Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: If you have a gun and the other guy doesn't . . . [View all]NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)135. Because he was shot in the heart and killed
When I am chased down by a paranoid racist and am fighting for my life, at what point do I either stop or can be justifiably killed? Am I not allowed to fight back for more than a few seconds before instant death?
TM could have withdrawn and left. No?
1) We do not know that he wasn't trying to when shot
2) Why would he leave before the initial threat was neutralized or police were present?
There simply isn't enough hard evidence to prove 2nd or even manslaughter.
I don't think this shooting occurred in a 2 second vacuum that you suggest, which we have zero evidence of. We know for a fact that Zimmerman's negligent behavior led to a fatal shooting. We know for a fact he was malicious in pursuit of the "fucking punk" that he knows always get away. I don't honestly care what a mentally unstable man felt in that vacuum of his creation, blinded by the psychosis of hate and racism, before killing a teenager.
People have been convicted of far more heinous crimes with far less evidence (normally you just have to provide a motive and put them at the place during that time). This isn't even your typical "reasonable doubt" case, as we know he killed him. This is just: what would the average person have felt in that moment if they created a scenario that only a crazy paranoid racist could have created, and then laid like a rag-doll as a 1 arm boy slammed them (but not enough to hurt them). I'd probably been giggling a bit if some guy barely hurt me after purportedly banging my head 20 times (bullshit, bullshit, bullshit). I don't give a fuck what a looney gun toting sissy nut was thinking.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
221 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Yeah I am a coward...I would have shot someone who was slamming me into the ground too.
dkf
Jul 2013
#75
He makes more sense to me than everyone who would let their head be repeatedly slammed into sidewalk
dkf
Jul 2013
#113
The very fact a 160lb kid with 1 free arm could do that means he was letting it happen
NoOneMan
Jul 2013
#116
Show the evidence that his head was repeatedly slammed. He had a couple of lightly bleeding
1monster
Jul 2013
#217
Assuming he was being slammed into the ground repeatedly without miraculously getting a concussion
NoOneMan
Jul 2013
#83
If I was a nut enough to get into that situation why give a fuck about what I thought in the moment?
NoOneMan
Jul 2013
#111
No full grown man - even one in the midst of an ass kicking - thinks for a second he will be
alcibiades_mystery
Jul 2013
#41
Maybe if we didn't let any insecure men strap a gun on them.... (or any at all)
NoOneMan
Jul 2013
#99
Zimmerman was breaking the rules by carrying the gun on neighborhood watch duty to begin with.
Brigid
Jul 2013
#47
It's only my opinion on the logical implications of the jury instruction as written
anomiep
Jul 2013
#125
The kid still had the bag of Skittles in one of his perfectly clean, dead hands.
displacedtexan
Jul 2013
#181
You don't know that. No one does. Was it impossible for TM to have done enough damage
dkf
Jul 2013
#195
Really? Here I thought our discussion would impactthe jury's decision!
RedCappedBandit
Jul 2013
#169
Speculation. I wondering if it was legal for TM to punch Z in the face if that was first contact.
dkf
Jul 2013
#191
A schizophrenic psycho killer doesn't know how far his victims will go. God told them they are satan
NoOneMan
Jul 2013
#61
I am not calling him schizophrenic. I am comparing him to a mentally ill individual
NoOneMan
Jul 2013
#94
He was on psychotropic prescription meds, making him an "irresponsible" gun owner.
Hoyt
Jul 2013
#204
There is a crucial amount of time that no one but Zimmerman and the now dead Martin knows
justiceischeap
Jul 2013
#170
I understand that but as a non-jury member and a person participating in a discussion
justiceischeap
Jul 2013
#173
He shouldn't have started this whole incident is what he should have done.
complain jane
Jul 2013
#200
"I wish gun owners would quit studying the law to determine when they can shoot people. "
Lizzie Poppet
Jul 2013
#30
The counterpoint, though, is that anyone electing to have a gun for self-defense MUST know the law.
Lizzie Poppet
Jul 2013
#44
I don't think there's a legal duty for "responsibility to make sure a confrontation doesn't turn
Honeycombe8
Jul 2013
#9
Indeed...in this case in particular, the so-called liberal gun nuts are all hiding behind supposed
alcibiades_mystery
Jul 2013
#48
This is a legal case. The law is what matters. Nothing either guy was doing was illegal,
Honeycombe8
Jul 2013
#88
Yes, gunners are always most interested in how laws are written to protect their use of guns.
Hoyt
Jul 2013
#178
Apparently, as long as the only witness is killed, the shooter should be able
bushisanidiot
Jul 2013
#14
That, and the screaming ending immediately following the sound of the gunshot.
Adsos Letter
Jul 2013
#118
I wouldn't shoot anyone unless they also had a gun or charged me. Including if someone was in my
brewens
Jul 2013
#91
Only One Party had a gun - only one had complete control of the situation.
Old and In the Way
Jul 2013
#108
Well, if you are a cop it doesn't matter. You shoot first for your own safety
The Straight Story
Jul 2013
#126