[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
Will somebody please prove Zimmerman’s intent? Like actual proof and not assumed bullshit?[/quote]
Innocent dead kid with no priors or weapons.
YOU tell ME.[/quote]
You don’t need weapons to give the perception of a threat and unless zimmerman has X-ray vision, his perception was all he had to go by. Considering the context of the thread topics already discussed as well as new allegations surrounding the shooting brought to light, Zimmerman sounds more and more in his rights as a state licensed concealed carry citizen on alert.
Regardless of whether or not the kid was guilty of something, his death is sad but quite possibly legally justified. What we still don’t know are the actual facts as opposed to jumped conclusions.[/quote]
Leaving race out for a moment, Zimmerman pursued Martin after the police told him to stand down. Trayvon was not armed, even though Zimmerman believed he was (which begs the question of why he would engage someone he believed to be armed, then claim self-defense?).
Somehow a physical confrontation erupted away from the vehicle, so either Zimmerman left the car in pursuit of Martin, or Tray dragged him from the car, beat him up and Zimmerman had to shoot him in self-defense. The former is more consistent with the 911 call, but to avoid any “conclusion jumping”, let’s just say that Zimmerman put himself in a situation that he obviously couldn’t control.
Zimmerman claims that he is the one who cried out on the tape. I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt there (even though “help! I’ve got a gun!” sounds dubious). Assuming it was him calling for help, he put himself in harm’s way and shouldn’t have been patrolling alone if he could be physically overpowered.
The only logical explanation for Zimmerman ignoring the operator’s advice was that he was unwilling to let the suspect get away. So…what exactly did Bishop do that Zimmerman couldn’t be satisfied with just deterring a potential break in? Shifty looks and playing with his waistband is not good enough.
If you are armed and you don’t want to kill someone, and you have the option of walking away, you simply don’t engage that person then call it self-defense when you have to blast a hole in their chest. Carrying a gun so you can put yourself in perilous situations only to have to shoot your way out is no justification either. [/quote]
911 operators are not the police.
As linked, licensed individuals carry state authority to protect themselves, their property, other people and to prevent a crime from happening. If a crime was happening, Zimmerman was acting within his legal rights and if he was attacked or perceived a threat in the process, using his firearm was a legal act as well.
Don’t hate the player, hate the game.
Just as you said though, we don’t know what transpired to cause an interaction. The assumption is that zimmerman was just out “hunting”. Prove it. Responding legal officials certainly didn’t see it that way.
More facts are needed and innocence until proven guilty is a right philosophically much, much higher than the aforementioned, Salem style “street justice” (race war).
Let’s be American for a minute.
Yes, if zimmerman was a racist, control freak, power tripping, blood lusting murderer on the hunt, he should have the book thrown at him. Nobody disagrees. That just doesn’t seem to be the situation however and stringing him up lynch mob style for no other reason than assumption based, projected insecurities is plain shitty.