| || |
|06-07-2014, 02:40 PM||#21|
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Morgan County, Alabama "In Dixie Land I'll take my stand."
First, welcome to GUNHUB.COM.
The Zimmerman V. Martin issue has been beaten to death on this forum. While I don't hold Zimmerman up as a "hero," I will say that despite the major misreporting on this performed by our stilted friends in the lamestream media, I come down on the matter defending Zimmerman.
Briefly, what I believe happened is that Zimmerman (henceforth refered to as Z) was driving around, noted Trayvon Martin (henceforth refered to as T) and called the 911 to report a "suspicious person" as T was apprently walking between houses. The 911 operator at one point asked Z if he knew where T was, prompting Z -- mistakenly -- to leave his car and follow T on foot. When 911 told Z he ought not do that Z attempted to return to his vehicle but was interdicted en route by T who, aside from the use of harsh language, punched Z in the nose, knocking Z down, and then sat on him, and began bashing his head against the cement edge of a walkway. Having once accidently bounced my head off of a cabinet edge I can assure you that getting whacked aside the head like that is VERY painful!
During this fight (which T had no right to begin) T discovered Z had a gun and a brief struggle for it ensued, Z being the winner, and being in fear of his life (again, being whacked aside the head HURTS) used the gun in self-defense on T.
Did Z do things wrong? Yes, but I don't see what he did wrong as being a reason for him to forfeit the right of self-defense. It seems to me T's actions were the proximate cause.
We should recall two things:
1.) Z had a cell phone, and used it to call authorities. Having left his car and being told this was wrong, Z attempted to correct the matter.
2.) T also had a cellphone; we know this as he'd used it to call a girlfriend. Some claim T was afraid of Z which I find odd. T had the means to call the police and according to those who thought he was scared of Z, a very good reason to call police -- but he did not. While I do not argue that T "deserved" what he got I do believe his "unpleasant" associations with police authority in the past caused him not to pursue 911 as a means to solve his problem. A youthful machismo was probably the other ingredient in this decision making process.
Z was not involved in a situation that called for a "stand your ground" defense, nor, as I understand it, did his defense team actually employ the SYG law in the defense. But his team did win the jury verdict at trial.
Whatever "damage" he may have done to the 2A cause is minimal, IMHO.
A lot of people who only see this as a racial issue will never accept the idea that T was a less than savory person; to them he will always be the victim of white -- er, "white hispanic" (??) prejudice. These people will always cry for more gun control in the wake of these types of shootings no matter whether the shooter was actually acting in legal self-defense or not.
Having said all that, I don't know if I think Z ought to have been neighborhood watch or not. If he truly had wanted to I think he really ought to have been better versed on how to act. While he DID return to his car at the 911 operator's prompting the fact he left in the first place argues he was in need of more thorough training ... or perhaps a refresher course. But, as I have already stated, this does not diminish Z's self defense rights or relieve T of the responsibility on his soul for initializing the violent confrontation that ultimatly ended his young life.
Last edited by TommyGunn; 06-08-2014 at 09:17 PM.
|06-07-2014, 05:24 PM||#22|
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: "Close, but no donut!"
|06-08-2014, 09:14 AM||#23|
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: San Antonio, TX
Also he/she wins the "pink popsicle award" for the most UN-NECESSARY use of "bolding" in his/her posts.
| || |
|06-08-2014, 04:27 PM||#25|
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Still in NC
I have no quarrels with TommyGunn's précis, and only one addition. According to testimony at trial, T reached his backyard. He would have had to double back a distance of over 100 yards to confront Z at the start of the fight. Essentially, the first contact had ended without any confrontation, and T returned to initiate the confrontation.
|06-08-2014, 08:31 PM||#26|
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: San Antonio, TX
Moreover, UNTIL a representative of the Dept. of INJUSTICE started INTIMIDATING him, an EYEWITNESS (who did NOT know either T or Z & had NO idea what race/color/gender that either was) stated to the SPD detective that "the guy on top" was beating the other's head on the pavement. = The guy on TOP was TM & nobody denies that.
It comes down to this: The DoJ guy SUBORNED perjury by intimidation of the SOLE eyewitness for POLITICAL ADVANTAGE.
(Is anyone here SURPRIZED by that FACT???)
|08-25-2014, 04:20 AM||#27|
Join Date: Jan 2014
[QUOTE=chal4oye;534307]If it's true that TM discovered GZ's gun and told him he was going to die as he struggled for it, a case for attempted murder might be possible .... but Zimmerman was the only ear-witness and of course TM is dead anyway so that's not possible.
TM wasn't a "monster" but he was on the road to nowhere good, IMHO. Had he not died in a tragic misjudgement driven event, he might have been salvageable had the right intervention been available.
In short .... too hard to say. Coulda woulda shoulda..... we don't know what path TM would have taken.
|Search tags for this page|
another shooting of a blackan,
white on black gun shooting
Click on a term to search for related topics.
|Thread||Thread Starter||Forum||Replies||Last Post|
|3 gun combat shooting match at the BulletHole Shooting Range||Rabbi||Competition||0||05-03-2006 03:15 PM|
|Shooting Gallery and Bruce Gray's Practical Shooting Course||Gun Talk||3||03-19-2006 11:10 AM|
|Keeping black rifles black||deltaheavy||Semi Auto||7||08-28-2004 07:57 AM|