Where did I say or imply that he broke the law? I overstated that he didn't stay in his vehicle. Looks like he was told he wasn't needed to follow Martin yet he still did.

 

Was it reported somewhere or did he admit to following him after he was told it wasn't necessary? I'm asking because if not his attorney is going to say he stopped following him after he was told to stop and Martin came back towards him after being followed. We may never know the truth about that unless he already admitted to it.

That's what I've been saying from the beginning. If there is any issue here it is that people have a problem with the law.

 

One thing for sure that some people are missing. We have no idea who started the fight. If Martin felt threatened by someone following him and he initiated the fight would it be different to you than if Zimmerman ran him down and started the fight? To me a neighborhood watch captain following a "suspicious" person isn't starting a fight. However if I'm being followed I would feel totally different.

 

 

For me, regardless of who started the fight I think this is all Zimmerman's fault. If Martin felt threatened by Zimmerman following him then I can't fault Martin for his actions. It makes no difference to me who started it or who threw the first punch. How did the fight start? Would there have been a fight if Zimmerman hadn't left his vehicle? I would need to know that Martin was doing something illegal or at least had a weapon on him before I could side with Zimmerman. All we know is that Martin was walking home unarmed from the store and he was killed by a man. An armed man who was following him because he appeared suspicious. It just doesn't jibe with me.

Was it reported somewhere or did he admit to following him after he was told it wasn't necessary? I'm asking because if not his attorney is going to say he stopped following him after he was told to stop and Martin came back towards him after being followed. We may never know the truth about that unless he already admitted to it.

 

I don't know. Good question. I am going by the transcript that was provided in post #305. Based on the transcript my thought is that he never had to leave his vehicle.

This is going to be very interesting to see how this plays out in court and what the evidence shows. By the wording of the law it seems like as long as Zimmerman wasn't breaking the law then he may have been in the right. Am I reading that correctly?

 

For me, it just seems pretty wild to think a man killed an unarmed kid and that there may be a law to justify that killing. I can't wrap my head around that logic.

 

 

While I understand not being able to wrap your head around the logic, the unfortuate truth is that accidents/tragedies sometimes happen even when no one is at fault; when no one broke the law. I can envision the situation unfolding as follows:

 

Zimmerman decides to follow Martin so he doesn't get away before the police arrive. As we've previously discussed, given the past incidents, Zimmerman's actions seem reasonable to me. Martin gets nervous that someone is following him. That seems reasonable to me. Martin walks up to Zimmerman and wants to know why he is following Martin. Again reasonable to me. Zimmerman says he's following him because young blacks are suspected of committing burglaries and he wants to make sure the police (who are on the way) talk to him. Martin says he didn't commit any burglaries. Stronger words are exchanged. Emotions flare. A scuffle ensues. Martin ends up on top and feels he is defending himself. Zimmerman is getting the heck beat out of him and having his head slammed on the ground. Pulls out his pistol because he thinks he's going to die.

 

Tragic result that occurred when things escalated from actions that in and of themselves were reasonable and understandable.

 

IF it came down that way: is it Zimmerman's fault for getting out the car as opposed to staying in the car and chancing the suspicious person got away again? Is it Martin's fault for stopping and walking up to Zimmerman or should he just have kept walking? Is the father's fiance's fault for not suggesting that they drive Martin to the convenience store because there have been reports of young black males committing burglaries in the neighborhood and tensions are on high, or at least tell Martin that there is a neighborhood watch ongoing and it's likely he'll be questioned by police or the neighborhood watch folks? Is it anyone's "fault"?

 

I'll wait to watch the trial or read the evidence, but I'm beginning to think this could have been one of those terrible things that only happen when just about everything that could go wrong, went wrong.

 

It's a damn shame this young man died. I know that.

While I understand not being able to wrap your head around the logic, the unfortuate truth is that accidents/tragedies sometimes happen even when no one is at fault; when no one broke the law. I can envision the situation unfolding as follows:

 

Zimmerman decides to follow Martin so he doesn't get away before the police arrive. As we've previously discussed, given the past incidents, Zimmerman's actions seem reasonable to me. Martin gets nervous that someone is following him. That seems reasonable to me. Martin walks up to Zimmerman and wants to know why he is following Martin. Again reasonable to me. Zimmerman says he's following him because young blacks are suspected of committing burglaries and he wants to make sure the police (who are on the way) talk to him. Martin says he didn't commit any burglaries. Stronger words are exchanged. Emotions flare. A scuffle ensues. Martin ends up on top and feels he is defending himself. Zimmerman is getting the heck beat out of him and having his head slammed on the ground. Pulls out his pistol because he thinks he's going to die.

 

Tragic result that occurred when things escalated from actions that in and of themselves were reasonable and understandable.

 

IF it came down that way: is it Zimmerman's fault for getting out the car as opposed to staying in the car and chancing the suspicious person got away again? Is it Martin's fault for stopping and walking up to Zimmerman or should he just have kept walking? Is the father's fiance's fault for not suggesting that they drive Martin to the convenience store because there have been reports of young black males committing burglaries in the neighborhood and tensions are on high, or at least tell Martin that there is a neighborhood watch ongoing and it's likely he'll be questioned by police or the neighborhood watch folks? Is it anyone's "fault"?

 

I'll wait to watch the trial or read the evidence, but I'm beginning to think this could have been one of those terrible things that only happen when just about everything that could go wrong, went wrong.

 

It's a damn shame this young man died. I know that.

 

All good points. Shoot, great points. Zimmerman may be needing to give you a call as his defense lawyer. That's a pretty convincing post as to what could have reasonably happened. It will be interesting to see how this case turns out and what the evidence shows. I'll be following it closer than any other high profile case that has been around in my lifetime. Partly because I don't know what to believe from the media and I want to see how the evidence affects this case. I worry about the outrage and racial tension that this case brings forward. I hope one way or another we can all take a step back and let cooler heads prevail when judgment day on this case comes.

What many seem to be forgetting (and the number one reason why I feel Zimmerman has to be held accountable) is that none of this would've happened if Zimmerman wasn't a profiling racist. He had no business following Martin in the first place. His racist actions directly led to Martin's death. That makes him responsible IMO, regardless of who attacked who.

What many seem to be forgetting (and the number one reason why I feel Zimmerman has to be held accountable) is that none of this would've happened if Zimmerman wasn't a profiling racist. He had no business following Martin in the first place. His racist actions directly led to Martin's death. That makes him responsible IMO, regardless of who attacked who.

 

How is he a racist?

 

It is a fact that young black males committed recent crimes in his neighborhood. Profiling because of race is not racist to me. If there are young white guys committing crimes in my neighborhood I will be on the lookout for young white guys in my neighborhood that I've never seen before or acting suspicious. That doesn't make me racist.

How is he a racist?

 

It is a fact that young black males committed recent crimes in his neighborhood. Profiling because of race is not racist to me. If there are young white guys committing crimes in my neighborhood I will be on the lookout for young white guys in my neighborhood that I've never seen before or acting suspicious. That doesn't make me racist.

 

Profiling because of race IS racist.

Profiling because of race IS racist.

 

I agree.

What many seem to be forgetting (and the number one reason why I feel Zimmerman has to be held accountable) is that none of this would've happened if Zimmerman wasn't a profiling racist. He had no business following Martin in the first place. His racist actions directly led to Martin's death. That makes him responsible IMO, regardless of who attacked who.

 

It's been reported that he is far from a racist, having grown up surrounded by people from different races. I would assume this will be explored in great detail during the trial so hopefully we will learn the truth about him one way or another. I do agree that nothing would have happened if he had simply waited in his car until the police arrived.

What many seem to be forgetting (and the number one reason why I feel Zimmerman has to be held accountable) is that none of this would've happened if Zimmerman wasn't a profiling racist. He had no business following Martin in the first place. His racist actions directly led to Martin's death. That makes him responsible IMO, regardless of who attacked who.

 

What do you have to prove he is a profiling racist?

Profiling because of race IS racist.

 

 

Totally disagree. People profile every single day including myself. I'd venture to say every person profiles. That doesn't make them racist at all.

What do you have to prove he is a profiling racist?

 

I'm hoping not the "freaking" cold comment. Some people still bring that up that I've talked to.

Autopsy says kid was shot from "intermediate range."

Autopsy says kid was shot from "intermediate range."

 

What does that mean? How far away is that?