Witnesses tell FBI that George Zimmerman is no racist

[seekerz]

Originally Posted by maryjk

So how badly must I be hurt, in your mind, before I can take action? Keep in mind the teenager was 6 foot 3.

Is anyone who gets into a fight justified in shooting their opponent, even an opponent they pursued? People get injured in fights everyday but especially when they went looking for it, I don't think that justifies pulling out a gun.

[child_of_God85]

There is no evidence that Trayvon wasthe first attacker. That is from Zimmermans statement, so it is very one sided.
He also said in a recent interview that killing that poor boy was God's will. Really?!
RIP Trayvon

[vz71]

Originally Posted by seekerz

Is anyone who gets into a fight justified in shooting their opponent, even an opponent they pursued? People get injured in fights everyday but especially when they went looking for it, I don't think that justifies pulling out a gun.

The purpose of the fight is to cause injury. Injury to the point of being unable to defend oneself.

In my eyes, that is justification for deadly force in defense of oneself.

[vz71]

Originally Posted by child_of_God85

There is no evidence that Trayvon wasthe first attacker.

Sure there is.
You just do not wish to hear any of it.

[kelvinf]

Originally Posted by maryjk

I believe that at a point, age is only one consideration.

You could compare an 18 year old to a 17 year old and still say an adult and a teenager. They could literally be a day in age apart and one could be considered a teen and another an adult.

So, yes, the height and athletic ability should be considered. Otherwise you would consider a 17 year old football player a mere child. Oh wait, that is the case, isn't it? Martin was a football player, wasn't he? And people are calling him a child.

We are talking here of a 28-year-old and a 17-year-old.

18- and 17-year-olds are teenagers and I don't see how a 10 cm difference in height had anything to do in this case.

[kelvinf]

Originally Posted by vz71

I think that the assessment of a threat in this instance had more to do with actions.

I can say that sounds better than comparing their heights

[kelvinf]

Originally Posted by kelvinf

The special prosecutor claimed that the police were still investigating this case before she was appointed.

Originally Posted by vz71

This runs counter to the argument put forward in this thread that the police did not investigate properly.

How? Still investigating vs. did not investigate properly: Big difference.(?)

For instance, if Zimmerman's head, nose,... were not thoroughly examined on the day of the incidence in a medical facility, then I would say he wasn't properly examined.

[kelvinf]

Originally Posted by scipio337

The prosecution will have to prove motive to get a murder 2 conviction.

...why not just shoot the unarmed teenager in the back?

I don't see it.

That's why it's a second degree and not first degree murder charge.

[kelvinf]

Originally Posted by vz71

The purpose of the fight is to cause injury. Injury to the point of being unable to defend oneself.

In my eyes, that is justification for deadly force in defense of oneself.

Again, what I really don't understand in Zimmerman's story is why this 28-year-old adult didn't defend himself during the confrontation. Telling me that shooting this boy was the way to defend himself is something I can't buy.

[maryjk]

Originally Posted by kelvinf

We are talking here of a 28-year-old and a 17-year-old.

18- and 17-year-olds are teenagers and I don't see how a 10 cm difference in height had anything to do in this case.

Okay, you don't see it. But many people do.

Someone taller and stronger would have an easier time overpowering someone shorter and weaker. After a point, age is immaterial. Comparing a 17 year old football player to a 28 year old desk jockey and assuming that the desk jockey would come out on top simply because the 17 year old is a child is a foolish thought at best.

[vz71]

Originally Posted by kelvinf

How? Still investigating vs. did not investigate properly: Big difference.(?)

Well, yes.

You cannot claim an improper investigation was done of an investigation in progress.

Doing so is dishonest.

[vz71]

Originally Posted by kelvinf

Again, what I really don't understand in Zimmerman's story is why this 28-year-old adult didn't defend himself during the confrontation. Telling me that shooting this boy was the way to defend himself is something I can't buy.

If he felt his life threatened, why not?

[kelvinf]

Originally Posted by vz71

Well, yes.

You cannot claim an improper investigation was done of an investigation in progress.

Doing so is dishonest.

I already gave a very good example. Even if this investigation is done allover again, we will still never get a detailed medical report on Zimmerman's injuries cuz it wasn't done on day one and can never be done again.

[vz71]

Originally Posted by kelvinf

I already gave a very good example. Even if this investigation is done allover again, we will still never get a detailed medical report on Zimmerman's injuries cuz it wasn't done on day one and can never be done again.

If we are to claim mishandled on that basis, then there will never be an investigation that is not 'mishandled'

I am unaware of any medical report at all.
So no amount of investigative work will turn one up.

[kelvinf]

Originally Posted by vz71

I am unaware of any medical report at all.
So no amount of investigative work will turn one up.

Right, because it was never done. Maybe because there was no need for one which would reflect the minor injuries Zimmerman sustained.