Zimmerman Arrested

[_asbestosman]

Bottom line, a witness saw what happened, and it verify's Zimmermans statement.

Link?

What I've heard (and I haven't heard everything, so you could be right) is that the witness only said Trayvon was getting the upper hand, not that he attacked Zimmerman when he was leaving.

Further, the Police Report also verify's Zimmerman and the Witness's statements according to the evidence, bloody nose, gash on head, grass stains on back, etc.

Wouldn't change my point either way. I therefore suspect you missed it. Try again.

If Zimmerman had his gun out, Trayvon would have been SHOT well before Zimmerman got so much of the hell beat out of him.

Out as in holding it in his hand? Then maybe. I just meant visible in a holster. Anyhow, it wouldn't matter. Trayvon could have felt threatened regardless of whether or not he knew Zimmerman had a gun.

All your "speculation" is lovely, but irrelevant. Zimmerman was attacked, and then he defended himself. It's as simple as that.

And maybe Trayvon was too. I hear that Zimmerman may have tried to detain Trayvon physically, then Trayvon started to get the upper hand while trying to defend himself. Was that actually the case? I don't know, but it is a possibility as is your pet scene where Trayvon was obviously some evil "punk" who "got exactly what he deserved." The point is we don't know for sure what happened.

All your other conspiracy theory's and fantasy's, pre-judgments, etc. are just that.

And yours aren't?

I'm trying to be fair. I'm not trying to paint Zimmerman as some crazy racist. I'm also not trying to paint Trayvon as a "punk." I mean really, I find it ironic that you feel fine passing judgment on Trayvon while chastising anyone who tries to give both people the benefit of the doubt for being bigoted. I suspect, once again, you won't get my point.

[_ldsfaqs]

I get your point, but the full facts tell a different story.

Heck, even your own statement betray's you.
Zimmerman had a gun in a holster and so Trayvon "feels threatened" and is thus justified to beat the crap out of Zimmerman??? Please....

That's not the standard for "feeling" threatened and PRE-EMPTING a believed eminent violent act, by taking action/violence yourself.

[_Analytics]

I get your point, but the full facts tell a different story.

Heck, even your own statement betray's you.
Zimmerman had a gun in a holster and so Trayvon "feels threatened" and is thus justified to beat the crap out of Zimmerman??? Please....

That's not the standard for "feeling" threatened and PRE-EMPTING a believed eminent violent act, by taking action/violence yourself.

For the sake of argument, let's ignore several facts: 1- we don't know all the facts. 2- Zimmerman started it by following Trayvon, and with his gun was probably acting threatening in his own right, and 3, there is no evidence that Trayvon "beat the crap out of Zimmerman." If something like that happened, Zimmerman would have needed to go to the ER for CAT scans, stiches, and the like. So ignoring all of that...

In general, if somebody "beats the crap out of you", is the proper response to shoot them dead? Jesus said something about turning the other cheek in such instances. Would have that been a better response? Why or why not?

[_asbestosman]

No you don't get my point.

Trayvon felt threatened when Zimmerman was following him. Witness: his girlfriend. I'm sure that witness doesn't count though, right?

Does feeling threatened mean one has the legal right to beat someone up? Of course not. However, I can understand why an otherwise law-abiding citizen might do it, especially a juvenile.

Trayvon might have behaved better--I don't know the details. If Zimmerman tried to detain him physically (as some have said), then Trayvon probably did have the right to fight back. If Trayvon beat up Zimmerman for feeling threatened, he made a poor choice, but not one worthy of death and not one that means he was necessarily malicious.

Unless of course you think Zimmerman was necessarily malicious for killing an unarmed juvenile. Can't you apply the same standard both ways? I'm trying to, but you don't seem to like it when I do it for Trayvon too. Why?

[_moksha]

Was Zimmerman's probable cause:

1. Racial profiling.
2. Suspecting the boy was going to get hopped up on candy.
3. Channeling the spirit of John Rambo.
4. Just being off balance enough that he was trying to provoke an incident.

Seems like it must have been one of the above. My best guess would be #4.

[_ldsfaqs]

I get your point, but the full facts tell a different story.

Heck, even your own statement betray's you.
Zimmerman had a gun in a holster and so Trayvon "feels threatened" and is thus justified to beat the crap out of Zimmerman??? Please....

That's not the standard for "feeling" threatened and PRE-EMPTING a believed eminent violent act, by taking action/violence yourself.

For the sake of argument, let's ignore several facts: 1- we don't know all the facts. 2- Zimmerman started it by following Trayvon, and with his gun was probably acting threatening in his own right, and 3, there is no evidence that Trayvon "beat the crap out of Zimmerman." If something like that happened, Zimmerman would have needed to go to the ER for CAT scans, stiches, and the like. So ignoring all of that...

See Police Report, Witnesses, etc. and this link.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/ ... 9Y20120416

In general, if somebody "beats the crap out of you", is the proper response to shoot them dead? Jesus said something about turning the other cheek in such instances. Would have that been a better response? Why or why not?

Of course it is. One hit can kill a person. If you don't believe me, Google.
Hitting someone is deadly force, even though most of the time people aren't hit in a deadly spot.

As to turning the other cheek....

1. It's primarily referring to someones "offense" toward you. I.e. in those days, someone would slap another for an offence given in word or deed. Christ is saying to not respond to simple offense with violence. He is not saying we are to allow ourselves to be beaten to death.

2. The idea of "offering one's cheek" to a smiter is also seen in Lamentations 3:30, where the context indicates a form of penitence or submission to oppressors, with the hope of being spared. Thus, it's a form of "humility" and patience, not that we should "simply" and necessarily allow ourselves to be beat to death.

3. At the time of Jesus, striking someone deemed to be of a lower class with the back of the hand was used to assert authority and dominance.[3] If the persecuted person "turned the other cheek," the discipliner was faced with a dilemma. The left hand was used for unclean purposes, so a back-hand strike on the opposite cheek would not be performed.[4] The other alternative would be a slap with the open hand as a challenge or to punch the person, but this was seen as a statement of equality. Thus, by turning the other cheek the persecuted was in effect demanding equality. By handing over one's cloak in addition to one's tunic, the debtor has essentially given the shirt off their back, a situation directly forbidden by Hebrew Law as stated in Deuteronomy 24: 10-13:

4. Jesus was not changing the meaning of "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" but restoring it to the original context. Jesus starts his statement with "you have heard it said" which means that he was clarifying a misconception, as opposed to "it is written" which would be a reference to scripture. The common misconception seems to be that people were using Exodus 21:24-25 (the guidelines for a magistrate to punish convicted offenders) as a justification for personal vengeance. In this context, the command to "turn the other cheek" would not be a command to allow someone to beat or rob a person, but a command not to take vengeance.

[_Bond James Bond]

1. Simple observing someone that looks suspicious, and then asking them a question is not "intent" to do harm moron. So no, it cannot be argued that there was intent to get into an altercation, other than in the minds of morons.

No. He got out of his car to confront him. At that point he had already gotten away from self defense because he could have left. He could have driven home. He'd notified the police. But he didn't. He disobeyed a police order and confronted someone he considered "suspicious". Why? If I see a "suspicious" character I wouldn't go near them. In fact I'd go the other direction.

Further, even if he just stood there. That doesn't give someone a right to beat on them you dumb freak!!!

He killed a neighborhood kid armed with skittles.

[_asbestosman]

He killed a neighborhood kid armed with skittles.

Maybe Zimmerman is diabetic.

[_ajax18]

In general, if somebody "beats the crap out of you", is the proper response to shoot them dead? Jesus said something about turning the other cheek in such instances. Would have that been a better response? Why or why not?

Do we get to pick and choose who we want to be held to this standard legally? I guess turning the other cheek worked for the Kansas boy. Now both of his cheeks are burned and he's told by the state that he has to go back to the school where his attackers are waiting for him unless his parents can come up with enough money to send him to a private school.

Turning the other cheek makes no sense if you don't believe in God or an afterlife. It's just masochism and lack of self respect. Aren't you guys atheists? Why even bring that up? From atheists perspective, Jesus was just a fool who went out and offended people and ended up getting himself killed for it. Obviously neither Travon Martin nor George Zimmerman were very good Christians. Villifying one and exalting the other is just partisan fighting in an effort to support the demographic you have chosen to align yourself with.

[_Analytics]

For the sake of argument, let's ignore several facts: 1- we don't know all the facts. 2- Zimmerman started it by following Trayvon, and with his gun was probably acting threatening in his own right, and 3, there is no evidence that Trayvon "beat the crap out of Zimmerman." If something like that happened, Zimmerman would have needed to go to the ER for CAT scans, stiches, and the like. So ignoring all of that...

See Police Report, Witnesses, etc. and this link.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/ ... 9Y20120416

According to your link, "Witness accounts have supported Zimmerman's story that there was some kind of fight between him and Martin."

So, we know that there was some sort of a fight. One guy ended up with a broken nose and a couple of butterly stitches. The other guy ended up dead. Thus, it's the dead guy's fault.

In general, if somebody "beats the crap out of you", is the proper response to shoot them dead? Jesus said something about turning the other cheek in such instances. Would have that been a better response? Why or why not?

Of course it is.

Say you were walking with your family to church, and a really mean anti-Mormon starts yelling at you and your family. He says really nasty lies about Joseph Smith. Stuff that really drives the spirit away. Would you punch the anti-Mormon?