It's Watch!... Neighborhood Watch. Not shoot.

Let's not forget that a member of the public alleged police acted in such a manner.

My view? Eyewitness accounts can be less than reliable. Earwitness accounts? If I'm on the jury I'd have a difficult time finding them reliable, whether the earwitness testified Zimmerman cried out for help or Martin cried out for help.

 

There's nothing like a targeted revenge killing of an innocent person to avenge the killing of an innocent person.

 

Unless by drone.

 

To me the big question is did Martin stop fighting when he saw the gun, if he saw the gun. Will that ever be anserwed? I don't know.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57436911/zimmerman-atty-dont-judge-by-piecemeal-evidence/

 

I don't think he's so innocent. Had he not acted like Superman using a gun, this kid would still be alive. It doesn't matter how you slice it. He had a gun with the intention of hurting someone.
This kid was unarmed. Even if they got into a scrape, so what? At worst somebody gets their ass kicked but no one dies. People seem to have a hard time with that. No one had to die.

 

Drip, I'm not spoiling for a fight when I ask this:

Has Zimmerman's intent been determined by any evidence (I've been too busy to read much of the coverage) or are you just assuming?

 

Bingo!! No one had to die. That is the tragedy here and no amount of "Stand Your Ground" will ever convince me otherwise.

 

Other than him writing a note and saying "I am going to kill a black male tonight," what evidence would you be looking for?

How many of you that own handguns chamber a round, take out a magazine and add one bullet, which takes the place of the chambered round, just in case you get into a really serious gunfight?

 

I think people (general public) who carry around handguns are idiots. But that's not relevant here.

My question to Drip was simple. He wrote that Zimmerman had a gun with the "intention" of hurting someone. I asked for an explanation regarding evidence because I haven't read all the coverage. I'm looking for evidence that would be persuasive in court rather than one's opinion.

The mere possession of a weapon does not suggest intent to harm, either in a court of law or in the streets.

I live in a conceal/carry state, in an area that sees little crime, much less violent crime. Yet I've been in a local burger joint, sitting only a few feet from idiots joyfully packing heat for reasons I can't fathom.

I don't see the need for folks to be armed when downing their double-cheeseburgers but I wouldn't attempt to infer intent from the fact they are carrying a loaded weapon.

 

The question I raised about giving yourself an extra round by keeping one in the chamber is something I was wondering what actual gun owners thought about the subject. To me, that shows that you are expecting to fire this weapon at some time.

I have fired that type of weapon before. I don't own guns, and I doubt I ever will, but my brother-in-law is a gun nut, so we have shot.

What I do know is keeping a round in the chamber makes that gun much, much more dangerous to young children. You need two strong hands to chamber a round, but if the round is already there, all you need now is to take off the safety and pull the trigger to kill something or yourself.

And if he does not have a round chambered, he probably does not kill TM so easily.

I know people will say Martin was going to beat Zimmerman to death with his bare hands, but I am not buying that.

 

Stand your ground or no, everyone still has a right to self defense.

None of us knows what happened.

It's true, that no one had to die that night. A million different things had to play out the way it did to reach that result. Change one component, and probably no one dies.

But, that doesn't mean anything criminal happened.

 

I suspect something "criminal" took place. Whether the prosecution can get a guilty verdict on any charge remains to be seen.