George Zimmerman - Murder, Self-Defense or Too Soon to Say?

[Run]

Rest assured, Treyvon Martin was no boy. He was an adult, a young adult.

And my logic dictates a 17 year old boy is a child, even if he grew up a criminal. He's still a child criminal, and it's not like I can't sense that just being a foot from someone.



Never pay again for live sex! | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! | Chat for free!

[UglyPug]

Right now, if I had to put a percentage on how I feel, I'd break it down like this (although completely irrelevant because we still don't have all the evidence pieced together):

From a "legal stance" (which is how my mind has been engrained to think):

- first degree, premeditated, cold blooded murder: 90/10 not guilty.
- manslaughter: 50/50.


From "what is in my heart", based on how I perceive "right and wrong", I'd say about 70/30 Zimmerman had no right to shoot him. . . .

[WitherGlove]

If he wouldn't have pursued the boy I would have doubt. The fact he did regardless of dispatchers saying to not do so lets me know he was up to know good. Guilty.

[2shameless]

And my logic dictates a 17 year old boy is a child, even if he grew up a criminal. He's still a child criminal, and it's not like I can't sense that just being a foot from someone.

17 is old enough to die for your country in Afghanistan. Probably why the media chose to use the picture of 12 year old Trayvon. As if the incident wasn't tragic enough.

[dj Calleti]

I'm more neutral leaning towards self-defense because evidence shows that it was self-defense SO FAR.

We obviously don't have everything, but only idiots will say this was cold blooded murder when they haven't viewed all the evidence themselves.

If anything, the most logical stance is being a neutral.

[OBJECTION!]

And my logic dictates a 17 year old boy is a child, even if he grew up a criminal. He's still a child criminal, and it's not like I can't sense that just being a foot from someone.

Americans have a distorted view of adolescence.

[Hous]

Obviously its too soon to tell but that doesnt mean that you havent formed an opinion of who's to blame with the current "evidence" that has been provided.

I dont understand why people wont admit that they lean in one direction or the other and claim to be unbiased human beings

So you have been speaking with such vindication while conscious that you may be wrong? I don't understand...


Our brains function very differently.

[OBJECTION!]

Right now, if I had to put a percentage on how I feel, I'd break it down like this (although completely irrelevant because we still don't have all the evidence pieced together):

From a "legal stance" (which is how my mind has been engrained to think):

- first degree, premeditated, cold blooded murder: 90/10 not guilty.
- manslaughter: 50/50.


From "what is in my heart", based on how I perceive "right and wrong", I'd say about 70/30 Zimmerman had no right to shoot him. . . .

That is the part that troubles me -- the shooting. Did he pull out his gun, aim it at Martins chest and shoot? Or did it go off in the struggle?

We just don't know.

[deliveryman]

Obviously its too soon to tell but that doesnt mean that you havent formed an opinion of who's to blame with the current "evidence" that has been provided.

I dont understand why people wont admit that they lean in one direction or the other and claim to be unbiased human beings

I am going to presume that this is directed towards me.

For one, I am not even aware of all the evidence that is available. I am truly ignorant when it comes to this case (One factor being that this is not that big of a story in Canada compared to the U.S. and the other being that I never watch the news let alone CNN).

Because I know that I don't have all the information in front of me THAT IS AVAILABLE, and because I know how highly controversial this case is (evidence going both ways), what's wrong with simply saying, "I don't know what happened, therefore I am going to withhold judgement".

It's not like I'm trying to put myself on some sort of pedestal like you think I am.

[Run]

17 is old enough to die for your country in Afghanistan. Probably why the media chose to use the picture of 12 year old Trayvon. As if the incident wasn't tragic enough.

And all I'm stating is that I would elect not to murder a lanky 17 year old Black teenager. He's just not that big of a threat in my eyes.

I could taze/subdue him, mace him, even warning shot/disable him with a bullet...........hell just use a baton on him (all weapons I own and then some)......without actually fatally killing him.



Never pay again for live sex! | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! | Chat for free!