I agree. But take GZ and TM out of it. The story is still pretty much lining up with how he said it went down. Again, it comes down to, "do you think the events as they transpired warrant a murder conviction?" Was there an intent for him to get out and kill Martin. To me it is manslaughter and where they are trying to get it to.

I agree. I can't see murder based on prosecution case...possibly manslaughter or wanton endangerment (using a gun in a fist fight)

Why can't you be objective?

 

An unarmed 17 year old kid minding his own business was shot and killed. There is no way I can overlook that fact and not seek to punish the individual responsible.

First I have heard of that. I've heard it was GZ's gun from day one.

 

I know grown men that are capable of beating the tar out of grown men. You still can't kill them after they beat the tar out of you. Nevermind that the medical examiner said GZ's injuries received from the fight were not life threatening.

 

 

Andy Ostroy: Critical Points About the Trayvon Martin Case

 

 

So you have to be beat almost to death before you can defend yourself?

I agree. But take GZ and TM out of it. The story is still pretty much lining up with how he said it went down. Again, it comes down to, "do you think the events as they transpired warrant a murder conviction?" Was there an intent for him to get out and kill Martin. To me it is manslaughter and where they are trying to get it to.

 

 

Taking GZ and TM out of it and it becomes a loser of a fight who shot the winner. To me that's murder.

An unarmed 17 year old kid minding his own business was shot and killed. There is no way I can overlook that fact and not seek to punish the individual responsible.

I don't think at the time of the shooting that "Minding his own business" fits. If Zimmerman just walked up and shot him it would be one thing, the fact they they later got into a fight (of which none of us knows all of the facts) changes it somewhat.

 

So you could not sit in a jury box and with that being the stated facts be swayed by other testimony?

 

What if unarmed 17 year old was shot and killed by someone and his friends stated he was just minding his own business and testified to that, then a video or audio tape is produced at trial that proves the 17 year old was actually attacking the man? Original facts are the same but there are now extenuating circumstances. You would ignore the evidence based on your preconceived ideas of what happened?

Taking GZ and TM out of it and it becomes a loser of a fight who shot the winner. To me that's murder.

 

PP, at what point in a fight would you pull your gun to defend yourself? Do you just wait and hope they other guy takes pity and doesn't beat you to death?

So you have to be beat almost to death before you can defend yourself?

 

Is that the status quo now? Get beat up and shoot the winner?

 

His life was not being threatened(per the medical examiner) and he shot his unarmed assailant.

I don't think at the time of the shooting that "Minding his own business" fits. If Zimmerman just walked up and shot him it would be one thing, the fact they they later got into a fight (of which none of us knows all of the facts) changes it somewhat.

 

So you could not sit in a jury box and with that being the stated facts be swayed by other testimony?

 

What if unarmed 17 year old was shot and killed by someone and his friends stated he was just minding his own business and testified to that, then a video or audio tape is produced at trial that proves the 17 year old was actually attacking the man? Original facts are the same but there are now extenuating circumstances. You would ignore the evidence based on your preconceived ideas of what happened?

 

But the scenario you presented isn't what happened. In the actual case, he was racially profiled, followed by a stranger, and ended up shot. The fact that he may have initiated the fight, means little to me. Never should an unarmed 17 year old be shot and killed while walking home from a store and the perputrator not be held accountible. That's JMO of course, but it's why I could never be on the jury.

Should Zimmerman be on trial if he had pulled a knife during the fight and stabbed Trayvon?

Should he be on trial if he had struck Trayvon in a way that caused him to die?

 

Should Trayvon be on trial if he had taken the gun away and killed Zimmerman?

Should Trayvon be on trial if he had caused a skill fracture that Zimmerman died from?

Is that the status quo now? Get beat up and shoot the winner?

 

His life was not being threatened(per the medical examiner) and he shot his unarmed assailant.

 

If you are getting beat on, how do you know if they will stop before they kill you? I am talking about in general not this case specifically.

 

If you get beat up the guy stops whipping your butt and moves away from you then you pull a gun and fire, that is wrong. If while the guy is beating you, you fire, well there is no such thing as a fair fight.

PP seriously at what point in a fight would you pull your gun to defend yourself?

 

I'd never be the first person to pull a gun out and as of today I don't own a gun and I am not seriously or actively looking to become a gun owner. Just not on my to do list. I've made it 38 years and 11 months without a gun. I'm not in a hurry to own one.

 

 

I'm still trying to wrap my head around....'getting beat up and then pulled my gun out'. How seriosuly are you being beat up if you can pull your gun out? Better yet, how in the world is TM beating him up and not taking his gun from him and shooting him? GZ is inches away from death apparently yet he was able to reach for and grab his gun but TM never thought about grabbing the gun or going for the gun yet GZ is claiming self-defense? If TM had GZ screaming help how in the world was GZ able to grab the gun and deliver kill shots? How does that happen?

But the scenario you presented isn't what happened. In the actual case, he was racially profiled, followed by a stranger, and ended up shot. The fact that he may have initiated the fight, means little to me. Never should an unarmed 17 year old be shot and killed while walking home from a store and the perputrator not be held accountible. That's JMO of course, but it's why I could never be on the jury.

 

So if video suddenly appeared showing TM as the aggressor, pounding GZ's head into the sidewalk you would not change your mind. What about a recording of his discussion on the phone where he stated he was going to kill the CAC. Your so blinded that your eyes would not be open to other evidence if it was presented and went against your preconceived ideas?

 

Yeah I hope your never on a jury either.

If you are getting beat on, how do you know if they will stop before they kill you? I am talking about in general not this case specifically.

 

If you get beat up the guy stops whipping your butt and moves away from you then you pull a gun and fire, that is wrong. If while the guy is beating you, you fire, well there is no such thing as a fair fight.

 

 

Why am I being beat up on is a better question. I need more specifics. I may have been asking for a butt whipping. I like to think I can handle myself well enough to not be getting whipped or to at least play possum or something.

 

 

It's hard to answer that question accurately when this case taints some answers.

So if video suddenly appeared showing TM as the aggressor, pounding GZ's head into the sidewalk you would not change your mind. What about a recording of his discussion on the phone where he stated he was going to kill the CAC. Your so blinded that your eyes would not be open to other evidence if it was presented and went against your preconceived ideas?

 

Yeah I hope your never on a jury either.

 

If you were on the OJ jury would you have said OJ was guilty or would you have believed the glove don't fit so you must acquit speech also?

You still can't kill them after they beat the tar out of you.

 

In KY you can, an I am pretty sure in FL you can also. Justifiable reasons for using deadly force in KY are 1) to prevent yourself from being killed, 2) to prevent yourself from receiving serious bodily harm (a single punch in the face is not enough, being pinned to the ground and being repeatedly punched would), 3) to prevent yourself from being raped, 4) someone breaking into your home, 5) someone trying to set your home on fire, (I think I am missing one). As far as I know, KY and FL justifiable reasons for using deadly force are very similar. In neither state does the attacker need to be armed.

 

Nevermind that the medical examiner said GZ's injuries received from the fight were not life threatening.

 

Injuries being life treatening is not a requirement for using justifiable deadly force in KY and my guess FL either.