

Uh-huh, the guy the media told you did.

Martin broke contact and then returned, and it was Zimmerman who was looking for a fight? Pull the other one; it's got bells on it.

[Morbidbattlecry]

If you think that in any way describes what happened, you obviously paid absolutely no attention to this case whatsoever, because the defense absolutely and flatly disproved that narrative.

In the time between when Trayvon disappeared from Martin's view and the time of the confrontation and beatdown, Mr. Martin had several minutes to travel the four hundred feet to his home. Now who came back looking for a fight?

Uh-huh, the guy the media told you did.

Martin broke contact and then returned, and it was Zimmerman who was looking for a fight? Pull the other one; it's got bells on it.

How does it make any sense that TM decided to come back and after walking away and just pick a fight with a random guy he saw? For no reason what-so-ever?

BTW i went back a 100 or so pages and i completely agree with you that GZ should not have gotten out of his truck. I think Zimmerman put himself in a situation that he should not have been in.

[Morbidbattlecry]

Morbid, I suggest you go back and read through this thread. There are a lot of professionals (not me) who can shed light on your opinion and I think you'll be enlightened by the facts in doing such.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

Thanks i will. I'd like to say i'm not trying to pick a fight with anyone on this board. Often times i ask questions i'm really curious about and i think i come of as kinda dickish at times...

[Tamara]

How does it make any sense that TM decided to come back and after walking away and just pick a fight with a random guy he saw? For no reason what-so-ever?

Because Zimmerman was following him, trying to keep an eye on him for the cops on the phone. Zimmerman lost track of him. Martin got away...

...and then somehow Zimmerman's nose ends up mysteriously broken.

He says it's because Martin circled back and waited for him in ambush. The prosecution was unable to find any evidence contradicting that. I am certainly unaware of any. Whatcha got?

(Incidentally, this is an slightly foreign situation for me, because I live someplace where someone walking around on foot at 0dark30 is not at all uncommon, so it would take more than a kid wandering around in the dark to trigger my call-the-cops meter. Now if I saw them wandering off the sidewalk and peering in neighbor's windows? Then, yeah, I'd call the cops. Where I used to live? Anybody walking down the road at one in the morning that I didn't immediately recognize was either lost or up to no good, and I probably would have gone to talk to them.)

[Maple Syrup Actual]

Go listen to the audio: The 'we don't need you to do that' came when he was already out of the vehicle and, you know, doing that. That's like having your radio earpiece crackle "We don't need you to jump out of the plane" as you're hitting terminal velocity.

Would his life have been different if he hadn't tried to keep eyes on Martin? Sure, there's no disputing that. But maybe he really was sick and tired of all the burglaries and vandalism that had been taking place in the neighborhood and wanted to be able to point the guy out to the cops when they arrived, knowing that yet another vague "He went that-away" had zero chance of being followed up on.

There is absolutely no doubt that it is to everyone's short term benefit to be like a New Yorker and Not Get Involved.

This really sums up my feelings on the subject. If I look at everything from a purely short-term, selfish perspective, my best bet is to keep my head down and never do anything that might put me at any risk at all, even if it's a totally prosocial act that helps others.

That is also the most nauseating possible approach to life and regardless of the personal cost, I am not remotely interested in living that way and I don't know that I could if I tried.


All told, what I am really taking from the trial reaction is that there are a large number of people who think they would be happier on two conditions:

1) everybody went through life not getting involved and never, ever sticking their neck out for their community, ever
2) the state could convict people for murder as long as its advocates were able to construct a narrative that sounded familiar or plausible



I mean it sure SOUNDS like that would be a better society, but there has to be kind of hidden drawback somewhere.

[Morbidbattlecry]

Because Zimmerman was following him, trying to keep an eye on him for the cops on the phone. Zimmerman lost track of him. Martin got away...

...and then somehow Zimmerman's nose ends up mysteriously broken.

He says it's because Martin circled back and waited for him in ambush. The prosecution was unable to find any evidence contradicting that. I am certainly unaware of any. Whatcha got?

(Incidentally, this is an slightly foreign situation for me, because I live someplace where someone walking around on foot at 0dark30 is not at all uncommon, so it would take more than a kid wandering around in the dark to trigger my call-the-cops meter. Now if I saw them wandering off the sidewalk and peering in neighbor's windows? Then, yeah, I'd call the cops. Where I used to live? Anybody walking down the road at one in the morning that I didn't immediately recognize was either lost or up to no good, and I probably would have gone to talk to them.)

Yeah i see now. Was there any time when the prosecution said it was Zimmerman that started the fight? I swore that's what they where trying to go for(not that i believe it i think George got the crap kicked out of him).

Around where i live we have people walking through yards at all hours of the day and night. Bout the only time i would go out and see what was going on if said persons where looking in windows and the like.

[MDS]

I haven't really been following this case, but here in the foothills west of Denver, the "Blacks" are up to no good. I won't call it rioting just yet, but there have been cases of flagrant trespassing and property damage. Not a lot of "Browns" in the area, so little threat from those ones. I'm not confident that 9mm would do the job, either, if it comes to that. I really hope they stay away from me and mine, because the rules are that if I kill one I have to skin them and turn in the hide to Fish and Game, not to mention all the paperwork...

[Mr_White]

Bout the only time i would go out and see what was going on if said persons where looking in windows and the like.

That's a great example of the point I think Tam and others are trying to make. Say you do what you suggested. They in response to your 'confronting them', attack you in a way that is readily capable of causing death or serious physical injury and you then successfully defend yourself (appropriately) with deadly force. Many people would see you as criminally responsible for going outside in the first place (should have just stayed in your house) and for initiating the 'confrontation' (with someone you suspected might be dangerous.)

I think that line of reasoning is wrongheaded - it leaves out that what you are doing is lawful and not without reason, even if it isn't the absolutely safest thing to do in the strictest sense. You can talk to people in a public place. They can leave, give you the finger, answer you or not, or whatever other lawful conduct. They don't get to attack you simply because you talked to them, or because you followed them and talked to them. And that line of reasoning is also shortsighted - Tam's NYC Don't Get Involved point well applies.