Support NeoGAF

[GaimeGuy]

Since when is attacking and causing bodily harm to someone who follows you "acting accordingly"?

He only did that AFTER attempting to remove himself from the situation. That's why he moved away from the road. It was to remove himself from the situation in a non-violent manner.

What did George do? He ignored that signal from Trayvon and sent a signal of his own: "Oh, you've noticed me? Don't care. You want me to stop following you? Nope, not gonna stop."

Just FYI, I know the defense raised the question of what trayvon was doing in the time after george left the car and until they fought, but you are NOT supposed to lead someone back to your home if you are being followed. They insinuated, as have others, that Trayvon should have just retreated to the safety of his step-dad's home. That's the last thing you should do in such a situation.

If Trayvon had not gone away from the roads, I might excuse George's behavior. But he clearly ignored and outright denied trayvon's attempt at de-escalation. He even told the police dispatcher Trayvon was fleeing. He acknowledged Trayvon's behavior. But he didn't care. It's because he escalated the situation and preserved contact with Trayvon even when Trayvon attempted to flee that I think it was okay for Trayvon to resort to violence, but not George.

 

[Rawr Its Ry]

Good, fuck him. How much do people in high profile cases usually pay for lawyers, or how much do top lawyers charge?

 

[abadguy]

Suicide or drugs. Or, wild card, sudden catastrophic health issue. It's coming.

Or my personal favorite,one day he just fucks with the wrong person.

It's not loaded. He was visiting family. He walked to a 7/11 to get some skittles for his stepbrother and an iced tea for himself. He never made it home.

I'm not black, but for the last 4 years of my life, I've lived across the street from a gas station. And before that, I lived 4 years on a college campus. In other words, for the last 8 years, I've been well acquainted with the act of walking to the convenience store for a snack somewhere between dusk and bed time. Especially since up until 2 years ago, I didn't drive.

the idea that some creep could kill me doing while I was doing such a mundane thing and admit to doing so after a series of actions like following me around wherever I go even when I try to get away from him), and the law would let him off the hook and smear the character of my dead corpse INFURIATES me. Everyone KNEW this piece of shit killed a child. Everyone KNEW this child was not a threat to him. Everyone KNEW George was acting irresponsibly and in aggressive manner. Everyone KNEW this child was simply going to the convenience store. YET NO ONE CARES THAT THIS PIECE OF SHIT ENDED HIS LIFE. THAT CHILD IS DEAD. GONE. FINISHED. NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON ON THE JURY THOUGHT THAT GEORGE SHOULD BE LEGALLY PUNISHED FOR TAKING THAT CHILD'S LIFE AWAY. NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON ON THE JURY THOUGHT THAT THE CHILD'S DEATH WAS LEGALLY UNJUSTIFIABLE, OR THAT HE DIDN'T FORFEIT HIS RIGHT TO LIFE. NOT A SINGLE PERSON.

"reasonable doubt" my ass, use your fucking brains, then you'll see that there's no doubt to be had.

Edit: Especially since this man says that Even knowing in retrospect that Trayvon was not, in fact, the criminal he thought he was, he doesn't regret any of his actions. He wouldn't change a thing he did. He feels no remorse for killing a child. Those are not the feelings of an innocent man, but a stone cold hearted murderer

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Of course not, he murdered a child, a sweet, 5ft 11 child. Who had no intention of harming anyone.

Obviously he was looking for a person to attack with his bag of skittles. Shit imagine if he had a snickers! Many lives could have been lost!

 

[The Abominable Snowman]

I have a hard time feeling bad for him.

He hasn't really done one thing to show he was remorseful or wanted to go back to living the life he knew. Kind of just came off like he was saying "Jokes on you, America! I'm free!!!" and signed a bunch of endorsement deals and he and his friends tried to live off of his right-wing new found celebrity.

Edit: Didn't even read GaimeGuy's excellent response.

 

[PoweredBySoy]

I'd extend that to people I don't have a favorable view of.

Here's who I don't have a favorable view of.

• Late UPS guys
• People that don't bathe regularly
• Tailgaters

Zimmerman? He can get fucked.

 

[commedieu]

Everyone KNEW this piece of shit killed a child. Everyone KNEW this child was not a threat to him. Everyone KNEW George was acting irresponsibly and in aggressive manner. Everyone KNEW this child was simply going to the convenience store. YET NO ONE CARES THAT THIS PIECE OF SHIT ENDED HIS LIFE. THAT CHILD IS DEAD. GONE. FINISHED. NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON ON THE JURY THOUGHT THAT GEORGE SHOULD BE LEGALLY PUNISHED FOR TAKING THAT CHILD'S LIFE AWAY. NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON ON THE JURY THOUGHT THAT THE CHILD'S DEATH WAS LEGALLY UNJUSTIFIABLE, OR THAT HE DIDN'T FORFEIT HIS RIGHT TO LIFE. NOT A SINGLE PERSON.

Great post sir.

You sum up all the frustration perfectly.

 

[Killing_Joke]

It's not loaded. He was visiting family. He walked to a 7/11 to get some skittles for his stepbrother and an iced tea for himself. He never made it home.

I'm not black, but for the last 4 years of my life, I've lived across the street from a gas station. And before that, I lived 4 years on a college campus. In other words, for the last 8 years, I've been well acquainted with the act of walking to the convenience store for a snack somewhere between dusk and bed time. Especially since up until 2 years ago, I didn't drive.

the idea that some creep could kill me doing while I was doing such a mundane thing and admit to doing so after a series of actions like following me around wherever I go even when I try to get away from him), and the law would let him off the hook and smear the character of my dead corpse INFURIATES me. Everyone KNEW this piece of shit killed a child. Everyone KNEW this child was not a threat to him. Everyone KNEW George was acting irresponsibly and in aggressive manner. Everyone KNEW this child was simply going to the convenience store. YET NO ONE CARES THAT THIS PIECE OF SHIT ENDED HIS LIFE. THAT CHILD IS DEAD. GONE. FINISHED. NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON ON THE JURY THOUGHT THAT GEORGE SHOULD BE LEGALLY PUNISHED FOR TAKING THAT CHILD'S LIFE AWAY. NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON ON THE JURY THOUGHT THAT THE CHILD'S DEATH WAS LEGALLY UNJUSTIFIABLE, OR THAT HE DIDN'T FORFEIT HIS RIGHT TO LIFE. NOT A SINGLE PERSON.

"reasonable doubt" my ass, use your fucking brains, then you'll see that there's no doubt to be had.

Edit: Especially since this man says that Even knowing in retrospect that Trayvon was not, in fact, the criminal he thought he was, he doesn't regret any of his actions. He wouldn't change a thing he did. He feels no remorse for killing a child. Those are not the feelings of an innocent man, but a stone cold hearted murderer

*handshake*

The Zimmerman/court system defenders are the worst. B-b-but Zimmerman didn't break the law. Give me a break. If the law says a person has the right to follow someone giving the stalker freedom to kill the victim with 0 consequence because victim decided to defend himself. Then clearly the law is fucked and needs to be changed. Those B37 quotes make my piss boil.

 

[jon bones]

Of course not, he murdered a child, a sweet, 5ft 11 child. Who had no intention of harming anyone.

just say black, you're thinking it loud enough

 

[Kyuuketsu_Night]

Excellent news.

 

[vas_a_morir]

*handshake*

The Zimmerman/court system defenders are the worst. B-b-but Zimmerman didn't break the law. Give me a break. If the law says a person has the right to follow someone giving the stalker freedom to kill the victim with 0 consequence because victim decided to defend himself. Then clearly the law is fucked and needs to be changed. Those B37 make my piss boil.

Change what law? Can you answer this?

 

[Loakum]

It's not loaded. He was visiting family. He walked to a 7/11 to get some skittles for his stepbrother and an iced tea for himself. He never made it home.

I'm not black, but for the last 4 years of my life, I've lived across the street from a gas station. And before that, I lived 4 years on a college campus. In other words, for the last 8 years, I've been well acquainted with the act of walking to the convenience store for a snack somewhere between dusk and bed time. Especially since up until 2 years ago, I didn't drive.

the idea that some creep could kill me doing while I was doing such a mundane thing and admit to doing so after a series of actions like following me around wherever I go even when I try to get away from him), and the law would let him off the hook and smear the character of my dead corpse INFURIATES me. Everyone KNEW this piece of shit killed a child. Everyone KNEW this child was not a threat to him. Everyone KNEW George was acting irresponsibly and in aggressive manner. Everyone KNEW this child was simply going to the convenience store. YET NO ONE CARES THAT THIS PIECE OF SHIT ENDED HIS LIFE. THAT CHILD IS DEAD. GONE. FINISHED. NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON ON THE JURY THOUGHT THAT GEORGE SHOULD BE LEGALLY PUNISHED FOR TAKING THAT CHILD'S LIFE AWAY. NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON ON THE JURY THOUGHT THAT THE CHILD'S DEATH WAS LEGALLY UNJUSTIFIABLE, OR THAT HE DIDN'T FORFEIT HIS RIGHT TO LIFE. NOT A SINGLE PERSON.

"reasonable doubt" my ass, use your fucking brains, then you'll see that there's no doubt to be had.

Edit: Especially since this man says that Even knowing in retrospect that Trayvon was not, in fact, the criminal he thought he was, he doesn't regret any of his actions. He wouldn't change a thing he did. He feels no remorse for killing a child. Those are not the feelings of an innocent man, but a stone cold hearted murderer

Amen! So much TRUTH in this post! Sadly, this is the type of none justice minorities get in America....especially down south!

 

[Armoured Priest]

Change what law? Can you answer this?

"Stand your ground" might be a good place to start. I'm sure with some thought other options could be come up with. And while we're at it maybe some better gun regulation, and psychological checks on those who wish to buy one so that someone who might be a trigger with a history to go with it couldn't get his/her hands on a firearm.

 

[cashman]

Last post I'll make in this thread, but I'm not saying that people have the right to get into fights, kill the other person, and then get off scott free. I'm saying that the series of events put the fault squarely at Zimmerman's feet until the confrontation got violent. At that point of time, Zimmerman acted in self-defense. .

That's pretty much exactly what you're saying.

 

[vas_a_morir]

"Stand your ground" might be a good place to start. I'm sure with some thought other options could be come up with. And while we're at it maybe some better gun regulation, and psychological checks on those who wish to buy one so that someone who might be a trigger with a history to go with it couldn't get his/her hands on a firearm.

The one law that you could change and prevent this whole thing is probably too hot to touch. Arguably unconstitutional, but I suppose these kinds of weaponry didn't exist back when 2nd amendment was passed.

IMO, take the gun out of the equation and things go MUCH differently. Zimmerman probably goes 'fuck this, I'm running inside and locking the doors' rather than following. Of course, we can't know that for sure.

 

[Kenai]

Good.

Keep him occupied worrying about making it day to day, getting food for himself, a roof over his head.

Less time to waste on potentially gunning another innocent down that way.

 

[abadguy]

The one law that you could change and prevent this whole thing is probably too hot to touch. Arguably unconstitutional, but I suppose these kinds of weaponry didn't exist back when 2nd amendment was passed.

IMO, take the gun out of the equation and things go MUCH differently. Zimmerman probably goes 'fuck this, I'm running inside and locking the doors' rather than following. Of course, we can't know that for sure.

Well yeah people such as Zimmerman are only tough when they're packing, i doubt he would have even approached Trayvon unarmed.

 

[mcflyOS]

Scary prejudiced mob mentality in the comments. I watched the trial, there's a reason the police didn't feel prosecution was necessary... George had a busted and bloody nose, lacerations on the back of his scalp and two black eyes, Trayvon, besides the gunshot wound, had only bruised knuckles. Trying to convince a jury that Trayvon was the one screaming for help, and the one assaulted, while not having a scratch on him, was pretty difficult. Also, watching the trial gave me information the judge deemed the jury shouldn't have, like that Trayvon bragged about street fighting on social media, saying proudly how he drew blood in a fight, the judge ruled it that irrelevant to the case, so the jury didn't hear about it.

 

[Killing_Joke]

Change what law? Can you answer this?

Stand your ground would be a great start. But like said here, self defense laws seemed to be fucked in general.

Stand-your-ground laws are frequently criticized and called "shoot first" laws by critics, including the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.[38] In Florida, self-defense claims tripled in the years following enactment.[38][39] The law's critics argue that Florida's law makes it very difficult to prosecute cases against people who shoot others and then claim self-defense. The shooter can argue that he felt threatened, and in most cases, the only witness who could have argued otherwise is the deceased.[38] This problem is inherent to all self-defense laws, not just stand your ground laws.[citation needed] Before passage of the law, Miami police chief John F. Timoney called the law unnecessary and dangerous in that "[w]hether it's trick-or-treaters or kids playing in the yard of someone who doesn't want them there or some drunk guy stumbling into the wrong house, you're encouraging people to possibly use deadly physical force where it shouldn't be used.

Not only is it ok to stalk someone with a fully loaded weapon. It's ok to shoot the victim because uh self defense. His bloody nose? The tiny scratch on his head? A medical expert said all his injuries were minor for fuck sake. lol

He knew exactly what to say and sadly there weren't any witnesses to say otherwise. And even if their was it all be moot because he felt "threatened" for his life. Which would be a impossible mountain to climb for any prosecutor. Also would be nice to not have a borderline racist as a juror. But what's done is done.

Scary prejudiced mob mentality in the comments. I watched the trial, there's a reason the police didn't feel prosecution was necessary... George had a busted and bloody nose, lacerations on the back of his scalp and two black eyes, Trayvon, besides the gunshot wound, had only bruised knuckles. Trying to convince a jury that Trayvon was the one screaming for help, and the one assaulted, while not having a scratch on him, was pretty difficult. Also, watching the trial gave me information the judge deemed the jury shouldn't have, like that Trayvon bragged about street fighting on social media, saying proudly how he drew blood in a fight, the judge ruled it that irrelevant to the case, so the jury didn't hear about it.

Maybe Trayvon was defending himself because a guy with a gun was following him? Plus ALL the evidence that proves George was in fact going after Trayvon? Even if he did throw the first punch it would have been totally justified. What i find ludicrous is how someone can stalk someone, gets into a fight, and then shoot the person because of self defense. GETS NO JAIL TIME. I don't get how any logical person can be cool with this. The only shit i hear is how it's not illegal to follow someone or the typical racist "he fit the bill of a thug oops" bullshit.

 

[Pavaloo]

I'm just going to chime in and say that at 17-years old, I did not consider myself a child. At 23 now, I completely consider my 17-year old self a child. Without a shadow of a doubt. Trust me, I know I'm not much older now, but even being 20 and looking back at when I was 17 - a lot changes.

So yeah, I don't think "child" is loaded when talking about a 17 year old person.

 

[Toxi]

Scary prejudiced mob mentality in the comments. I watched the trial, there's a reason the police didn't feel prosecution was necessary... George had a busted and bloody nose, lacerations on the back of his scalp and two black eyes, Trayvon, besides the gunshot wound, had only bruised knuckles. Trying to convince a jury that Trayvon was the one screaming for help, and the one assaulted, while not having a scratch on him, was pretty difficult. Also, watching the trial gave me information the judge deemed the jury shouldn't have, like that Trayvon bragged about street fighting on social media, saying proudly how he drew blood in a fight, the judge ruled it that irrelevant to the case, so the jury didn't hear about it.

Trayvon, besides the gunshot wound, had only bruised knuckles

besides the gunshot wound

Argh.

 

[Jado]

I'm just going to chime in and say that at 17-years old, I did not consider myself a child. At 23 now, I completely consider my 17-year old self a child. Without a shadow of a doubt. Trust me, I know I'm not much older now, but even being 20 and looking back at when I was 17 - a lot changes.

So yeah, I don't think "child" is loaded when talking about a 17 year old person.

We're seeing people call into question that he was an "innocent child," so this is highly relevant here:

Americans See Innocent Black Kids as Guilty Adults
A new study shows how implicit bias changes dramatically perceptions of black children.

The study, published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, aimed at figuring out the extent to which black children were likely to be treated differently than their white peers solely based on race. More specifically, the authors wanted to figure out the extent to which black kids were dehumanized. “Children in most societies are considered to be in a distinct group with characteristics such as innocence and the need for protection,” author Phillip Atiba Goff of UCLA told the American Psychological Association. “Our research found that black boys can be seen as responsible for their actions at an age when white boys still benefit from the assumption that children are essentially innocent.”

Researchers used implicit association tests to gauge racial attitudes and observe how people perceived misdemeanor or felony acts. The results were startling. When comparing felony acts by whites, blacks, and Latinos, respondents overestimated black boys’ ages by 4.53 years. Police officers, who were also included in the pool of participants, overestimated their ages by 4.59 years. To put this in more concrete terms, when participants saw a 14 year-old African American boy, they perceived him as an 18 to 19-year-old adult. And the effect of this was to deny the presumption of innocence—after all, adults are seen as fully responsible for their actions.

As Bump notes, this goes a long way toward explaining the disciplinary disparity between blacks and whites in public schools. It also helps us understand the generalized fear of black teenagers (see: “the knockout game”) as well as the regular stories of police confrontation and brutality, from the 14-year-old who was choked and beaten for his “dehumanizing stare” to the other 14-year-old who was stopped, frisked, and sexually assaulted.

During the George Zimmerman trial, right-wing bloggers circulated a photo of the “real Trayvon Martin” who, in their telling, was a muscled, heavily-tattooed thug, not an innocent 17-year-old. In reality, it was a picture of The Game, a 34-year-old rapper. If you want a clearer illustration of what bias and racism can do to people, there it is.

People — Including Cops — See Black Kids as Less Innocent and Less Young Than White Kids

In 2012, data from the Department of Education revealed that black students were far more likely than white students to face harsh discipline following infractions at school than student of other races. That sort of uneven system of discipline prompted the Obama administration to call for zero-tolerance policies to be dropped.

 

[Booties]

I can't help but think this guy is going to be rich someday telling his stupid sob story.

Fuck em.

 

[Kabuki Quantum Lover]

I can't help but think this guy is going to be rich someday telling his stupid sob story.

Fuck em.

Not likely. He's ridden his infamy into the ground.

Still, fuck him.

 

[Big Baybee]

I find it funny when people say that you can't hit someone for following you. George ran after this boy, he didn't just follow along in his car. How would some of you grown ass men react if you notice someone following you, and when you start to run they get out of their vehicle and chase behind you? Would you still feel this is a perfectly legal and reasonable thing to do?

 

[GaimeGuy]

I find it funny when people say that you can't hit someone for following you. George ran after this boy, he didn't just follow along in his car. How would some of you grown ass men react if you notice someone following you, and when you start to run they get out of their vehicle and chase behind you? Would you still feel this is a perfectly legal and reasonable thing to do?

Maybe he just wanted to ask for directions! Trayvon shouldn't have been so hasty to become violent!

^ this is a serious comment people have made. I've read it before.

 

[Link]

It's ok to defend yourself with a gun against an unarmed kid, but it's not ok to defend yourself with fists against an armed stranger chasing you.

Yep.

 

[Skele7on]

 

[hydruxo]

"You know what this is? It's the world's smallest violin playing just for George Zimmerman"

 

[pompidu]

It's ok to defend yourself with a gun against an unarmed kid, but it's not ok to defend yourself with fists against an armed stranger chasing you.

Yep.

Nice to see you left out the part where trayvon assaulted him.

 

[Big Baybee]

Nice to see you left out the part where trayvon assaulted him.

Did he drag Zimmerman out if his truck?

 

[GaimeGuy]

Nice to see you left out the part where trayvon assaulted him.

I wouldn't call it assault since George was, at the very least, engaging in criminal stalking through his repeated attempts to follow Trayvon. some jurisdictions would classify george's actions as assault, as well. It doesn't matter who threw the first punch, it's who had a credible fear for their safety first.

You know, even ignoring the rest of the case, George is incredibly "lucky" that Trayvon wasn't younger. Otherwise he'd also have had to say his actions and attempts to follow trayvon could not appear threatening to Trayvon in any way, since he could be convicted of murder because he was in the act of commiting a felony (aggravated stalking)

784.048 Stalking; definitions; penalties.—(1) As used in this section, the term:
(a) “Harass” means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person which causes substantial emotional distress to that person and serves no legitimate purpose.
(b) “Course of conduct” means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, which evidences a continuity of purpose. The term does not include constitutionally protected activity such as picketing or other organized protests.
(c) “Credible threat” means a verbal or nonverbal threat, or a combination of the two, including threats delivered by electronic communication or implied by a pattern of conduct, which places the person who is the target of the threat in reasonable fear for his or her safety or the safety of his or her family members or individuals closely associated with the person, and which is made with the apparent ability to carry out the threat to cause such harm. It is not necessary to prove that the person making the threat had the intent to actually carry out the threat. The present incarceration of the person making the threat is not a bar to prosecution under this section.
(d) “Cyberstalk” means to engage in a course of conduct to communicate, or to cause to be communicated, words, images, or language by or through the use of electronic mail or electronic communication, directed at a specific person, causing substantial emotional distress to that person and serving no legitimate purpose.
(2) A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
(3) A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person and makes a credible threat to that person commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(4) A person who, after an injunction for protection against repeat violence, sexual violence, or dating violence pursuant to s. 784.046, or an injunction for protection against domestic violence pursuant to s. 741.30, or after any other court-imposed prohibition of conduct toward the subject person or that person’s property, knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(5) A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks a child under 16 years of age commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(6) A law enforcement officer may arrest, without a warrant, any person that he or she has probable cause to believe has violated this section.
(7) A person who, after having been sentenced for a violation of s. 794.011, s. 800.04, or s. 847.0135(5) and prohibited from contacting the victim of the offense under s. 921.244, willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks the victim commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(8) The punishment imposed under this section shall run consecutive to any former sentence imposed for a conviction for any offense under s. 794.011, s. 800.04, or s. 847.0135(5).
(9)(a) The sentencing court shall consider, as a part of any sentence, issuing an order restraining the defendant from any contact with the victim, which may be valid for up to 10 years, as determined by the court. It is the intent of the Legislature that the length of any such order be based upon the seriousness of the facts before the court, the probability of future violations by the perpetrator, and the safety of the victim and his or her family members or individuals closely associated with the victim.
(b) The order may be issued by the court even if the defendant is sentenced to a state prison or a county jail or even if the imposition of the sentence is suspended and the defendant is placed on probation.
History.—s. 1, ch. 92-208; s. 29, ch. 94-134; s. 29, ch. 94-135; s. 2, ch. 97-27; s. 23, ch. 2002-55; s. 1, ch. 2003-23; s. 3, ch. 2004-17; s. 3, ch. 2004-256; s. 17, ch. 2008-172; s. 2, ch. 2012-153.

Also, in most states, the stalking provisions are similar, but doing so while carrying a loaded firearm makes it aggravated stalking, a felony. But not Florida. Another stroke of "luck" for George.

TLDR: In most jurisdictions, but not Florida, following Trayvon around with a loaded weapon in a manner which makes Trayvon have a credible fear for his safety is a felony. Which automatically would make trayvon's homicide felony-murder. And in Flroida, had Trayvon been slightly younger, following him around in a manner which makes him have a credible fear for his safety would have also been a felony. Whichi would have automatically made the homicide felony-murder. By statute, George would have had to show that Trayvon shouldn't have been afraid of him, and that Trayvon was unreasonable to fear him, to not be convicted of murder. As it stands, it's left up to the jury to consider these facts for their murder verdict. Which this jury clearly did not.

 

[pompidu]

I wouldn't call it assault since George was, at the very least, engaging in criminal stalking through his repeated attempts to follow Trayvon. some jurisdictions would classify george's actions as assault, as well. It doesn't matter who threw the first punch, it's who had a credible fear for their safety first.

You know, even ignoring the rest of the case, George is incredibly "lucky" that Trayvon wasn't younger. Otherwise he'd also have had to say his actions and attempts to follow trayvon could not appear threatening to Trayvon in any way, since he could be convicted of murder because he was in the act of commiting a felony (aggravated stalking)





Also, in most states, the stalking provisions are similar, but doing so while carrying a loaded firearm makes it aggravated stalking, a felony. But not Florida. Another stroke of "luck" for George.

TLDR: In most jurisdictions, but not Florida, following Trayvon around with a loaded weapon in a manner which makes Trayvon have a credible fear for his safety is a felony. Which automatically would make trayvon's homicide felony-murder. And in Flroida, had Trayvon been slightly younger, following him around in a manner which makes him have a credible fear for his safety would have also been a felony. Whichi would have automatically made the homicide felony-murder. By statute, George would have had to show that Trayvon shouldn't have been afraid of him, and that Trayvon was unreasonable to fear him, to not be convicted of murder

Not sure how stalking is the same as assault, which its not. Bad situation made worse by both parties, which started with Zimmerman. I think people like to convinetly ignore the assault.

 

[Big Baybee]

Not sure how stalking is the same as assault, which its not. Bad situation made worse by both parties, which started with Zimmerman. I think people like to convinetly ignore the assault.

George made it worse by chasing a kid. So a kid, walking home from the store, clearly scared because of the fact that he ran away from George, is equally as at fault as the guy who chased him? What would you do in this situation? Submit to the creepy guy following and then chasing you?

 

[GaimeGuy]

Not sure how stalking is the same as assault, which its not. Bad situation made worse by both parties, which started with Zimmerman. I think people like to convinetly ignore the assault.

They're both first degree misdemeanors, actually.

And no, the only person who made the situation worse was Zimmerman. Trayvon was just reacting to a threat against his safety, first by moving away from it, then by fighting it. That's not making the situation worse. That's exactly how anyone should handle things.


I wouldn't convict Trayvon of assault because he was acting in self defense. I'd convict George of murder because he wasn't acting in self defense. I reject the notion that both individuals have the right to self defense outside of extremely rare cases involving mutual misunderstandings.

 

[joedan]

Zimmerman defenders are the worst. Absolute worst.

 

[Chariot]

Nice to see you left out the part where trayvon assaulted him.

This boy was wearing a short hoodie, he was bascially asking for it.

 

[IncandescentPrecept]

They're both first degree misdemeanors, actually.

And no, the only person who made the situation worse was Zimmerman. Trayvon was just reacting to a threat against his safety, first by moving away from it, then by fighting it. That's not making the situation worse. That's exactly how anyone should handle things.

Nopes, anyone would just keep walking away. You also don't defend yourself by using unreasonable force. That's considered assault. I'm curious to know who attacked first. Hard to know since we weren't there.

 

[joedan]

Jesus! There are some in this thread against labelling Trayvon an innocent child. What exactly should he be labelled as?

 

[Big Baybee]

Nopes, anyone would just keep walking away. You also don't defend yourself by using unreasonable force. That's considered assault. I'm curious to know who attacked first. Hard to know since we weren't there.

Difference is that Trayvon ran away, and GZ ran after him. Do you not see how his would be considered threatening?

 

[Gordon Shumway]

Jesus! There are some in this thread against labelling Trayvon an innocent child. What exactly should he be labelled as?

Thug..

 

[andthebeatgoeson]

Not sure how stalking is the same as assault, which its not. Bad situation made worse by both parties, which started with Zimmerman. I think people like to convinetly ignore the assault.

Context. He stalked with a weapon. Yes, you can own a weapon. But we shouldn't encourage gun owners to stalk people. The verdict seems to justify his actions to some. Context makes a world of difference.

No one ignore the assault, we just don't believe gun owners should chase people around. The assault was precipitated by the stalking. It's aggressive. He had no viable reason to be there with a gun.

Jesus! There are some in this thread against labelling Trayvon an innocent child. What exactly should he be labelled as?

Sweet tea connoisseur.

 

[GaimeGuy]

Nopes, anyone would just keep walking away. You also don't defend yourself by using unreasonable force. That's considered assault. I'm curious to know who attacked first. Hard to know since we weren't there.

No. You are NOT supposed to lead someone to your home. And there was nothing unreasonable about the force trayvon used. what was he supposed to do, tickle George?

 

[GaimeGuy]

Jesus! There are some in this thread against labelling Trayvon an innocent child. What exactly should he be labelled as?

Thug..

"Nigger"

 

[Gordon Shumway]

"Nigger"

Same diff, really..

 

[Stinkles]

Zimmerman defenders are the worst. Absolute worst.

They're not racist though.

 

[GaimeGuy]

They're not racist though.

They just believe your right to self preservation with a gun supercedes your victim's right to self defense with their fists.

 

[joedan]

Also what's with all this high horse riding about with people being criticizing others for taking some joy in Zimmerman being in debt? Is being in debt some kind of 'cruel and unusual punishment' for someone who stalked and killed a child?

In comparison to Trayvon, Zimmerman is alive and free. He may be in debt now but he still is alive. He can win the lottery tomorrow, or eventually get a job, or develop some technology that makes him millions. He is FREE to do all that. Trayvon is dead.

 

[GaimeGuy]

Also what's with all this high horse riding about with people being criticizing others for taking some joy in Zimmerman being in debt? Is being in debt some kind of 'cruel and unusual punishment' for someone who stalked and killed a child?

In comparison to Trayvon, Zimmerman is alive and free. He may be in debt now but he still is alive. He can win the lottery tomorrow, or eventually get a job, or develop some technology that makes him millions. He is FREE to do all that. Trayvon is dead.

He can laugh, he can cry, he can smile, he can work out, he can watch TV, he can sweat, he can bleed, he can think, he can sleep, etc....

 

[Chariot]

Also what's with all this high horse riding about with people being criticizing others for taking some joy in Zimmerman being in debt? Is being in debt some kind of 'cruel and unusual punishment' for someone who stalked and killed a child?

In comparison to Trayvon, Zimmerman is alive and free. He may be in debt now but he still is alive. He can win the lottery tomorrow, or eventually get a job, or develop some technology that makes him millions. He is FREE to do all that. Trayvon is dead.

The Law said the is a innocent man (and that more then once), and who want to enjoy the pain of innocents?

Spoiler

ಠ‸ಠ

 

[Freakinchair]

No. You are NOT supposed to lead someone to your home. And there was nothing unreasonable about the force trayvon used. what was he supposed to do, tickle George?

Be a sane person and

call the police
talk to him
go to a public place (store)

Violence should never be the first answer to anything. You need to stop pretending like the only option Trayvon had was physical assault. Both sides we're at fault in this situation and its a shame what happened but self defense laws exist for a reason.