Trayvon Martin Re-Do, Only Different

You remember Trayvon Martin who was shot and killed while returning to his father’s home?  George Zimmerman, who claimed to be on a “community watch” approached Trayvon and when a fight ensued, shot Martin “in self defense”.  Under Florida law, allegedly anyone has the right to use deadly force if they feel their life is threatened.  Zimmerman was found not guilty.

Fast forward to the case of Marissa Alexander.  She fired three warning shots at her estranged husband while fleeing her house.  Arrested and convicted, she received a sentence of three 20 year terms to run concurrently.  No stand your ground here.

Her lawyers appealed successfully the judgement on the grounds of incorrect instructions to the jurors.  Now prosecutors say they will seek conviction but this time demand the three counts be served consecutively.  Hmmm.

In the Zimmerman case, stand your ground was made a joke.  Zimmerman went looking for trouble and found it.  Calls to 911 had already dispatched police and Zimmerman’s confrontation was totally unnecessary.  With Alexander, she was in her home and (according to her testimony) was being threatened by a previously abusive husband.

The message appears to be, if you are threatened, shot to kill.  Otherwise a jury might not believe your story when the other person is questioned.

 

Advertisements
Explore posts in the same categories: Democratic Party, Politics, Republican Party

Tags: , , , , ,

You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.

18 Comments on “Trayvon Martin Re-Do, Only Different”

  1. 3boxesofbs Says:

    I would like to point out your argument is factually incorrect in many ways.

    killed while returning to his father’s home

    It was not his father’s home. It was the home of his father’s girlfriend who was renting the townhome. Tracy Martin actually lived in Miami Florida.
    Trayvon Martin lived with his mother in Miami-Dade until she kicked him out of the house for being suspended again.

    who claimed to be on a “community watch”

    There was no ‘claimed’ involved. He was part of the community watch program. Recognized by even the police department.
    On the night in question; he wasn’t out on ‘watch’; he was going to the grocery store when he saw Martin.

    approached Trayvon

    The forensic evidence along with the testimony of the prosecution’s star witness Rachel Jeantel make it clear that Marin approached Zimmerman.
    Martin had 4 minutes from the time Zimmerman lost sight of him to make it 210 feet to the house of his dad’s girlfriend. Transcripts from the 911 call make it abundantly clear that Zimmerman did not have Martin in sight.

    How can a person ‘approach’ someone they can’t see?

    when a fight ensued

    If you call being suckered punch by a younger, more experienced fighter “a fight” — then I’ll give you this.
    However, again this is key — forensic evidence shows that Zimmerman was not fighting back. There was no defensive wounds or bruising on Martin — only ones consistent with Martin being the aggressor completely.

    And yes, you are right
    Under Florida law, allegedly anyone has the right to use deadly force if they feel their life is threatened.

    The police department who reviewed the incident agreed. The District Attorney who reviewed the incident agreed. The jury and the Judge who heard the case agreed.

    George Zimmerman reasonably feared his life was threatened when Trayvon Martin was on top of him, raining blows down without stopping and bashing Zimmerman’s head into the concrete.

    Wouldn’t you fear for your life?

    She fired three warning shots at her estranged husband while fleeing her house.

    Now you get back into the area of factually incorrect.

    Ms. Alexander didn’t ‘flee’ the house; she left the immediate scene, retrieved a firearm, and then proceeded to fire the shots

    After Alexander exited the bathroom and re-entered the master bedroom, Gray left the bedroom and headed to the living room where his sons were located. At that point, Alexander left the master bedroom, passing Gray, his two children, and the unobstructed front and back doors of the house on her way to the garage. Once in the garage, she retrieved a handgun from her vehicle’s glove box and then went back into the kitchen, where she “pointed it in the direction of all three [v]ictims.” Although Gray put his hands in the air, Alexander fired the gun, “nearly missing [Gray’s] head” and sending a bullet “through the kitchen wall and into the ceiling in the living room.”

    No Stand Your Ground issues, no Self Defense issues

    With Alexander, she was in her home and (according to her testimony) was being threatened by a previously abusive husband.

    A home she hadn’t lived in for two months

    Alexander had not lived in Gray’s home for the two months prior to the shooting.

    Otherwise a jury might not believe your story when the other person is questioned.

    Yeah, they might not believe it when someone with nothing keeping them in a house they don’t live in, have free access to live, walks out, retrieves a firearm and jeopardizes the lives of others.


    • BS, thanks for taking the time to explain so many aspect of this post which might be misleading or otherwise not factual. Some of the differences you point out may not be material… For example…

      1. Trayvon was in fact walking to a home where he had a right to be.
      2. Agreed, Zimmerman was a volunteer community watch person. When he spotted Trayvon, he began to act as if he was on duty. It is my understanding Zimmerman called 911 and was told they would take it from there.
      3. Zimmerman had to have gotten out of his car in order to have gotten close to Trayvon. It is possible Trayvon decided to head towards Zimmerman once he was out of his car.
      4. “use of deadly force if life was threatened” is an aspect that many people cannot understand when… a person goes out of their way to provoke a fight and then uses a gun to finish it…
      5. The outline of what took place with Alexander certainly leaves open the possibility that Alexander was the aggressor… Spousal abuse cases typically, however, have a long history, like where she got the crap kicked out of her before. Don’t know, and must accept your description.
      In any case, if this had been premeditated, Alexander would have been packing right from the start, so I am inclined to believe something took place in their discussions that set her off. 20 years for a domestic argument seems a bit steep and 60 for spite seems stupid in terms of the cost to Florida.

      From what I have read since the Martin-Zimmerman case, both were hardly sterling citizens. This may also be the case with Alexander. In my book (not Florida law) guns and deadly force were not called for in either case. Both situations which ended in gun fire could have been avoided.

      Thanks again for your rational supply of information.

      • 3boxesofbs Says:

        zukunftsaugen;

        1 – Agreed but let’s not make this a “poor little boy only wanted to go home” issue. That wasn’t the case. In fact, evidence exists that a.) Martin smoked marijuana on his trip to or from the store. b.) Martin purchased two of the three ingredients needed to make a street drug called “lean” or “drank”.
        This is applicable because the over use of that drug increases paranoia.

        2 — Zimmerman was twice told by the 911 dispatcher to “keep an eye on him” or “let us know if he does anything else”. Now it is hardly fair to argue that Zimmerman should have followed instructions to not follow Martin (obeying the dispatcher) without addressing the 2 incidences where the dispatcher asked (obeying the dispatcher) for Zimmerman to do what he did.
        Nor should we overlook the fact that ‘following’ someone isn’t provocation, isn’t a reason to start a physical altercation.

        3. Read the transcript of Rachel Jeantel’s (prosecution’s star witness) and the 911 transcript. Both make the sequence of events very clear. Martin is observed, walks by Zimmerman’s car eyeballing him, walks toward the house.
        Zimmerman does get out of the car, does walk to see which way Martin went — but looses sight of him (He’s running). Rachel Jeantel recounted that Martin said he was running. From the time Zimmerman hung up from talking the to dispatcher — after agreeing to meet the officers on the way at a different location – it was 4 minutes from the time people started hearing the altercation. Remember from the point of confrontation to the house was only 210 feet.
        Roger Bannister broke the 4 Minute MILE in the 60’s.

        4. And many people further don’t understand that Yes, a person can provoke a fight, be getting the stuffing kicked out of him and then use lethal force.
        776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
        (1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
        (2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
        (a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
        (b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

        Every shred of evidence, every bit of testimony indicates that Martin was on top of Zimmerman, raining down blows unhindered and not stopping. That aspect is very important. Zimmerman was down, Martin could have stopped, could have yelled for assistance, could have ran away and likely escaped. NOTHING in the trial indicated he tried any of those.

        5– Are you seriously arguing that something a spouse says is justification for attempted murder?

        When there was no evidence she was in danger — no bruises, no cuts. She had the ability to leave the premises — she reached her car to obtain the firearm, right?

        Spousal abuse is a serious problem; but isn’t this clear evidence that it could have been handled in the courts? And how much abuse was she afraid of — she went to the home, stayed there over night (first time in two years), discussed things — sorry the story doesn’t add up to “He was beating me and I couldn’t take it any more”

        In my book (not Florida law) guns and deadly force were not called for in either case.

        I would ask you to put yourself in Martin’s position and tell me what you would if you truly believe that deadly force was not called for.

        Would you even attempt to confront someone following you?

        Now put yourself in Zimmerman’s place — clear evidence indicates he was suckered punch, was on the ground, dazed, bleeding — what action would you take to stop someone from bashing your head into the concrete?

  2. List of X Says:

    Or, maybe, the real message is, don’t shoot while black.


  3. BS, thanks again for a lengthy and detailed argument on your understanding of both situations. I’m afraid we are going to see the same situation differently.

    While I can accept that Martin was not a model citizen, neither was Zimmerman. The 911 dispatcher did tell Zimmerman that they would take over and if they did say keep an eye on Martin until police arrived, that can be safely accomplished from the car. Zimmerman went looking for trouble and found it.

    Martin may have thrown the first punch but had Zimmerman been in his car, the punch would have hit his car window.

    And, it must not have been such a one sided fight if Zimmerman was able to get his gun out while allegedly being pummeled.

    And, once he had his gun out, why didn’t he put Martin under “citizens arrest”, or at worst shoot him in the leg?

    I must also admit that I believe “stand your ground” is justified only in ones home and only under extreme circumstances.

    In public, leaving the right to fire up to what an individual thinks is simply asking for trouble.

    The Alexander situation may or may not be a “stand your ground” case. You make some very good points why it is not. I am not an expert on spousal abuse but from what little I have read or seen, when the woman finally fights back, she had been pushed over the edge often by a trivial matter.

    Sixty years (as Prosecutors have said they will seek) does not fit the crime, even if it were premeditated (for which there seems no evidence).

    Again thanks for providing a rich background to these two cases.

    • 3boxesofbs Says:

      Help me understand how this could be done?

      The 911 dispatcher did tell Zimmerman that they would take over and if they did say keep an eye on Martin until police arrived, that can be safely accomplished from the car.

      Ever live in a townhome community? The walk ways are down the middle of the greenery between two rows of houses. The streets are in back. Martin ducked down the front, not the back. So how was Zimmerman to keep an eye on Martin from the car?

      Martin may have thrown the first punch but had Zimmerman been in his car, the punch would have hit his car window.

      So, help me understand something. Martin — you claim rightly — had every right to walk through the townhomes. But Zimmerman who actually lived there and helped the community as a neighborhood watch should have not been allowed to get out of his car?

      And, it must not have been such a one sided fight if Zimmerman was able to get his gun out while allegedly being pummeled.

      It was a one sided fight. Martin was not stopping. — Again, what would you do to save your life in the situation?

      And, once he had his gun out, why didn’t he put Martin under “citizens arrest”, or at worst shoot him in the leg?

      Right….let’s play that out. Martin, younger and stronger is on top of Zimmerman raining blows down — do you agree?
      Zimmerman, according to you, should have pulled his firearm, politely asking Martin “Please stop beating my face into a pulp, bouncing my head off the concrete. You are under arrest”.

      What do you think Martin would have done? Given up?????
      Seriously ?

      Isn’t it more likely that Martin would have knocked the gun out of Zimmerman’s hand and either kept beating him or used it against him? Again there is absolutely zero evidence to show that Martin stopped attacking Zimmerman until the fatal shot was fired.
      Your idea about shooting him in the leg is a stunning display of ignorance of biology. First off, consider the contortions Zimmerman would have had to do. Second, consider the femoral artery in the leg — shooting a person in the leg can and often is a fatal injury. Third, had Zimmerman missed the leg, he would have likely hit himself or a bystander….really bright.

      I must also admit that I believe “stand your ground” is justified only in ones home and only under extreme circumstances.

      Could you explain this a little more?

      Why should I have to run away if I’m at the end of my street but not in my house and what ‘extreme circumstances’ ?


      • BS, where to begin…

        1, there is to my knowledge no video transcript of what actually took place… we are both speculating from experience or what has been written…

        2. It should be clear that when the 911 dispatcher says “we’ll take it from here”, they meant that police work which includes confrontation was their province and not Zimmerman’s. So when George decides to follow on foot, he was going against this first advice… you see the dispatcher would not have know already the layout of the town home community either, he would have reasonably thought that Zimmerman could remain in his car and still keep an eye on Martin.

        3. The fight… a simple question is why did Martin not see Zimmerman’s gun? If it was on his hip, it would have been hard to miss. And if it was visible, why didn’t Martin go for the gun? If the gun was in the small of his back, Martin might not have seen it, but if Martin was beating Zimmerman so badly, Zimmerman’s instincts would have been to use his arms to protect himself and then wiggle to get out from under Martin.

        Now it could have been that Martin hit him and in the process of getting him to the ground, did not notice Zimmerman reach for his gun. With gun in hand, Zimmerman could have ordered Marin to retreat.

        The version that Martin was atop Zimmerman and pounding his, and suddenly Zimmerman pulls his weapon and shots Martin just doesn’t seem reasonable.

        4. Certainly Zimmerman had a right to walk through the community. The issue he faced however is having already lurked around following slowly by car Martin, Zimmerman had drawn attention to himself. With prejudice as it is, Martin could be expected to want to take exception.

        5. With respect to “stand your ground” in your own home, I can accept the use of a gun (deadly force) if your home is invaded and your life is threatened. This is not black and white. For example, let’s say it is noon time (plenty of light) and a petty thief breaks into your home not knowing you are home. You surprise the thief, he/she just stands there, and then shot him/her dead. In my book, that’s murder because it is disproportionate use of force. On the other hand, had the intruder turned on you and charged forward, shooting is justified.

        Once outside ones home, the use of guns becomes a case of self defense, providing one has done all possible to avoid the need to use the gun…

        Now I recognize that this is my opinion and not that of everyone else. But this is 2014 and not the old Wild West. In populated areas, carrying guns openly and using them as prescribed in “hold your ground” is asking for trouble. Road rage, card fights, jealous lovers, insecure community watch people, and on and on could settle their differences with guns.

        So just like with a car when someone doesn’t pay attention or drinks and drives, and accidentally kills someone else, the person’s right to drive plays no role. We have rules about what constitutes safe driving. Can you image a law that says you can run someone else off the road if you suspect they have wronged you and might do it again?

        The solution to these situation is the same… call the police, get out of the way, and wait for help.

  4. 3boxesofbs Says:

    1, there is to my knowledge no video transcript of what actually took place… we are both speculating from experience or what has been written

    There is a transcript of the 911 call that Zimmerman placed. There are transcripts from the 911 calls Zimmerman’s neighbors placed. Time stamps are available on those transcripts.
    There is a trial transcript of Rachel Jeantel’s testimony.

    I’m not ‘speculating. I’m describing what the transcripts — including Zimmerman’s videotaped walk through show what happened.

    #2 –Listen to the transcript of the 911 call.
    http://www.examiner.com/article/george-zimmerman-s-911-call-transcribed
    Zimmerman:

    Uh, huh.

    Something’s wrong with him. Yep, he’s coming to check me out.

    He’s got something in his hands. I don’t know what his deal is. [01:20]

    911 dispatcher: Let me know if he does anything, OK?

    Zimmerman: OK.

    911 dispatcher:We’ve got him on the wire. Just let me know if this guy does anything else.

    1:20 into the conversation the dispatcher says “just let me know if this does does anything else” This was after Martin approached Zimmerman’s car and looked at him.

    Zimmerman: Yeah. You go in straight through the entrance and then you would go left. You go straight in, don’t turn and make a left.

    He’s running. [2:08]

    911 dispatcher: He’s running? Which way is he running?

    40, nearly 50 seconds – a very long time for someone trying to make it home — before Martin takes off running.

    911 dispatcher:

    Are you following him? [2:24]

    Zimmerman: Yeah. [2:25]

    911 dispatcher: OK.

    We don’t need you to do that. [2:26]

    Zimmerman: OK. [2:28]

    Does someone tell a dispatcher “Ok” in response to “we don’t need you to do that” and then keeps following the person?

    Not likely. Possible though because Zimmerman does tell the dispatcher to have the cops call him and he’ll tell them where to meet him. Most likely it was more of being at a location and then telling the cops how to get to that location.

    Phone call ended at the 4 minute 7 second mark. — so at least Martin had 2 minutes to get to the house — a distance of only several hundred yards at most

    This is fact. The evidence is not in doubt.

    Nor is the timeline

    7:13:41 — The end of Zimmerman’s call to Sanford police.[14]

    7:16:00 – 7:16:59 — Martin’s call from the girl goes dead during this minute.[14][15] [the precise time surfaced during the trial, the call ends at 7:15:43, 1 minute and 12 seconds before the shot.]

    7:16:11 — First 911 call from witness about a fight, calls for help heard.[16]

    7:16:55 — Gunshot heard on 911 call.[17]

    So Martin runs nearly two minutes before Zimmerman ends the 911 call. What was Martin doing in that time? Talking to Rachel Jeantel.

    Your point about the dispatcher thinking that staying in the car is really immaterial. Because Zimmerman had every right to walk around. And the evidence suggests that Zimmerman was on his way to meet the cops. Not continuing pursuit of Martin.

    3. The fight… a simple question is why did Martin not see Zimmerman’s gun?

    Uh, you do know that Florida is a “Concealed Carry” state, right? That Openly carrying firearms is not allowed.

    Maybe that is why the younger and more experience fighter took a chance to attack Zimmerman, eh?

    but if Martin was beating Zimmerman so badly, Zimmerman’s instincts would have been to use his arms to protect himself and then wiggle to get out from under Martin.

    Because every person reacts the same way in a fight ?

    Nice try but again the testimony indicates that Martin was on top and throwing blows. Zimmerman did wiggle though; that was how he as able to free an arm enough to reach the holster under his jacket and draw the weapon.

    With prejudice as it is, Martin could be expected to want to take exception.

    So someone driving around a neighborhood watching folks is cause for a beating but someone walking around a neighborhood looking in to window is an innocent young boy?

    Martin did take exception. Instead of acting out of fear; it seems — note my word choice — that he chose to play the tough guy. Walked around the car eyeballing Zimmerman, refusing to reach safety of the house and confronting Zimmerman.

    Just what should Martin take exception to? He didn’t know people, for all he knew Zimmerman could simply be looking for a friend, trying to figure out the streets and addresses. Is that cause for a beating?

    Sorry but the forensic evidence and the witness testimony all supports Zimmerman’s contention it was Martin who started the fight, that it was Martin who was savagely beating him and that he was in fear of his life.


    • BS, this is incredible detail… you own the George Zimmerman defense… but as detailed as you have laid it out, for those of us who believe guns should be used for sport or self defense while hunting, this description screams “see I told you so, Zimmerman had plenty of opportunity to remain safely in his car (or return to his car) and allow the police to do their work”. Zimmerman never had to get into the position of even thinking about using deadly force.

      • 3boxesofbs Says:

        Wait… so you are saying that a person like Zimmerman should not bother to watch a potential criminal?

        Remember; Zimmerman did not know Martin belonged there. Could not know that. Right?

        So you want someone to see a suspicious person and not follow them — allowing them the freedom to break into a house, to rape someone, to mug / assault someone on the side walks; is that what you are saying?

        Doesn’t it make more sense to acknowledge that a.) Martin’s behavior fit the definition of suspicious (whether it was or not, it appeared that way)and b.) that MARTIN, not Zimmerman had the greater responsibility avoid trouble?

        Martin didn’t have to try to stare down Zimmerman, didn’t have to wait outside for Zimmerman, didn’t have to confront Zimmerman, didn’t have to assault Zimmerman.

        Had Martin not done those things; he would probably still be alive today.

  5. 3boxesofbs Says:

    Sorry to be long winded but I wanted to actually cite the evidence.

    Now onto other items

    Once outside ones home, the use of guns becomes a case of self defense, providing one has done all possible to avoid the need to use the gun…

    Such as run away from 17 year old thugs when a person is jumped by surprise? Or should I — an asthmatic – have to run away instead of just continuing to do what I was?
    See the idea of the victim being forced to avoid the criminal doesn’t make sense to me. Shouldn’t the criminal do everything possible to avoid getting shot; like not try to rob/mug/rape people?

    This is not black and white. For example, let’s say it is noon time (plenty of light) and a petty thief breaks into your home not knowing you are home. You surprise the thief, he/she just stands there, and then shot him/her dead

    Okay…this is a little better but major problems with it.
    First off — “a petty thief”; does (s)he have a sign announcing their vocation? Have they called in advance to notify me their intention?

    Someone standing in the middle of my home has already broken the law and social convention. Isn’t what you are suggesting tantamount to “Let them attack you first then you can fight back”?

    Next, there is the shouldn’t the criminal do everything necessary to avoid getting shot aspect. A home owner surprises a thief; shouldn’t the criminal put his/her hands up and surrender?

    In my book, that’s murder because it is disproportionate use of force.

    So the criminal — or criminals possibly more than one often — are often younger (most burglars are), more experienced in fighting, and often stronger than the home owner. Just who has the disparate force available?

    In populated areas, carrying guns openly and using them as prescribed in “hold your ground” is asking for trouble. Road rage, card fights, jealous lovers, insecure community watch people, and on and on could settle their differences with guns.

    Except for that pesky thing called ‘facts’. See your view doesn’t hold up. Very few homicides come down the way you envision the ‘old west’ gun fight.

    So just like with a car when someone doesn’t pay attention or drinks and drives, and accidentally kills someone else, the person’s right to drive plays no role.

    Actually once again you are factually wrong. Think about the continual drunk driver; how many times have we seen actual reports of someone being convicted 3,8, 16 times of drunk driving. And they are still driving with no license; shouldn’t their penalty be higher. It is because they are violating more laws.

    The solution to these situation is the same… call the police, get out of the way, and wait for help.

    Love this suggestion — always a favorite of those against firearms. Zimmerman called the police and look at what happened.

    The average police response time nation wide is 11 minutes. 660 seconds. Count them off. Imagine a criminal breaking into your home — going to rape your family, kill you or just steal something – you don’t know. Wait as the noises get closer and closer and you have an option of doing nothing but praying the police get their in time or defending yourself, your family with a firearm.
    Which do you choose?


    • BS, in your last paragraph you say ” going to rape your family, kill you or just steal something”. The issue is somewhat easy if rape or killing is the intruder’s purpose. You do what is necessary to protect yourself… With theft, it is much more involved. Killing someone for breaking and entry is simply extracting a greater penalty than what the crime is worth.

      There is no doubt trespassers have no right to enter your house, and technically to pass through your property. Yet school kids cut across other people’s lawns all the time. Does the owner have the right to shoot them?

      One is better off getting a dog and when that intruder happens into your home, let the dog go after them.

      • 3boxesofbs Says:

        The problem is you judge everyone after the fact. Martin was “just trying to get home” or “he had a long record of burglaries” — those facts do the home owner no good at the moment.

        The home owner does not know the criminals intent Nor does the thug announce it. It seems that you want to give the benefit of the doubt to the criminal not the home owner.

        How does that make sense?

        Does the owner have the right to shoot them

        Nice straw man argument — go from an intruder in your home to school kids crossing a lawn – Maybe you want to through in a couple of Nuns, an wheel chair bound quadruple amputee?

        Seeing how homeowners shooting kids crossing their lawn isn’t nearly the issue as criminals killing home owners during robberies, perhaps we could stay focused on what you asked about?

        Please explain to me, using small words I’m a simple guy; exactly how a home owner is to know the intent of someone breaking into his house in the middle of the night?

        When should a homeowner be allowed to use lethal force; when the criminal lays hands on him/her, when the criminal is within 5 feet, after the criminal has tried to kill him/her?


  6. BS,

    “Wait… so you are saying that a person like Zimmerman should not bother to watch a potential criminal?”

    I think this note sums up the difference in how we see Martin-Zimmerman. When someone carries a gun, they also take on a large responsibility… Carrying a gun can change how one views danger. Zimmerman simply exercised one bad judgement after another and ended up (in his mind) having to use deadly force.

    • 3boxesofbs Says:

      I really have trouble with this.
      Help me out.

      Zimmerman made a bad judgement to call the police on someone who appeared to be casing houses?

      Zimmerman made a bad judgement to get out his car in his neighborhood? (doesn’t that mean the area was so unsafe he should have stayed huddled away?)

      Zimmerman made a bad judgement to keep Martin under observation ?

      Well, I’ll grant you that one — Martin proved it.

      Mean while the “child” who was suspended for school didn’t make a ‘bad judgement’ when he was #1 caught with burglary tools and jewelry that didn’t belong to him # 2 Was caught in School with an empty bag that had traces of Marijuana and a Pipe, #3 tardiness and truancy?

      Martin didn’t display bad judgement by having pictures of him blowing smoke, pictures of a marijuana plant, pictures of a gun on his phone?

      Martin didn’t display bad judgement by talking about the street fights he had been in and how he was going to fight a guy again because “he didn’t bleed enough”?

      Martin didn’t display bad judgement by texting with a friend about making “drank” or ‘lean’ – two of the three ingredients he possessed the night he attacked Zimmerman?

      Martin didn’t display bad judgement by not running directly to the house he was staying at, not calling the police if he thought a rapist was following him or not staying in well lit areas?

      See you want focus on Zimmerman and exclude Martin’s actions…..and that just doesn’t make sense.


      • BS

        “Zimmerman made a bad judgement to call the police on someone who appeared to be casing houses?” No, that is not what I said or meant, calling 911 was appropriate.

        “Zimmerman made a bad judgement to get out his car in his neighborhood? (doesn’t that mean the area was so unsafe he should have stayed huddled away?)

        Zimmerman made a bad judgement to keep Martin under observation ?” Ziimmerman’s poor judgement began when he pick up his gun. Had he been unarmed he would have thought twice about following someone in his car, knowing the person had spotted him, and then getting out of his car… Unarmed people are more cautions.

        And all your references to Martin does not make his killing justified. I have never argued that Martin was an altar boy, or that he could not have avoided the altercation with Zimmerman. But the incident occurred because (1) Zimmerman had a gun, no gun no killing, and (2) Zimmerman did not allow the police to do their job. Everything else Zimmerman did was poor judgement and someone died as a result.


  7. BS,

    “Please explain to me, using small words I’m a simple guy; exactly how a home owner is to know the intent of someone breaking into his house in the middle of the night?”

    A home owner or any ethically responsible person would use deadly force as the last means. Most invaders will escape if they believe the home owner is awake (they do not know if the home owner is armed)… so making noise, throwing on lights in other rooms, making like you are calling the police, etc could be first steps…

    An armed intruder or someone who is just brazen presents another problem. They might not be scared off. The home owner is faced with the question, attack or defend? Ethically if one has thought about this choice, firing his gun is probably justified. Just ask Oscar Pistorius.

  8. 3boxesofbs Says:

    iimmerman’s poor judgement began when he pick up his gun. Had he been unarmed he would have thought twice about following someone in his car, knowing the person had spotted him, and then getting out of his car… Unarmed people are more cautions.

    BUNK — I would have used a profanity but I’m trying to cut down.

    Most neighborhood watch programs ask people to be unarmed and ask them to do exactly what Zimmerman did — observe, report and keep the suspicious person in sight. !!!

    Come on. Stop blaming the gun. Zimmerman did nothing that millions of other people don’t do.

    But the incident occurred because (1) Zimmerman had a gun, no gun no killing,

    BUNK AGAIN !!

    HELLO !! MARTIN ATTACKED ZIMMERMAN!
    Before he knew Zimmerman was armed. Before he knew Zimmerman was armed, Martin seemed set on inflicting great bodily harm to Zimmerman !!!!!

    Can you deny that Martin was bashing Zimmerman’s head into the concrete, was raining blows non-stop down on Zimmerman?

    The forensic evidence, experts in force and martial arts agreed that Zimmerman was helpless and Martin was not stopping the attack. To say that a life wouldn’t have been lost is complete and utter hogwash !!!

    Zimmerman did not allow the police to do their job.

    Martin is the one who didn’t allow the police to do their job, NOT Zimmerman.

    Come on dude. Stop being oblivious to the criminal and violent actions of Martin.

    Martin didn’t call the police when someone was acting suspicious. Zimmerman did.

    Martin didn’t seek safety (of his house). Zimmerman did (returning to meet the responding officers).

    Martin attacked someone minding his own business. NOT Zimmerman.

    Why can you not accept that Martin was the one who acted against common principles of decency, of law and order.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: