feeqmatic:

1- I didnt say he planned on apprehending him. My point was that he left the safety of his car to follow him. If you look at the laws for self defense, no where in there does it say that you can claim self defense when you follow someone you perceive as a threat. It doesn't matter if he had no plans of apprehending him when he followed he voided his rights to stand your ground or self defense.

2- I stand corrected, the only EYE witness says that he saw Martin on top and Zimmerman on the bottom, but several people give varying accounts to throw things out of whack. However what is more significant is knowing who initiated the physical confrontation. No one saw this, Zimmerman's story does not make sense/is an outright lie(you tacitly admit that by bringing up the girlfriends testimony), and we have no forensic evidence to support any other theories. In my opinion, Zimmerman loss the legal right to claim self defense when he left his car to pursue Martin, but that may not be how the law works.

1. Ahem. You stated that he was acting as a vigilante. As he was not planning on taking justice into his own hands, the very DEFINITION of vigilante, he cannot thereby be factually accused of such. As for your OPINION on whether it voids a self defense claim(since Zimmerman was on the ground an unable to run away at the time of shooting SYG in no way enters into the equation), well, you're clearly not a lawyer nor even remotely familiar with the territory. LEGAL ACTS CANNOT VOID A CLAIM TO SELF DEFENSE.

2. No, there's ONE witness that contradicts anything, and according to the police she changed her story. And won't THAT be a fun part of the trial given that they took her statement at the scene. Unless you're going back to the police covered up the incident that night at multiple authority levels including the lead investigator theory that the supposed lack of head injuries REQUIRES to be true.

As for bringing up the GF's story it was merely to point out that Martin initiated confrontation. According to the phone timestamps, Zimmerman loses Martin, talks with the non-emergency dispatcher for an additional 50-60 seconds, and hangs up. 2-3 minutes AFTER the end of Zimmerman's phone call, Martin confronts Zimmerman, Zimmerman responds with a single line, and then the connection is lost, either hung up on purpose or the phone was jostled and hung up. Of course, the phone company would be able to tell if it were a dropped connection from the battery contacts being temporarily lost or terminated by a button press. Which will be another piece of evidence at the trial because if Martin hung up of his own will that makes Zimmerman's story that much more likely.

ravenshrike:

feeqmatic:

1- I didnt say he planned on apprehending him. My point was that he left the safety of his car to follow him. If you look at the laws for self defense, no where in there does it say that you can claim self defense when you follow someone you perceive as a threat. It doesn't matter if he had no plans of apprehending him when he followed he voided his rights to stand your ground or self defense.

2- I stand corrected, the only EYE witness says that he saw Martin on top and Zimmerman on the bottom, but several people give varying accounts to throw things out of whack. However what is more significant is knowing who initiated the physical confrontation. No one saw this, Zimmerman's story does not make sense/is an outright lie(you tacitly admit that by bringing up the girlfriends testimony), and we have no forensic evidence to support any other theories. In my opinion, Zimmerman loss the legal right to claim self defense when he left his car to pursue Martin, but that may not be how the law works.

1. Ahem. You stated that he was acting as a vigilante. As he was not planning on taking justice into his own hands, the very DEFINITION of vigilante, he cannot thereby be factually accused of such. As for your OPINION on whether it voids a self defense claim(since Zimmerman was on the ground an unable to run away at the time of shooting SYG in no way enters into the equation), well, you're clearly not a lawyer nor even remotely familiar with the territory. LEGAL ACTS CANNOT VOID A CLAIM TO SELF DEFENSE.

2. No, there's ONE witness that contradicts anything, and according to the police she changed her story. And won't THAT be a fun part of the trial given that they took her statement at the scene. Unless you're going back to the police covered up the incident that night at multiple authority levels including the lead investigator theory that the supposed lack of head injuries REQUIRES to be true.

As for bringing up the GF's story it was merely to point out that Martin initiated confrontation. According to the phone timestamps, Zimmerman loses Martin, talks with the non-emergency dispatcher for an additional 50-60 seconds, and hangs up. 2-3 minutes AFTER the end of Zimmerman's phone call, Martin confronts Zimmerman, Zimmerman responds with a single line, and then the connection is lost, either hung up on purpose or the phone was jostled and hung up. Of course, the phone company would be able to tell if it were a dropped connection from the battery contacts being temporarily lost or terminated by a button press. Which will be another piece of evidence at the trial because if Martin hung up of his own will that makes Zimmerman's story that much more likely.

1- We will simply have to agree to disagree on 1. I dont think it matters whether or not he was looking to apprehend Martin, the bottom line is that he left the safety of his car. I have actually read the Florida laws on self defense and sadly this situation will be open up to interpretation of the law depending on how much of Zimmermans story you believe.

2- As i said eye witnesses have contradicting stories, most eye witness testimony will probably be diminished in this case any way when we get forensics on where and how Trayvon was shot.

3- In terms of Zimmerman's story, accepting the girl friends story as true (and it is definitely plausible given the phone records) clearly makes Zimmerman out as a liar. (along with where the body was actually found.) Zimmerman says that he was sucker punched by his car. His "friends" say that he was confronted by his car. Neither scenario makes sense in terms of teenage behavior, but they make even less sense when you consider that the body was found however many yards away from the street in the middle of the courtyard in front of some houses ON GRASS(where the eye witness saw them.) For Zimmerman's story to not be an outright lie, he would have had to been dragged some 50 or so yards from the street by a 150 pound kid which makes no sense, and furthermore getting your head beat in on wet grass (it was raining) does not sound like a plausible threat to ones life. At a minimum it shows Zimmerman to be a liar and calls into question everything about his story. Even if Trayvon initiated verbal confrontation (something he also had the clear and logical right to do when being followed by a strange man) why should we believe that Zimmerman was not the aggressor considering that he had already shown aggression by following trayvon after he ran away AND lied to the police about how the situation took place.

Bottom line is until we know the extent of Zimmerman's injuries, and how and where the bullet actually hit Trayvon, we only have 40% of the story to go on. If forensics show that Trayvon was on top beating Zimmerman down then it will be much harder to prove anything more than self defense or manslaughter. But if there are no signs of significant injury, if the shot is not from point blank range, or if it is in Martin's back or something, then we have a murder case. To say that it is cut and dry and cite the media circus as the only reason why this guy is under scrutiny is just intellectually dishonest. This was a clear miscarriage of justice to not arrest this guy and take this to court well before Al Sharpton made it to FLA and that is the biggest problem of all.

Now the special prosecutor will be releasing information within the next few hours.

Wonder what the information will be... it could be anything from evidence to a statement about what course of action she's gonna take with the Zimmerman case.

feeqmatic:
You're doing all of this supposition to make the facts spin in your direction.

I'm trying to make you think.

Let me just put it to you this way.

I see a person in my neighborhood who appears to be acting suspiciously. I call the police to report him. I follow him to make sure the police find him. This person then turns around and assaults me, pummeling me with my back on the ground. I call for help, no one helps me, and I have to draw my gun and shoot this person to defend myself.

Am I a criminal?

Now I already you are going to want to tell me there is not enough evidence (in the public sphere) to say with certainty that's what happened. But say it is what happened. Is it a crime? If you think so, I think that's fucked up.

xDarc:

feeqmatic:
You're doing all of this supposition to make the facts spin in your direction.

I'm trying to make you think.

Let me just put it to you this way.

I see a person in my neighborhood who appears to be acting suspiciously. I call the police to report him. I follow him to make sure the police find him. This person then turns around and assaults me, pummeling me with my back on the ground. I call for help, no one helps me, and I have to draw my gun and shoot this person to defend myself.

Am I a criminal?

Now I already you are going to want to tell me there is not enough evidence (in the public sphere) to say with certainty that's what happened. But say it is what happened. Is it a crime? If you think so, I think that's fucked up.

No its not a crime. What you said is not a crime, but it also greatly hinges on Zimmerman's statements and ignoring some key elements.

Here's my supposition

Im walking from a store in an unfamiliar neighborhood. I see a car slow down and following me. I see the driver staring at me on the phone. In fear I begin to run. I see the driver of the car get out and begin to chase after me but i get away. (This is all easily backed by the first police phone call). 2 or so minutes later while on the phone with my girlfriend i see the same person still following me. This person is older and larger than me and is coming at me aggressively. He attempts to put his hands on me and I throw a punch at him. We begin to fight and i am getting the better of it when he pulls a gun and shoots me dead. I have committed no crime and have no drugs in my system. Is my death justifiable homicide when i had already made attempts to flee and avoid the altercation, or can someone who clearly pursued a confrontation claim self defense when said confrontation does not go the way they planned?

Furthermore, should the police, aware of the specious nature of the killers claims not make and arrest and launch an investigation into my killing?

feeqmatic:

Here's my supposition

My problem with this is who's more likely to attack.

A 30 year old who called the police and knows they will be here any minute.

Or, a 17 year old trying to impress his girlfriend.

If you attack first, even if someone is following you, you do not get to claim self defense. You just committed assault. You are guilty. End of story. Martin is not the victim. He picked a fight and got himself killed.

Hey, xDarc--can you pick next week's lottery numbers for me? Y'know, since you're apparently a practicing clairvoyant?

xDarc:

feeqmatic:

Here's my supposition

My problem with this is who's more likely to attack.

A 30 year old who called the police and knows they will be here any minute.

Or, a 17 year old trying to impress his girlfriend.

If you attack first, even if someone is following you, you do not get to claim self defense. You just committed assault. You are guilty. End of story. Martin is not the victim. He picked a fight and got himself killed.

The person more likely to be aggressive is the 30 year old with who is feeling confident about the gun in his pocket, who just complained that "these assholes always get away" who also said "these fucking punks" in regards to the random kid walking minding his own business. The guy that has consistently called police and played "watchmen" role in his neighborhood, not the 17 year old 150 pound kid who was in an unfamiliar neighborhood who had already RAN FROM THE GUY a few seconds earlier!

Your logic is astounding.

Furthermore your last statement aside from again being supposition (which as always is the cornerstone to your argument) is still not fully accurate. Unless martin literally turned around and struck Zimmerman without warning or indication (which clearly did not happen) then him being followed and confronting his follower would actually fall under the stand your ground laws in FLA. You keep saying he picked a fight, but before all of this happened he ran away from Zimmerman trying to avoid the conflict. That doesnt sound at all like picking a fight. But this is mostly speculation. Better than supposition though.

xDarc:

Let me just put it to you this way.

I see a person in my neighborhood who appears to be acting suspiciously. I call the police to report him. I follow him to make sure the police find him. This person then turns around and assaults me, pummeling me with my back on the ground. I call for help, no one helps me, and I have to draw my gun and shoot this person to defend myself.

Am I a criminal?

I'm no legal expert, so I don't know what the answer to that is, but in my opinion of how things should be, yes, yes you are a criminal. Shooting an unarmed person is not self defence. Any response needs to be proportional to threat posed towards you. He could have brandished his weapon and said "stop or I'll shoot". Heck, he could have even shot him in the leg. There's no reason being punched justifies the use of deadly force. That's how I see it anyway. If the law says differently then the law is crazy.

WoW Killer:

xDarc:

Let me just put it to you this way.

I see a person in my neighborhood who appears to be acting suspiciously. I call the police to report him. I follow him to make sure the police find him. This person then turns around and assaults me, pummeling me with my back on the ground. I call for help, no one helps me, and I have to draw my gun and shoot this person to defend myself.

Am I a criminal?

I'm no legal expert, so I don't know what the answer to that is, but in my opinion of how things should be, yes, yes you are a criminal. Shooting an unarmed person is not self defence. Any response needs to be proportional to threat posed towards you. He could have brandished his weapon and said "stop or I'll shoot". Heck, he could have even shot him in the leg. There's no reason being punched justifies the use of deadly force. That's how I see it anyway. If the law says differently then the law is crazy.

Just wanna point out that shooting someone in the leg can kill faster than if you hit them in the stomach. You so much as nick the femoral and the person is dead within minutes if not treated immediately (even then it's not certain)

Lunar Shadow:
Just wanna point out that shooting someone in the leg can kill faster than if you hit them in the stomach. You so much as nick the femoral and the person is dead within minutes if not treated immediately (even then it's not certain)

Well I'm no expert on guns either (though apparently Zimmerman is). What gets me is that (even according to Zimmerman's account) there was no warning given, and he appeared to shoot to kill. That is not self defence against an unarmed man, or not in my eyes.

WoW Killer:

Lunar Shadow:
Just wanna point out that shooting someone in the leg can kill faster than if you hit them in the stomach. You so much as nick the femoral and the person is dead within minutes if not treated immediately (even then it's not certain)

Well I'm no expert on guns either (though apparently Zimmerman is). What gets me is that (even according to Zimmerman's account) there was no warning given, and he appeared to shoot to kill. That is not self defence against an unarmed man, or not in my eyes.

Warnings only need to even remotely be given when you are already not in the middle of having your ass beat. Also, when did anyone say Zimmerman was an expert on guns? Somehow I doubt he has the requisite 10,000 hours.

ravenshrike:
Warnings only need to even remotely be given when you are already not in the middle of having your ass beat. Also, when did anyone say Zimmerman was an expert on guns? Somehow I doubt he has the requisite 10,000 hours.

He has a license for a concealed weapon. I'd have thought that came with some requirements (again, no expert). And yes, should have to give a warning. You're life isn't in danger by being punched. You can't shoot to kill just because you're losing in a fight. That sets all sorts of precedents.

WoW Killer:

ravenshrike:
Warnings only need to even remotely be given when you are already not in the middle of having your ass beat. Also, when did anyone say Zimmerman was an expert on guns? Somehow I doubt he has the requisite 10,000 hours.

He has a license for a concealed weapon. I'd have thought that came with some requirements (again, no expert). And yes, should have to give a warning. You're life isn't in danger by being punched. You can't shoot to kill just because you're losing in a fight. That sets all sorts of precedents.

1. A CHL in Florida requires a written test showing you understand the law in question and http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/firearms/acceptable_training_documentation.html
a certificate from a class. That does not make someone an expert by any meaning of the word.

2. His head was being hit against the concrete. So no, no warnings. In fact, if the person is within 21 feet a warning is very possibly fatal unless the gun is already drawn and pointed. In any case Zimmerman certainly did not intend to get into a fight. You make it sound like they were in a bar and Zimmerman accepted Martin's offer to take things outside.

3. As for precedent setting, US common law self defense(What the UK also had prior to about the 1990's) merely requires possibility of great bodily harm, not imminent lethality. Having your head bashed against a concrete sidewalk certainly qualifies.

If George Zimmerman is prosecuted now, it wont be because the evidence suggests he is guilty. It will be for the same reason Mass Effect got its ending changed. The problem is, this isn't a video game. If fans and bitch and whine about a legal decision until they system gives in and hands them what they want, then there is no hope for our justice system.

The major perversion of justice is that if Zimmerman is charged now, he WILL be found guilty regardless of evidence. Like I said in the first paragraph, the only reason for the system to charge Zimmerman now is to appease the horde. If the system charges a man with the sole motive of convicting him, I have no doubt they will rig the game to get what they need.

Blablahb:

Unless Zimmerman can prove it was self-defense, which he can't in any way, and against which there are a lot of data that suggest otherwise.

Why does your side keep bringing up "proof"? Proof is the prosecution's job. Nobody in America is under any obligation to prove their innocence, they ARE innocent until proven guilty. And in this case that proof must be beyond all reasonable doubt. If a reasonable person believes there is even a miniscule chance Zimmerman could be innocent, then the verdict is "not guilty".

ravenshrike:
1. A CHL in Florida requires a written test showing you understand the law in question and http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/firearms/acceptable_training_documentation.html
a certificate from a class. That does not make someone an expert by any meaning of the word.

2. His head was being hit against the concrete. So no, no warnings. In fact, if the person is within 21 feet a warning is very possibly fatal unless the gun is already drawn and pointed. In any case Zimmerman certainly did not intend to get into a fight. You make it sound like they were in a bar and Zimmerman accepted Martin's offer to take things outside.

3. As for precedent setting, US common law self defense(What the UK also had prior to about the 1990's) merely requires possibility of great bodily harm, not imminent lethality. Having your head bashed against a concrete sidewalk certainly qualifies.

I've already said I don't care what the law says. This is my view of how the law should work. Yes, gun ownership should come with some expertise in their use. That's obvious. I'm making it sound like there was a fight, and that Zimmerman's life wasn't in as much danger as Martin's (evidently), given that Zimmerman was armed and Martin was not. The fight did not begin with Zimmerman on the ground, it began with them both standing facing one another. Zimmerman had plenty of time to give a warning. Also, lethal at 21 feet? Is Martin some sort of ninja now? Has Martin been training like Jet Li in that film where he has to kill the king from so many paces? That's ridiculous.

WoW Killer:
Also, lethal at 21 feet? Is Martin some sort of ninja now? Has Martin been training like Jet Li in that film where he has to kill the king from so many paces? That's ridiculous.

*sighs* 21 ft. is the amount of ground the average person can cover from a dead stop in the time it takes the average person to draw and point a gun. If your attacker has a melee weapon such as a knife or a bat warning them could be quite lethal if they decide to attack then. Even without such a weapon, by the time the weapon is drawn they are at grapple range. Not good conditions for a gun.

Edit - In any case, it is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, because Zimmerman was by all available accounts on the ground before the gun was pulled.

cthulhuspawn82:

Blablahb:

Unless Zimmerman can prove it was self-defense, which he can't in any way, and against which there are a lot of data that suggest otherwise.

Why does your side keep bringing up "proof"? Proof is the prosecution's job. Nobody in America is under any obligation to prove their innocence, they ARE innocent until proven guilty. And in this case that proof must be beyond all reasonable doubt. If a reasonable person believes there is even a miniscule chance Zimmerman could be innocent, then the verdict is "not guilty".

Quit baiting the troll.

ravenshrike:
*sighs* 21 ft. is the amount of ground the average person can cover from a dead stop in the time it takes the average person to draw and point a gun. If your attacker has a melee weapon such as a knife or a bat warning them could be quite lethal if they decide to attack then. Even without such a weapon, by the time the weapon is drawn they are at grapple range. Not good conditions for a gun.

You think an average person would run at you if you pull a gun on them?

ravenshrike:
Edit - In any case, it is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, because Zimmerman was by all available accounts on the ground before the gun was pulled.

It didn't start off that way. Did Zimmerman forget he had a gun until he was in such a position? If you're carrying a gun and you get in a confrontation then, my view again, you declare it and end the fight before anybody gets hurt. You don't wait till you're flat against a curb. What was the purpose of that? What if Martin had found the gun and taken it?

What I don't understand is the sequence of events between a fight breaking out, where Zimmerman thought "ouch, he hit me, but at least I've got a gun", and Zimmerman on the floor thinking "he's going to murder me, I'd better shoot to kill". There's a disconnect there, and I can't accept that Zimmerman never had the chance to pull out his weapon and say "stop".

WoW Killer:

xDarc:

Let me just put it to you this way.

I see a person in my neighborhood who appears to be acting suspiciously. I call the police to report him. I follow him to make sure the police find him. This person then turns around and assaults me, pummeling me with my back on the ground. I call for help, no one helps me, and I have to draw my gun and shoot this person to defend myself.

Am I a criminal?

I'm no legal expert, so I don't know what the answer to that is, but in my opinion of how things should be, yes, yes you are a criminal. Shooting an unarmed person is not self defence. Any response needs to be proportional to threat posed towards you. He could have brandished his weapon and said "stop or I'll shoot". Heck, he could have even shot him in the leg. There's no reason being punched justifies the use of deadly force. That's how I see it anyway. If the law says differently then the law is crazy.

If we suppose that Zimmerman's story is the truth (and that's what xDarc's hypothetical is) then no state in the union could convict him of murder for the killing. It would fall very cleanly under self-defense in all states.

At the point of the shooting--again, granting Zimmerman's side--Zimmerman had no means of escape. I am not aware of any state in which you must warn an attacker while he is attacking you that you will shoot him. You are allowed to simply shoot him. An unarmed person can be just as capable of causing great harm and/or killing you as an armed person, this should not factor into the decision to use a gun.

Anyone with even the slightest knowledge of using a gun knows you never, ever shoot for a limb when you're trying to defend yourself. More often than not, you'll miss, and then there's the previously-mentioned fact that it's potentially more lethal. Center mass or nothin. In Zim's story there's also the problem of being on your back, on the ground, with your attacker on top of you. I doubt he could've aimed for a leg even if he wanted to.

WoW Killer:

ravenshrike:
*sighs* 21 ft. is the amount of ground the average person can cover from a dead stop in the time it takes the average person to draw and point a gun. If your attacker has a melee weapon such as a knife or a bat warning them could be quite lethal if they decide to attack then. Even without such a weapon, by the time the weapon is drawn they are at grapple range. Not good conditions for a gun.

You think an average person would run at you if you pull a gun on them?

They might, depending on their mindset, whether they were high, how they sized you up, your demeanor, etc. All factors that could play into a person's decision to bum rush a gun-wielding foe.

ravenshrike:
Edit - In any case, it is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, because Zimmerman was by all available accounts on the ground before the gun was pulled.

It didn't start off that way. Did Zimmerman forget he had a gun until he was in such a position? If you're carrying a gun and you get in a confrontation then, my view again, you declare it and end the fight before anybody gets hurt. You don't wait till you're flat against a curb. What was the purpose of that? What if Martin had found the gun and taken it?

What I don't understand is the sequence of events between a fight breaking out, where Zimmerman thought "ouch, he hit me, but at least I've got a gun", and Zimmerman on the floor thinking "he's going to murder me, I'd better shoot to kill". There's a disconnect there, and I can't accept that Zimmerman never had the chance to pull out his weapon and say "stop".

A gun is a last resort. You don't just pull it out for every little thing. You don't pull it at all unless you are ready and willing to use it. Telling someone you have a gun might even provoke that person to try and take it. Bad idea.

Your honor, everybody knows that the average person can bridge 21-feet in less time than it would take me to draw my weapon and shoot. And this guy I shot looked fit, he could've done that from 30-feet.

So when he looked at me funny from across the street, I had to make a decision...

---
or better yet:

Your honor, the guy I shot looked like a vigilante. He followed me from the 7-11 and it felt like a Zimmerman-situation where he might have a concealed gun. He was already within 30 feet of me and everybody on the Escapist knows that this is the "ninja distance". I felt like if I make a wrong move now, he had no choice but to shoot. So I had to shoot him first...

WoW Killer:

ravenshrike:
*sighs* 21 ft. is the amount of ground the average person can cover from a dead stop in the time it takes the average person to draw and point a gun. If your attacker has a melee weapon such as a knife or a bat warning them could be quite lethal if they decide to attack then. Even without such a weapon, by the time the weapon is drawn they are at grapple range. Not good conditions for a gun.

You think an average person would run at you if you pull a gun on them?

ravenshrike:
Edit - In any case, it is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, because Zimmerman was by all available accounts on the ground before the gun was pulled.

It didn't start off that way. Did Zimmerman forget he had a gun until he was in such a position? If you're carrying a gun and you get in a confrontation then, my view again, you declare it and end the fight before anybody gets hurt. You don't wait till you're flat against a curb. What was the purpose of that? What if Martin had found the gun and taken it?

What I don't understand is the sequence of events between a fight breaking out, where Zimmerman thought "ouch, he hit me, but at least I've got a gun", and Zimmerman on the floor thinking "he's going to murder me, I'd better shoot to kill". There's a disconnect there, and I can't accept that Zimmerman never had the chance to pull out his weapon and say "stop".

Is the average person a criminal? Are you suggesting the average criminal is slower than the average person? I did specify that the gun was not drawn did I not?

As to the fight, this wasn't a long drawn out Jackie Chan type scene. Zimmerman was on the ground within the first 5 seconds of the fight with the rest of the fight being him on the ground screaming for help before he pulled his weapon. If you think most people have the presence of mind to converse normally in a panic situation you're either abnormal or have never been in a true panic situation. Especially if you're actively fighting at the same time.

Just turned on CNN and they're saying a "senior law enforcement source" says Zimmerman will be charged. A briefing is to be held at 6PM Eastern Time.

I'll wait til then and see what they say.

evilneko:

If we suppose that Zimmerman's story is the truth (and that's what xDarc's hypothetical is) then no state in the union could convict him of murder for the killing. It would fall very cleanly under self-defense in all states.

I'm pretty sure in the UK there's a proportionality clause. Regardless, I'm not talking about the law. The law is wrong if you can shoot an unarmed man with the intent to kill and not see a trial.

evilneko:
At the point of the shooting--again, granting Zimmerman's side--Zimmerman had no means of escape. I am not aware of any state in which you must warn an attacker while he is attacking you that you will shoot him. You are allowed to simply shoot him. An unarmed person can be just as capable of causing great harm and/or killing you as an armed person, this should not factor into the decision to use a gun.

Again I'm not talking about the law. If you're facing an unarmed foe, then you should have to give a warning. And before you say "Martin might have had a concealed weapon": if Zimmerman thought his life was in danger, then Martin's intent was to kill, hence he would have used any weapon he had on him.

evilneko:
Anyone with even the slightest knowledge of using a gun knows you never, ever shoot for a limb when you're trying to defend yourself. More often than not, you'll miss, and then there's the previously-mentioned fact that it's potentially more lethal. Center mass or nothin. In Zim's story there's also the problem of being on your back, on the ground, with your attacker on top of you. I doubt he could've aimed for a leg even if he wanted to.

Fair enough I'll take back limb shots. I just said that on a whim. But at the moment when Zimmerman pulled his weapon and fired, what if instead he had said "stop or I'll shoot"? Would Martin have carried on? Fine, shoot. Zimmerman didn't say that, he just shot him. And before you say "if he gave any warning Martin could have taken the weapon" no. He managed to fire his gun without Martin taking it. Go right up to the point when you're just about to fire, and then give your warning. One move, one tiny little muscle, and you pull the trigger. That's all you need. If you can fire your weapon, then you can give a warning. Putting the weapon into place takes time, pulling the trigger takes no time at all.

evilneko:
A gun is a last resort.

Fire it after a warning then.

ravenshrike:
Is the average person is a criminal? Are you suggesting the average criminal is slower than the average person? I did specify that the gun was not draw did I not?

You might have to rephrase that one. If you're saying that Zimmerman might have thought Martin was dangerous and hence wouldn't have thought it safe to draw his weapon unless at an optimal distance then Zimmerman shouldn't have followed Martin. Zimmerman chose to follow because he knew Martin wasn't a big time gangster, he was (or he thought he was) a petty criminal. Zimmerman did not fear Martin while he was following him.

Furthermore, Zimmerman pulled his gun while his foe was point blank, and he did not suffer the ninja treatment (though his target unfortunately died). I'm sure he would have been safe at 21 feet.

All this fighting between people that already know exactly what happened and ho-hum trolls that picked up a hot topic has been immensely educational. I just hope there aren't a lot of Bulls and Celtics fans on here. They might try to cap LeBron with a hunting rifle and later claim that it was self defense because of how much ground he can cover in the span of a few seconds.

Serge A. Storms:
All this fighting between people that already know exactly what happened and ho-hum trolls that picked up a hot topic has been immensely educational. I just hope there aren't a lot of Bulls and Celtics fans on here. They might try to cap LeBron with a hunting rifle and later claim that it was self defense because of how much ground he can cover in the span of a few seconds.

As long as there are no Raider fans, we shouldn't have to worry about guns going off.

Briefing in progress right now. Special Prosecutor says Zim will be charged with 2nd degree Murder.

Sign of confidence? If they weren't confident in their case they probably would've gone for Manslaughter.

Ok, someone fill me in, what does 2nd degree murder entail on your side of the pond?

I should probably comment on an earlier point on the media involvement meaning there will never be a fair trial. I agree, and it's awful. However, I feel that the media involvement was a reaction to the lack of charge in this case. I think most people in this thread have been in favour of a trial one way or the other, and if Zimmerman was charged sooner there wouldn't have been such an uproar. That's not to say police departments should be forced to charge people quicker, but in this case the suspect was released with no intention of ever charging him.

WoW Killer:
Ok, someone fill me in, what does 2nd degree murder entail on your side of the pond?

I should probably comment on an earlier point on the media involvement meaning there will never be a fair trial. I agree, and it's awful. However, I feel that the media involvement was a reaction to the lack of charge in this case. I think most people in this thread have been in favour of a trial one way or the other, and if Zimmerman was charged sooner there wouldn't have been such an uproar. That's not to say police departments should be forced to charge people quicker, but in this case the suspect was released with no intention of ever charging him.

Its usually described as being a murder that is done "in the heat of the moment". An example would be a husband coming home to find his wife cheating on him, so he murders her and her lover. Not planned out, but done out of "passion".

More info can be found here.