I hope this has not already been posted. I find it very disturbing

[Wasillaguy]

Originally Posted by Bigerik

Again, until Zimmerman created the situation, Martin had committed no crime. He was just a kid going to the store.

I can create situations all day long, doesn't give anyone the right to assault me. I'm sure Trayvon didn't like the attention, but there's no law against watching someone or following them, and I don't think it fits the definition of entrapment either.

[RamblinE]

Originally Posted by bhunter

Yes, if you were threatening enough to make someone reasonable fear for their life, then you would deserve to be shot. People need to realize there is that possibility by their actions and choose accordingly. I think that even mere assault can rise to the point where it is threatening enough that a reasonable man would fear for his life.

What states differentiate between assault, threatened violence, and battery, physical violence?

Detained? Yes. Questioned? Yes. Stop and frisked? Yes. Shot? No. Furthermore it is not up to any of us to say somebody deserves to be shot unless they're threatening our life and that's something Zimmerman still needs to prove.

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by Wasillaguy

That may be true, but Zimmerman was beyond minding his own business. The community had a rash of crime and he was motivated to do something about it. By all indications, he probably had a John Wayne complex to boot. Doesn't really matter either way. What matters is whether Trayvon was assaulting him to a degree he believed his life was in danger.
I agree Zimmerman should be arrested, and he should have to prove his actions were in self defense.

We're not too far from agreement, unless Zimmerman instigated the altercation - made the first physical contact. It is also possible that the level of Trayvon's response was a result of Zimmerman pulling a gun on him - and Trayvon being in immediate fear for his life. If someone has a gun, he could not feel safe until the gunman was disabled.

That would not be inconsistent with him playing cop, and intending to hold Trayvon until the police arrived.

Regards,

D-Ray

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by Wasillaguy

I can create situations all day long, doesn't give anyone the right to assault me. I'm sure Trayvon didn't like the attention, but there's no law against watching someone or following them, and I don't think it fits the definition of entrapment either.

Okay. I'm on my way to Wasilla to follow you everywhere you go.

Dave

[bhunter]

Originally Posted by RamblinE

Detained? Yes. Questioned? Yes. Stop and frisked? Yes. Shot? No. Furthermore it is not up to any of us to say somebody deserves to be shot unless they're threatening our life and that's something Zimmerman still needs to prove.

Read what I wrote again. It was quite well defined that you would need to make someone fearful for their life, in fact, a reasonable man, before you would deserve to be shot.

[Charles]

Originally Posted by Zeke

Fair enough?

Sure! But I still don't think you're accurate. (I could have been less terse, however.)

My personal data, before I was on the street with a badge, was formed working in Maximum Custody at the old KSP (Kansas State Pen) in the late 1990s and early 2000's. Note, Maximum Custody isn't where they keep the candy offenders.

Am I trying to throw out my tough guy bones on the table? HELL NO. There were guys in there who could kill me with a toothpick and laugh while I bled out while I could do nothing about it: but the vast majority of them were just bullies or bitches who couldn't deal with society. Further, 72% of them (in 2002) were in there tied in some fashion to drugs.

Conclusion? At least THAT prison was filled with drug offenders.

What I find most interesting is your statement that whatever occurs in Florida won't impact your thought process.

Why does that bother me, about anyone?

Because, when you cease processing data, you don't have a thought process.

That sounds like the sort of non-thinking that could lead someone to shoot a kid in hoodie.

MSP was the only maximum security institution in the State of Missouri at the time. It was the "walls", had been in operation since 1836?, and every bid as hardcore as KSP, or for that matter, any penitentiary in the United States. And I'm not throwing my "tough guy bones" on the table, it was the only shitty job I could get in 1982. And I for sure didn't want it. Actually, it was a pussy job compared to construction.

So we both worked at the hard core joint, I suppose we're blood brothers of sorts. Hurrah.

BTW, I do have a thought process. Only I draw conclusions that don't set well with you.

Fair enough?

Chas

[noonereal]

You go to the grocery store at night in the rain. You come out and a big black man follows you. You become uncomfortable and quicken the pace confirming that you are somehow targeted.

You decide not to bring this threat back to your house where family may become endangered so you go around a corner and stop to get the drop on the big black man. You assault him as a defense given the implied threat.

He manages to pull a gun and kill you. (thereby bring the threat to fulfillment)

Do you think this black man should be free to repeat this behavior on your son next year?

[RamblinE]

Originally Posted by bhunter

Reread what I wrote. It was quite well defined that you would need to make someone fearful for their life, in fact, a reasonable man, before you would deserve to be shot.

I see what you mean but the big flaw there is, that even the unreasonable people find themselves to be perfectly reasonable.

[RamblinE]

Originally Posted by noonereal

You go to the grocery store at night in the rain. You come out and a big black man follows you. You become uncomfortable and quicken the pace confirming that you are somehow targeted.

You decide not to bring this threat back to your house where family may become endangered so you go around a corner and stop to get the drop on the big black man. You assault him as a defense given the implied threat.

He manages to pull a gun and kill you. (thereby bring the threat to fulfillment)

Do you think this black man should be free to repeat this behavior on your son next year?

Why's he have to be black? What if he's white?

[bhunter]

Originally Posted by noonereal

You decide not to bring this threat back to your house where family may become endangered so you go around a corner and stop to get the drop on the big black man. You assault him as a defense given the implied threat.

He manages to pull a gun and kill you. (thereby bring the threat to fulfillment)

Do you think this black man should be free to repeat this behavior on your son next year?

In so much that your act of stopping and assaulting the man such that he fears for his life, then yes he should be free. You have no idea what his intentions were before you escalated to confrontation. I don't think that one can reach the required fear necessary without being proximate to the person purported to cause the fear. OTOH, you could simply ask him what he's up to, drive to a populated area, or drive to the local cop shop.