-84 votes

Why Does Trayvon Not Have a Right to Self-Defense? Why Assume That HE Was the Aggressor?

The problem that many people have with those of you defending Zimmerman is that *Trayvon* was the one that was an *innocent* *unarmed* *young man* who was being stalked by a vigilante with a violent record who had been ordered by the authorities to stop following the boy.

Yet, Zimmerman who ends up taking an INNOCENT HUMAN BEING'S LIFE get's away with murder and is held up as a hero and defender of gun rights!?

I mean, what would you do if you were Trayvon and some strange man with a gun was following you?

At what point do you feel that YOU would have the right to defend YOURSELF from a George Zimmerman-like perp?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

you don't know what happened

and if you stalk me, i'm gonna get in your face. and if you say something really crazy, i'm going to get physical.

and then

the dizzle pizzle gets shot for initiating violence when 'you' defends their self. Dumbass

Ammunition -- 9mm - 40s&w - 45acp - .223/5.56x45 -- www.ammopit.com
Bulk Components starting this month also with 223 bullets!

on MY sidewalk?

Will you sucker punch me because I disrespecked you? Do I not have as much right to be on a public sidewalk taking note of your actions as you have to take note of who is home and who is not? Or is it the evil gun that makes me guilty of disrespeck?

May I acks you this? What is it about Dr Paul's calm and coherent understanding of aggression and first principles that brought you here?

dynamite anthrax supreme court white house tea party jihad
======================================
West of 89
a novel of another america
https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/161155#longdescr

Do You Even Know What "Stalk" Means?

Nobody was stalked.

The media edited the 911 call to make it sound like Zimmerman was a racist. As far as I am concerned the ongoing bloodbath is on their evil hands.

___________________________________________________________________________
"Bipartisan: both parties acting in concert to put both of their hands in your pocket."-Rothbard

evidence that is why.

evidence that is why.

Ron Paul 2016

He had a right to self

He had a right to self defense, and if he would have gotten the pistol before GZ it is possible that he could have used the same defense. However,the injuries on GZ tell a different story.

______
"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."

the injuries on Zimmerman

were not even close to being significant. ever been in a real fight?

Dumb and dumber

A broken nose, gashes on the back of the head and someone reaching for your gun is enough to make me escalate. I can criticize GZ did things all I want, but if an unknown is on my property or that of my friends, and he starts a fight (remember the passed polygraph?) I would be doing everything to make sure I was the one coming home to my family that night, even if that meant the SOB pounding my head didn't.

This has nothing to do with race. GZ's business partner is BLACK.

BTW...

...you forgot the two black eyes.

Fool

Because the evidence clearly suggested that Trayvon was the aggressor. There were no marks on Zimmerman hands and no lumps or bruises on Trayvon. Plain and Simple.

Before you post nonsense like this, take the time to look at the evidence or watch the closing arguments.

You make yourself look like a fool.

You and I were not in the courtroom...

the jury was, and they heard the evidence and determined that Martin was the aggressor.

While I was not in the courtroom, it is easier for me to believe that Martin was a wanna be gangbanger with an attitude, who was looking for trouble and was the aggressor, than to believe that Zimmerman was a vigilante looking to kill a black guy.

There was no evidence that

There was no evidence that Zimmerman initiated the violence. Trayvon Martin had a gunshot wound and abrasions on his knuckles, but no other wounds. Zimmerman had a broken nose and cuts and abrasions on the back of his head. All of this is consistent with Zimmerman's story that Martin punched him in the nose, knocked him to the ground, and started pounding his head into the pavement.

To convict the jury had to have evidence that Zimmerman initiated the violence beyond a reasonable doubt. They had plenty of reasonable doubts.

Martin didn't have bruising

Martin didn't have bruising on his knuckles. That is the interesting thing.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Do knuckles bruise

Especially after you are dead?

"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere".
--Voltaire

It's hard not to be a menace to society when half the population is happy on their knees. - unknown

exactly

what all of these "outrage" posts have in common is that they start with some speculation about what might have happened, then attempt to argue some form of "we don't know exactly what happened." What they ignore is that it was a prosecution against Zimmerman, for which there is a very high burden of proof, and there was certain evidence that they used to try to establish that.

It was not Zimmerman's burden of proof.

The jury was not asked to convict Zimmerman of murder based upon a mere speculation of what might have happened (even though there is no evidence to say it did).

That's not how it works.

The only outrage here is that Zimmerman was charged and prosecuted when there was no more evidence than the color of skin of the dead guy.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

At this point

I've seen all your moaning about this and have come to the conclusion that you must be either a Obamatroll or a complete idiot. No more reading posts from you for me.

Ammunition -- 9mm - 40s&w - 45acp - .223/5.56x45 -- www.ammopit.com
Bulk Components starting this month also with 223 bullets!

Give it a rest...

Give it a rest, this is getting real old. Move on to something important and current.

RickStone

lol why do people think Ron

lol why do people think Ron Paul followers are racist? Because someone suggests a black teenager should be able to defend themselves with deadly force, and it instantly gets 45 down-votes before there's even a conversation.

This message board is like the crowd at a Fox News Presidential debate.

I think people downvote because of fabricated lies

Distortions, and fantasy stories being built around nothing factual but emotional anti gunners, and those against self defense. There is no need to have a conversation with liars and people who reject reality, as there is no winning or losing just like Zimmerman and Martin.

Always remember:
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds." ~ Samuel Adams
If they hate us for our freedom, they must LOVE us now....

Stay IRATE, remain TIRELESS, an

A black teen certainly does

A black teen certainly does have the right to defend themselves, and with deadly force if necessary.

No one has ever suggested otherwise here. Certainly a lot of progressives would love to deny them that right.

The problem is all of the evidence shows Trayvon was the aggressor.

There is rampant racism in America. You can tell because the racists are the ones who ignore the facts in pursuit of their blind ravening evil hatred.

If the races were reversed everyone here would hold the exact same position, that the verdict was most likely correct.

But if the races were reversed you would agree with us. But your reasoning would be racist, as it is now. Your decision would be based on the race of the people, not the facts.

You are the racist.

I'm sorry but down voting

I'm sorry but down voting does not make me or anyone else here a racist.

Why do you assume that Zimmerman was the aggressor?

The point is that neither you or I know exactly how things went down that night. All we have are best guesses, the only person who really knows is George Zimmerman. But we happen to have this thing called presumed innocence in our court system, and things like witnesses and evidence are required to convict someone of a crime. The evidence to convict George Zimmerman of murder simply does not exist. Yes, Zimmerman was very likely profiling Trayvon, and yes he was following Trayvon, BUT THESE ARE NOT CRIMES.

Everything you said is

Everything you said is exactly correct. The problem is one side of the debate is assuming trayvon martin was factually the aggressor when that is also unproven. They are taking Zimmerman's testimony as fact, rather than something that simply gives him presumed innocence.

You are in error

The police took GZ's testimony as fact after questioning him initially, as well as GZ passed a polygraph test on the night of the incident.

It wasn't until the overly emotional, non-factual racebaiters appeared on the scene that the State changed their minds.

You are wrong. No one is

You are wrong. No one is "assuming trayvon was factually the agressor". It is not an assumption, its what the evidence proves. If you have contradictory evidence you should have been a witness, otherwise you are just stirring the pot. I mean, aren't you "assuming" that trayvon wasn't the aggressor. Both sides had their chance in court and all the evidence shows that GZ acted in self defense. There was no criminal activity until TM threw a punch.

I've read somewhere

that prior to this unfortunate incident this area had a problem with burglaries. Any one know if they still have that issue?

If not us than who?

Trayvon was not on trial,

Trayvon was not on trial, dummy. Trayvon would have possibly got off too on these facts had he lived.

Ventura 2012

But there is less of a chance

But there is less of a chance of that. Because it has been observed that the way the justice system plays out, it doesn't seem to want to side with black people. It is possible though. Not only possible, but the way it should be. But still more of a chance Martin would be convicted than Zimmerman.

And let me guess, that is the fault of

The people at teh dailypaul and Zimmerman, right?

Always remember:
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds." ~ Samuel Adams
If they hate us for our freedom, they must LOVE us now....

Stay IRATE, remain TIRELESS, an

Sure. But two wrongs don't

Sure. But two wrongs don't make a right. You don't give Zimmerman an unfair trial for "racial justice"

Ventura 2012