By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
timmah on 16 July 2013
Edit Thread
bluesinG said:
timmah said:

Morally I think intent is important, and there was no evidence to suggest Zimmerman intended to shoot anybody that night. He didn't pull his gun out until he was being beaten. This guy pulled his gun out, then went outside to confront the group in his front yard. If he waited inside, called the cops, then the teens burst into his house, shoot away and you're fine legally AND morally. Going out to confront somebody with a gun, then shooting them in the face without being attacked is not even a close comparison! The fact that you tried to put race into this based on this comparison is really just a weak, race baiting move. People need to stop fanning the flames, you should be ashamed.

Wait, what? Zimmerman followed Martin in his car, called 911 who told him to stay in his car, ignored that advice, brought his gun out of his car, and confronted Martin. If Zimmerman had stayed in his car, or left his gun in the car, or hadn't directly confronted Martin, this wouldn't have happened.

That's why, morally, I think Zimmerman is guilty.

Evidence and testimony indicates that Martin likely circled back and confronted, then attacked Zimmerman (4 minutes in between losing Martin to being attacked, the attack took place closer to Zimmerman's truck than where he was earlier, indicating he was headed toward the truck, the only person with evidence of landing blows was Trayvon, the only person with injuries consistent with being hit was Zimmerman, Eyewitness seing Trayvon on top 'Ground and pound, MMA style), though it is impossible to be sure of all the details. It's not illegal to follow somebody, there's no legal requirement to obey a civilian 911 operator, and he was carrying a legally registered firearm, for which he had a concealed carry permit (while the guy in New York used an unregistered, illegal gun). Any more tinfoil hat theories?

EDIT: Morally, if Zimmerman was headed back to his truck and Trayvon sucker punched and jumped on top of him, Zimmerman is morally in the clear at that point. This scenario best fits with the entirity of the evidence and testimony. Again, there is absolutley zero evidence that his intent was to hurt anybody. If his intent was simply to defend himself against severe bodily harm or potential death, he is morally in the right at that moment. Stupid decisions are not the same as purposeful, morally 'bad' decisions.