It seems impossible to have a reasoned discussion on this subject since people come with ready made up views dependent on what their other politics are ( I can guess at least 3 epople who will have knee jerk views here).

Based only on the evidence -what actually happened and what will be the outcome at the trial?

Lets see if a bunch of people who supposedly embrace reason can discuss this without screamning 'racist at each other'.

He chased an innocent child, and 'somehow' ended up shooting him? Guilty. Zimmerman was the attacker. 'Stand your ground' is for when people come after you, not when you go after them based on a bag of skittles and...

Even if the evidence shows that Treyvon Martin was attacking him, Zimmerman acted with reckless disregard by pursuing Martin after repeatedly being told not to. Zimmerman was the aggressor, and he shouldn't be able to hide behind self-defense when he was ultimately responsible for the whole situation snowballing out of control. I think racism is irrelevant when it comes to determining whether a crime was committed or not. Is Zimmerman racist? I think his actions show that he is somewhat, even if only at the subconscious level(something I think everyone could be guilty of at one point or another in their life). Does it matter that his motivations were racial? No, it does not, and I think bringing in the racism aspect of the situation just muddies up the whole issue.

(September 12, 2012 at 4:27 am)Stue Denim Wrote: He chased an innocent child, and 'somehow' ended up shooting him? Guilty. Zimmerman was the attacker. 'Stand your ground' is for when people come after you, not when you go after them based on a bag of skittles and...

Knee jerk reaction number one. No reason just pointless sloganeering.

We have no idea who threw the first punch

Puddleglum Wrote:Knee jerk reaction number one. No reason just pointless sloganeering.

Ah, I see. You're not actually interested in a serious discussion, but are simply hoping for an emotional reaction that you can point at and condemn.

(September 12, 2012 at 4:40 am)Faith No More Wrote: Even if the evidence shows that Treyvon Martin was attacking him, Zimmerman acted with reckless disregard by pursuing Martin after repeatedly being told not to. Zimmerman was the aggressor, and he shouldn't be able to hide behind self-defense when he was ultimately responsible for the whole situation snowballing out of control. I think racism is irrelevant when it comes to determining whether a crime was committed or not. Is Zimmerman racist? I think his actions show that he is somewhat, even if only at the subconscious level(something I think everyone could be guilty of at one point or another in their life). Does it matter that his motivations were racial? No, it does not, and I think bringing in the racism aspect of the situation just muddies up the whole issue.

Not quite as stupid as the previous post but. Zimmerman was not 'repeatedly told' to do anything so that is your first untrue statement. he 'Once' was told 'we do not need you to do that' which is not telling someone not to do anything not that the Police despatacher had any legal right to tell him not to follow someone.

The aggressor was whoever threw the first punch. I have no idea who that was and neither do you.

I know nothing of Zimmerman's racism but for some reason certain people have lied about what he said (including NBC) but I agree with you that it is not relevant.

If Zimmerman acted lawfully and Martin hit him then Zimmerman is not guilty. I have seen no evidence so far that Zimmerman has acted unlawfully.

Perhaps someone can tell me where Zimmerman acted unlawfully up and until the first punch was thrown (by whomever)?

---

(September 12, 2012 at 4:49 am)Faith No More Wrote:

Puddleglum Wrote:Knee jerk reaction number one. No reason just pointless sloganeering.

Ah, I see. You're not actually interested in a serious discussion, but are simply hoping for an emotional reaction that you can point at and condemn.

I'm very interested in reasoned discussions.Hence I will condemn every emotional reaction. I am not emotionally involved in this. It is an interesting case both in the legal case and its exploitation by others.

Puddleglum Wrote:Not quite as stupid as the previous post but...

No need to be a condescending asshole. Don't whine about wanting a rational discussion and then start your posts in such a manner.

Puddleglum Wrote:Zimmerman was not 'repeatedly told' to do anything so that is your first untrue statement. he 'Once' was told 'we do not need you to do that' which is not telling someone not to do anything not that the Police despatacher had any legal right to tell him not to follow someone.

He was told to get back into his car by the 911 operator, but I guess this point is irrelevant too. What matters is the reckless disregard he acted with.

Puddleglum Wrote:The aggressor was whoever threw the first punch. I have no idea who that was and neither do you.

Bullshit. Zimmerman stalked Martin in the middle of the night. If Martin did throw the first punch, it was because he felt threatened. Why should Zimmerman get to hide behind self-defense for a criminal charge while the fact of whether or not Martin was acting in self-defense is ignored. Without Zimmerman's careless actions and vigilante attitude Martin would still be alive making him responsible.

(September 12, 2012 at 5:05 am)Faith No More Wrote:

Puddleglum Wrote:Not quite as stupid as the previous post but...

No need to be a condescending asshole. Don't whine about wanting a rational discussion and then start your posts in such a manner.

Puddleglum Wrote:Zimmerman was not 'repeatedly told' to do anything so that is your first untrue statement. he 'Once' was told 'we do not need you to do that' which is not telling someone not to do anything not that the Police despatacher had any legal right to tell him not to follow someone.

He was told to get back into his car by the 911 operator, but I guess this point is irrelevant too. What matters is the reckless disregard he acted with.

Puddleglum Wrote:The aggressor was whoever threw the first punch. I have no idea who that was and neither do you.

Bullshit. Zimmerman stalked Martin in the middle of the night. If Martin did throw the first punch, it was because he felt threatened. Why should Zimmerman get to hide behind self-defense for a criminal charge while the fact of whether or not Martin was acting in self-defense is ignored. Without Zimmerman's careless actions and vigilante attitude Martin would still be alive making him responsible.

Bullshit?

Zimmerman 'Stalked 'Martin' in the middle of the night? Now lets look at that. Since Zimerman was behind Martin then Zimmerman either ran after him in order to catch up with him -hardly stalking or Martin waited to confront him. If Zimmerman was just stalking Martin then Martin would have gotten back home leaving Zimmerman outside realing that martin was legally in a residence.

Neither you or I know why Martin threw a first punch if he did so, It could be for any number of reasons. It may be because he feltthreatened but if he did feel threatened them why did he not go home as quickly as possible?

Once again until that first punch was thrown you have not given any evidence that Zimmerman was acting unlawfully. Zimmerman may have been acting unlawfully but there is no evidnece to state that he did.

As for being told to get back in the car. I am just listening right now to the 7.09 PM call. From Zimmermans comments Martin is not proceeding to his house at the beginning but is 'staring at Zimmerman' (53 seconds in) at just after 2 minutes Martin starts running. Now Zimmerman has left the car at this point and is following Amrtin but clearly not running. He was not told to 'get back in the car'.

So Martin has started running from Zimmerman and if martin had just rab back home then he would have arrived there within two minutes whilst Zimmerman was still on the phone to the Police. However Martin doesn;t go home . He makes a call to his girlfriend.

If What Zimmerman says is true (and I'm not accepting that as fact at this time) Then martin was actually lying in wait for him and attacked him. since Zimmerman had every lawfull right to follow Martin then Martin is not the agressor. Following someone is not an unlawful act.


If Martin aimed to ambush Zimmerman instead of proceeding home then Martin is the Clear aggressor but we have no evidence of this.

We certainly have no evidence to convcit Zimmerman so far.

---

I'm happy to look at any evidence that anyone wants to post but My current position still remains that I have no idea what really happened and that therefore there is not enough evidence to convict. I have no ineterst in any emotional responses, crap about martin being a 'child' or conversely any crap about him having a trace amount of marijuana in his sytem.

(September 12, 2012 at 3:57 am)Puddleglum Wrote: It seems impossible to have a reasoned discussion on this subject since people come with ready made up views dependent on what their other politics are ( I can guess at least 3 epople who will have knee jerk views here).

Based only on the evidence -what actually happened and what will be the outcome at the trial?

Lets see if a bunch of people who supposedly embrace reason can discuss this without screamning 'racist at each other'.

My vote is to wait and see. The facts in this case have yet to be argued in court. Nobody on this forum is in any position to assess guilt or innocence to Zimmerman until after the trial.
Nobody on this forum is in a position to call this a racially motivated shooting. In it's investigation the FBI has determined that there is no evidence to prove this was racially motivated.....

http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2012-...interviews

Just checked the poll results. Five voted so far. Two of us voted to wait for the evidence to be argued out before assessing guilt or innocence. Three have already judged the guy guilty before any evidence has been argued out. Unbelievable!

Yes, it shows that for some people evidence is not important. A Latino/White Guy has killed a black guy and politics means that the white/latino guy must be guilty.