Doctor Fate wrote:

geojanes wrote:

freeman3 wrote:The tragedy is that if George Zinmerman did not have a gun, it is highly likely that no one would have been seriously injured. The reality is that fistfights happen but they are rarely fatal. However, getting beat up is not pleasant and generally people will whatever means are available to stop getting beaten, including at least drawing a gun if one is available.

True dat!

We don't know that. It's just as likely that Zimmerman would have been beaten to death or suffered great bodily injury.

That's complete BS. It is far easier to kill someone with a gun than with your hands. Freeman is right, fistfights happen all the time, but they are rarely fatal.

geojanes wrote:That's complete BS. It is far easier to kill someone with a gun than with your hands. Freeman is right, fistfights happen all the time, but they are rarely fatal.

Something is BS, but it's your post. While true it is "far easier to kill someone with a gun than with your hands," on what do you base the notion that Zimmerman would not have been harmed if he did not fire?

What kind of "fistfight" involves one person with a broken nose with multiple lacerations and contusions on his skull, while the other person is unscathed?

That's not a fight. It's an assault. Under California law, we would have booked him for Assault with Force Likely to Cause Great Bodily Injury. The DA might not prosecute it as a felony, but that's how we'd book it. You don't get to ambush someone, beat them senseless, and get dusted off as a participant in a "fistfight."

Please show any evidence that Zimmerman engaged in a "fistfight"--other than as the punching bag.

Seriously, if there was no gun, when would Trayvon stop beating him?

What justified beating him?

You and freeman3 can ask for justification on the shooting all you want, complain about guns, but if you were on the bottom and Trayvon was knocking the stuffing out of you, would you be thinking, "I'm sure he's almost done here. I'll stop getting punched in the head if he'll stop punching me."

When was the last time you were in a fight? Really?

The point in that last question: when your nose is broken and your head is bouncing off the concrete, I promise you that you won't go home and tell anyone you were in "a fistfight."

bottom line
Zimmerman had a legal gun, he was patrolling the streets and wanted to protect himself from possible dangers from thugs like martin to loose dogs. Zimmerman was being beaten, all evidence points to him getting the stuffing beat out of him while Martin had not even a scratch. Zimmerman had every RIGHT to defend himself with that gun.

All the rest is clutter, what if he had no gun?
doesn't matter, he did and was allowed to have it

what if he listened to the police on the phone and left the scene?
doesn't matter, by following, he did not give any rights to be beaten

what if Zimmerman is a racist?
doesn't matter, he was the one beaten

why couldn't he have stopped martin?
doesn't matter, it was obvious he could not by all the cuts, bruises, etc. who cares why he could not defend himself when it was clear he simply could not.

what if it was Zimmerman who verbally confronted the kid and started this?
doesn't matter, he did not start anything physical and a yelling does not invite a beating

Well, there are 2 million assaults that required a visit to an emergency room in 2010 in the U.S.http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm
In 2011 there were 16,259 assaults that resulted in death (11,078 from firearms, 5,181 from all other assaults). According to one site, 801 people were killed due to assaults by hand and feet in 2006. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2912115/posts
So there was a pretty low chance that Zimmerman was going to die at Trayvon Martin's hands. Contrast that with the chance that Martin was going to die from a gun used 18 inches away....
Trayvon Martin was 17 years old. I very much doubt that he ever considered that he could get shot (it should be noted as well that Zimmerman did not suffer a concussion which you would expect if his head was being slammed hard against the pavement) Would this case be viewed the same way if the defendant were black and he shot a white kid after a struggle? I have my doubts.

Oh for sub judice and Contempt of Court laws...

Thanks Freeman. The fact that you actually had to present evidence that a gun is a more effective weapon than your hands is absurd.

Because a guy had a gun, another guy is dead. Might Zimmerman been hurt if he didn't have a gun? Of course. Would he have been approached Martin and been killed without a gun? Very remote possibility simply because your hands are not effective weapons for homicide, especially if there is no intent to kill.

Why can't you acknowledge that? There are costs and benefits of having an armed society. One of those costs is that people are killed all the time who wouldn't have been killed if the society wasn't armed. I'm not saying that the attack was or wasn't justified, but what is true is that introducing a gun increases the odds someone's going in the ground, and that's a cost that's got to be weighed against the benefits of an armed society. If you don't acknowledge the costs you can never have a fair accounting of the impacts.

tom

Zimmerman had a legal gun, he was patrolling the streets and wanted to protect himself from possible dangers from thugs like martin to loose dogs

Thugs like Martin? really? You have a justification for that term? Dp you know what it means?
Without Zimmerman "patrolling" Martin would have gone home with his skittles and iced tea.

Without the gun would Zimmerman have been out as the self appointed neighborhood watch?
I always thought the self appointed Guardians, who went out and walked in dangerous neighborhoods, were a little nutty, but they never armed themselves. And they patrolled in groups.
It does seem as if Zimmerma thought he was Charles Bronson reimagined.. Without a gun I doubt he would have engaged in his solo watch activities let alone his reckless behavior while "patrolling".


fate

Btw, I just saw that the autopsy said he was shot from a distance of 18 inches. That's close range

Its going to be interesting to look at the kind of gymnastics that would have had to occur for Zimmerman to be restrained from using his upper arms, but still get to his gun and yet fire from 18 inches away.

geojanes wrote:Thanks Freeman. The fact that you actually had to present evidence that a gun is a more effective weapon than your hands is absurd.

Because a guy had a gun, another guy is dead. Might Zimmerman been hurt if he didn't have a gun? Of course. Would he have been approached Martin and been killed without a gun? Very remote possibility simply because your hands are not effective weapons for homicide, especially if there is no intent to kill.

Why can't you acknowledge that? There are costs and benefits of having an armed society. One of those costs is that people are killed all the time who wouldn't have been killed if the society wasn't armed. I'm not saying that the attack was or wasn't justified, but what is true is that introducing a gun increases the odds someone's going in the ground, and that's a cost that's got to be weighed against the benefits of an armed society. If you don't acknowledge the costs you can never have a fair accounting of the impacts.

Was Zimmerman the aggressor, or was Trayvon? If an aggressor is using his fists and bashing my head on the concrete while breaking my nose, I would have to say that I am using a gun if I am able. I know someone died. It was the aggressor, wasn't it?

I am not absolving Zimmerman for his pursuit of the Martin. He was wrong for that, but it does not mean that he gets a beating for pursuing. The entire thing is sad, and here is why:

Zimmerman should not have followed after the 911 dispatcher told him to stop
Martin should not have engaged in assault

Both men are wrong... But
The person who was doing the assaulting was the one who got the bullet.

Trayvon was not a man, yet...

bbauska wrote:

geojanes wrote:Thanks Freeman. The fact that you actually had to present evidence that a gun is a more effective weapon than your hands is absurd.

Because a guy had a gun, another guy is dead. Might Zimmerman been hurt if he didn't have a gun? Of course. Would he have been approached Martin and been killed without a gun? Very remote possibility simply because your hands are not effective weapons for homicide, especially if there is no intent to kill.

Why can't you acknowledge that? There are costs and benefits of having an armed society. One of those costs is that people are killed all the time who wouldn't have been killed if the society wasn't armed. I'm not saying that the attack was or wasn't justified, but what is true is that introducing a gun increases the odds someone's going in the ground, and that's a cost that's got to be weighed against the benefits of an armed society. If you don't acknowledge the costs you can never have a fair accounting of the impacts.

Was Zimmerman the aggressor, or was Trayvon? If an aggressor is using his fists and bashing my head on the concrete while breaking my nose, I would have to say that I am using a gun if I am able. I know someone died. It was the aggressor, wasn't it?

I am not absolving Zimmerman for his pursuit of the Martin. He was wrong for that, but it does not mean that he gets a beating for pursuing. The entire thing is sad, and here is why:

Zimmerman should not have followed after the 911 dispatcher told him to stop
Martin should not have engaged in assault

Both men are wrong... But
The person who was doing the assaulting was the one who got the bullet.

Your comment has nothing to do with the point you quoted, which was the presence of a loaded gun increases the likelihood of death. There is no statement of right or wrong being made. Just statistics.

freeman3 wrote:Trayvon was not a man, yet...

Yet another truth.

freeman3 wrote:Well, there are 2 million assaults that required a visit to an emergency room in 2010 in the U.S.http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm
In 2011 there were 16,259 assaults that resulted in death (11,078 from firearms, 5,181 from all other assaults). According to one site, 801 people were killed due to assaults by hand and feet in 2006. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2912115/posts
So there was a pretty low chance that Zimmerman was going to die at Trayvon Martin's hands.

???

Really? This would pass for "evidence" in a court of law?

Is the standard for self-defense based on the probability that one might be killed? Or, is the standard that one might reasonably be in fear of death OR great bodily injury?

Contrast that with the chance that Martin was going to die from a gun used 18 inches away....

Mr. Martin chose to be within 18 inches. Now, does that mean that Zimmerman was justified in using deadly force? No, but it does mean Martin could have avoided the entire incident. He chose the confrontation.

Would this case be viewed the same way if the defendant were black and he shot a white kid after a struggle? I have my doubts.

Only because of your politics. Consider the case if Martin was white. it would have gone like this.

Martin on the phone to Jenteal, "There's some creepy a** n***** following me."

When the black man, Mr. Zimmerman said he was following a white kid through his neighborhood, lost sight of him, was ambushed, knocked to the ground, had his head bounced off the concrete, and, fearing for his life shot white Mr. Martin, you think there would have been outrage?

I don't.

In this case, the outrage came after the demonstrations, etc.

In our reverse world scenario, a black man assaulted after a white kid had referred to him using the n-word responds with deadly force and you think they'd go after him? I think that's your liberal bias showing.

geojanes wrote:Thanks Freeman. The fact that you actually had to present evidence that a gun is a more effective weapon than your hands is absurd.

No one suggested otherwise.

Because a guy had a gun, another guy is dead. Might Zimmerman been hurt if he didn't have a gun? Of course. Would he have been approached Martin and been killed without a gun? Very remote possibility simply because your hands are not effective weapons for homicide, especially if there is no intent to kill.

Did anything Zimmerman did justify what Martin did?

Hint: Zimmerman didn't throw himself on the ground.

Why can't you acknowledge that? There are costs and benefits of having an armed society. One of those costs is that people are killed all the time who wouldn't have been killed if the society wasn't armed. I'm not saying that the attack was or wasn't justified, but what is true is that introducing a gun increases the odds someone's going in the ground, and that's a cost that's got to be weighed against the benefits of an armed society. If you don't acknowledge the costs you can never have a fair accounting of the impacts.

If you never acknowledge the benefits you can never have a fair accounting of the impact either.

geojanes wrote:

freeman3 wrote:Trayvon was not a man, yet...

Yet another truth.

Not so. He's old enough to join the service (with a waiver). He's old enough to be tried as an adult (if the crime warranted).

Physically, he was a man. For all you know, he could have been a good deal stronger than Zimmerman.

Btw, did you know that statistics can be misleading? For example, Japan has very strict gun control, yet their suicide rate is one of the highest in the world. How can that be? Liberals make it seem impossible to kill without guns.

I like the story I read recently. A man left a shotgun and shells near his front door. At the end of the day, to his shock, the gun had killed no one.

Guns are not inherently evil. People are.