Trayvon Martin Shooting Case: Eyewitness Says Martin Attacked Zimmerman

[rwbovee]

Maybe the reason police didn't arrest George Zimmerman was because they had an eyewitness who corroborated Zimmerman's story. He says he saw the man in the hoodie (Martin) on top of the man in the red sweater (Zimmerman). "The guy on the bottom who had a red sweater on was yelling to me: 'help, help…and I told him to stop and I was calling 911," he said. He wanted only to be known as John. So apparently it was Zimmerman who was screaming for help. And now ABC has come forward with a photo by a neighbor of George Zimmerman showing Zimmerman's badly bloodied head on the night of the incident. For more see http://famous-conspiracy-theories-w.../trayvon-martin-shooting-case-eyewitness.html

 

[Davies]

I haven't followed the Zimmerman case too closely, but because of the attitude of the black community who were demanding justice before anyone knew anything is telling of the spiritual condition of our nation as a whole. The whole affair is sad no matter which angle you view it.

- Davies

 

[handy]

If anything this highlights what a terrible law the Florida "Stand your ground" law is....

If a man was following you as you're returning home from the store, confronts you, is antagonistic towards you and you fight back... he can shoot you dead and then say that it was in self-defense.

There is no way, no how this case should not go to trial. It needs to be tried in the courts (not the media) and definitely call into question the law.

Perhaps Zimmerman will be set free.... which means that a man can kill an unarmed kid who went on a snack run during half-time... and it's all OK. 2

 

[D4Christ]

If a man was following you as you're returning home from the store, confronts you, is antagonistic towards you and you fight back... he can shoot you dead and then say that it was in self-defense.

That's pretty scary when you think about it. I don't doubt that Trayvon and Zimmerman fought, but I don't believe that Trayvon approached Zimmerman and started the fight...not after telling his girlfriend that he was going to walk faster to get home.

So what's the message...someone can pick a fight with you and then kill you in self-defense and go free? I hope not. Imagine all the people that will bring out of the woodworks.....

 

[jasoncran]

stand your ground doesnt work that way. if you go to a bar with gun and use it and are intoxicated it wont go well in court for you.

so lets see i weigh 200 lbs and lets say im wrong in that i start a fight but while wrong and am over borrowed and i am having my held bashed in by my opponent in his anger he is inent on killing me and i know it and i cant stop it, should i then die? remember even in my town it takes 5 minutes for the cops to get to you and the longest drive is maybe 6 miles and well its hard to talk a phone in a fight.so one must be able to defend yourself this case wont be so easy for that law and others that use it lawfully.

 

[Drew]

If anything this highlights what a terrible law the Florida "Stand your ground" law is....

Agree. As you astutely point out by way of example, the law does not account for the web of events that leads up to an encounter.

In short, even if the "shooter" has been the clear aggressor in the context that leads up to the final confrontation, the "shooter" can get off if, in any sense at all, the "shoot-ee" defends himself at the end, thereby giving the "shooter" the basis for claiming self-defence.

It strikes a patently dumb law, to be frank.

 

[Danus]

The "Stand Your Ground" law needs some serious review.

I'm for gun rights as far as owning one, or even carrying one, but laws like this are all about using one. It makes it easier to use a weapon and claim self defense.

In Zimmerman's case he owned a gun, carried a concealed weapon and I'm sure he knew the law. It's my opinion that these factors gave him the 'courage" to drive around his neighborhood in the first place and confront this kid. In any case he will most likely walk based on the law, but that does not make it right or good.

If someone was following me, gets out of a car and comes at me while I'm just walking freely down the street I'm going to get away from them or stand my ground. Had Trayvon had a weapon and shot Zimmerman, under FL law he'd be justified as long as he had a permit, but at 17 you can't have a carry permit and a weapon. Should you?

States need to look at these laws a little better. You want to carry a gun because your afraid, fine, but if you use it, you better have a darn good reason and in my opinion that should be left to a jury and not a written law for say.

In many states if you knock on someones door they can about just shoot you and claim they felt threatened by someone on their property. Yeah Zimmerman got a little beat up, but I seriously doubt it needed to be handled with a gun. Poor judgment on his part started when he confronted this kid and ended when he pulled his weapon out. Add to that all the hate talk, media fanning the flames........this whole country needs to step back and take a good look at all this frightened foolishness and hate.

 

[jasoncran]

no it doesnt. you have to get training to carry and zimmerman had that training so if he did put himself there it will be to his detriment in court

i as a soldier can overide this legal requirement for training, i dont as i want to know the terms of use. my coworker who carries legally said the places that without even thinking would be the off limits unless one is a cop. its bars, schools and goverment places, and i also believe churches and one can only shoot if one has no escape! zimmerman had a chance to withdrawal and he didnt. but that is something that the court and lawyers will have to decide, as he was attacked first.

otherwise when you all are attacked in your home dont shoot nor defend just die.these laws for when you are in your car and elsewhere and had to shoot but there wasnt time for escape, yes it can be abused, like all laws.
http://floridaconcealedcarry.com/

read the page and then counter comment.

http://archive.flsenate.gov/Statute...ing=&URL=0700-0799/0790/Sections/0790.06.html

as i said and it also includes knives! so even defending yourself with a knife(yes its done) and or other club(asp, prt 24) object may be under this law.

 

[Danus]

You have a right to defend yourself, but there is a difference in defending yourself and using deadly force.

In his case, Zimmerman, the stand your ground law is on his side based on what we know so far. Correct?

 

[Mike S]

You have a right to defend yourself, but there is a difference in defending yourself and using deadly force.

In his case, Zimmerman, the stand your ground law is on his side based on what we know so far. Correct?

This case may not involve the stand your ground law at all. If Zimmerman's version of events that he was attacked while returning to his car is accepted at trial, he had a right to defend himself under any law. We shouldn't be depending so much on we hear and see in the media. This case can only be fairly resolved in court, without influence by enflamed public passions.

 

[Lewis]

The police told Zimmerman, do not follow Trayvon, but he did it anyway.

 

[Mike S]

The police told Zimmerman, do not follow Trayvon, but he did it anyway.

We don't have the details to know what happened. Even if Zimmerman was told not to follow Martin and did anyway, once attacked he had the right to defend himself. Don't forget, Zimmerman's version of the events is that he lost track of Martin, and was returning to his car when Martin attacked him. If Zimmerman didn't have the right to use deadly force in self defense, neither did Martin.

Let's wait for the details to come out in court.

 

[Pard]

The law is good law. I can list a multitude of cases in which it has saved the lives of innocents. It is a reaction to a terrible rule that says a person has to run from their own house if they are being attacked. In CT I cannot shoot a man who enters my house and intends to kill me unless I can prove that I had absolutely no way of getting out of my house.

The Florida law extends this to the outside, the idea being that you shouldn't have to prove that you had no where to go in order to defend yourself.

As Mark points out, there is a chance that this doesn't even have anything to do with that law. The media attached the name "stand your ground" to this case, not the justice system. The reason he was not arrested earlier is because the state law in Florida requires an internal investigation before an arrest is made in any possible self-defense case, and this is because there is a criminal immunity clause in the Florida law that states arresting someone who kills in self defense is illegal. This is also in answer to the absurd ruling that a person who makes a good kill, in self-defense has to get arrested for murder even if they are later released because it was deemed self-defense.

Since the case has not actually started, as I understand they only just had a bail hearing, I think that any information that does exist is just media speculation, since the media has a very limited ability to gather information and a dire need to present information. This means they don't generally care if it is fact or fake, the perfect example being all the lies that have been coming forward, like the doctored 911 phone call. The only people who have the power to gather information to the level needed in order to decide guilt or innocents is the justice system.

The fact that the media and various "civil rights"* groups have already tried this man and are ready to hang him speaks volumes about where many in this country stand in terms of their concept of justice. And what speaks in more is that so few people are actually outraged that this man has been tried by the media before the justice system could even act.

*- I say "civil rights" because one of the most important civil rights we have is the concept of innocence until guilt is proven. This is paramount in this nation and yet these "civil rights" groups tread on it and demand a hanging without ever even attempting to allow guilt to be proven.

 

[Lewis]

We don't have the details to know what happened. Even if Zimmerman was told not to follow Martin and did anyway, once attacked he had the right to defend himself. Don't forget, Zimmerman's version of the events is that he lost track of Martin, and was returning to his car when Martin attacked him. If Zimmerman didn't have the right to use deadly force in self defense, neither did Martin.

Let's wait for the details to come out in court.

I have heard the tape, the police said don't follow him

 

[Mike S]

I have heard the tape, the police said don't follow him

And? I've heard the tape too, what happened between then and when Martin was shot?

 

[Lewis]

Why would you follow somebody when the police told you not to.

 

[ManofChrist101]

I haven't followed the Zimmerman case too closely, but because of the attitude of the black community who were demanding justice before anyone knew anything is telling of the spiritual condition of our nation as a whole. The whole affair is sad no matter which angle you view it.

- Davies

Its not about race. Its about the depravity of violence that is prevalent in our society. If God's will were being done GUNS WOULDN'T EVEN EXIST. Jesus said to peter (Mt 26:52) all those who take up the sword perish by the sword. SO its not about his race its about this sin in society allowing violence to exist

 

[Pard]

If God's will were being done GUNS WOULDN'T EVEN EXIST.

Well, if God's will were being done then you and I wouldn't exist either, as a certain pair of somebodies would never have eaten from that darn tree. It's kind of been all down hill from there... That being said, guns have a purpose in this world. The problem is how people view guns. You (I am assuming from your post) see guns as weapons that are meant to seek and kill. I see guns as tools that are meant to help gather food, provide endless hours of skilled entertainment (target shooting), and, when the unfortunate need arises, to protect oneself and family from another who seeks to bring bodily harm.

 

[ManofChrist101]

Well, if God's will were being done then you and I wouldn't exist either, as a certain pair of somebodies would never have eaten from that darn tree. It's kind of been all down hill from there... That being said, guns have a purpose in this world. The problem is how people view guns. You (I am assuming from your post) see guns as weapons that are meant to seek and kill. I see guns as tools that are meant to help gather food, provide endless hours of skilled entertainment (target shooting), and, when the unfortunate need arises, to protect oneself and family from another who seeks to bring bodily harm.

Our existence wasn't contingent upon sin! pro-creation was contingent upon marriage. SOMETHING GOD CREATED. If God's will were being done we would still exist just without sin.

As for Guns, i highly doubt they were created because someone wanted to hunt more effectively. They were created to shed blood. There are dozens of ways to hunt. In fact, a gun is one of the worst hunting tools because you risk piercing the gut-sack of the animal and ruining the meat, whereas if you set a trap or sedate the animal or even hit it on the head with a sharp rock, you kill it while saving the meat. So there is no real need for guns to exist.

 

[Pard]

Our existence wasn't contingent upon sin! pro-creation was contingent upon marriage. SOMETHING GOD CREATED. If God's will were being done we would still exist just without sin.

LOL. It literally took me about five read throughs to figure out why you were talking about sex. What I meant was this, you and I wouldn't exist (most likely) since the specific events that led to our respective parents meeting wouldn't have happened, nor would those of their parents or their parents or their parents and allllllllllllllllll the way back to the generation maybe after Cain's. Of course maybe it would have all managed to happen the same way still and if that's the case then my bad!

As for Guns, i highly doubt they were created because someone wanted to hunt more effectively. They were created to shed blood. There are dozens of ways to hunt. In fact, a gun is one of the worst hunting tools because you risk piercing the gut-sack of the animal and ruining the meat, whereas if you set a trap or sedate the animal or even hit it on the head with a sharp rock, you kill it while saving the meat. So there is no real need for guns to exist.

There is a reason trapping is generally associated with fur trading, it ruins the meat. Have you ever eaten the meat of a stressed deer? It's nasty! They send of chemicals when they get freaked and it makes the meat not so yummy.

How do you sedate a deer or bang it on the head with a club? And rocks don't generally kill things with really thick heads, like deer (remember rocks have to hit the head and the head of a deer is used to getting hit by another deer head at great speed). And that's for slow moving critters, imagine trying to hit a flying duck with a rock!!! If you can do that then you have no equal in the terms of accuracy!

And bows and arrows are alright but they can sometimes ruin the meat on the count of stress and at the very least you generally don't kill it right off and then you have to track the dang thing for a few hours and all that time it is in real pain and is freaking out and scared.

I've killed plenty of critters (and eaten all but a few diseased ones) and I've never once busted their gut. Just don't have a bad shot and you're good to go! If you hit a deer in the gut while hunting then you should probably go back to the range on a count of the target of a deer (lung/heart) is about a foot from the gut!

But if you wanna talk about why guns are not good for hunting then make anew topic because this ain't the place for it. And I think I'll stay clear of that. I shouldn't have even replied to your post. You have a stigma about guns, probably from being raised that way, and I"m not about to change your view or even make you see mine with a few words over the internet.