-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?



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

he wasn't stalked or followed??

you have a number of facts wrong.

No...

...he was not stalked, Geez, get your facts straight.

What law is there against following?

Gee in your scenario not even

Gee in your scenario not even latinos have the right to defend themselves. Do you just hate white people or all people?

This is a straw man argument.

A straw man or straw person, also known in the UK as an Aunt Sally, is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.

To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and to refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged, emotional issues.

(wiki)

I'm OK with every law abiding

I'm OK with every law abiding American citizen to have a gun. "Guns for Jews and You" will help in this effort.

if i was an innocent, unarmed young man

being stalked by a guy with a gun my primary objective would be to escape and evade.

there is no indication that martin knew zimmerman was armed. we do know martin was a racist.
we do know a cracker was being beaten.
now if i had to fill in the blanks using my imagination and emotions, i would say the racist intended to inflict serious harm to the cracker and take the short sprint to the house when he was through with said cracker.
it appears the racist never considered the cracker might be armed. a most unfortunate oversight on the racists part.

"The two weakest arguments for any issue on the House floor are moral and constitutional"
Ron Paul

escape and evade??

could he not have been doing that in those, unaccounted for ,4 minutes? could he not have been hiding or evading then? NO because that's when all you pro-Zimmerman people say Trayvon assaulted him never ONCE consider that Trayvon was the victim and not the other way around. That's the problem! It's always Trayvons fault- "well he should have called the police" ,"well he should have ran home", etc etc

This is idiotic.

It WAS Trayvon's fault. Show me a single piece of evidence that indicates Zimmerman in any way initiated a confrontation in which Trayvon defended himself.

There is none.

You have created this scenario and what-if based not on evidence, but on an emotional assumption that Zimmerman is the bad guy. Literally every single piece of available evidence says Trayvon was the aggressor.

Now leave the DP alone, and take your pathetic emotional rants with you. Come back when you learn how to cite evidence and respond sensibly.

In an open carry state

one should always assume that a "threatening" person might possibly be carrying a weapon. That is one of the reasons crime is lower in such areas - you just never know.
If someone was following me in an unknown neighborhood, my first thought would be - do they have a knife or a gun? I would then follow your advice in your first sentence - escape and evade - particularly if I knew that "I" was unarmed - Trayvon WAS aware of the fact that "he" was not armed. Some people just don't think.

I've lost track of who you

I've lost track of who you are referring to the "racist or the cracker" Which one is which? It's like the confusion for some people as to whom is the victim.

I'll make it easy for you...

Stop looking for color of skin or race to look far a victim. That night there were two victims, both of whom made mistakes, the fatal mistake appears by all evidence that Martin was the aggressor, and from the injuries to the back of Zimmerman's head which obviously met the concrete it appears that from that it was a justifiable use of force. Since Zimmerman acted responsibly and did not shoot Martin 5-10 times, it is apparent that his intent was not to kill or as you and Pier's Morgan say "murder" an innocent teen.

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

Straw Man Argument

This whole "Didn't Trayvon have a right to defend himself?" is what is called a straw man argument. It is a cute little ploy by people with an agenda. You could use the argument had Trayvon lived and was arrested and convicted for fighting Zimmerman. But Trayvon wasn't the one charged. No one said he wasn't allowed to defend himself. His right to self defense wasn't what was on trial.

It is a game where the media and those with an agenda make you choose one side or the other, with no grey area. They tell you that you have to choose either Trayvon was guilty or Zimmerman was guilty. They don't tell you that there is a third option. That option being they both made poor decisions but neither really committed a crime, at least certainly not a crime as severe as murder.

Zimmerman had every right to approach Trayvon that night. Even if it was profiling (which it wasn't). The guy wasn't racist, he had been an organizer of protests defending a black homeless man, he lived at one time with two people that were black. If he was profiling it was just profiling the description of the suspects of 8 separate break ins that had occurred in the area the prior few months. That description was young, teenage, black, males. Had it been young teenage, white females that were the suspects, maybe he wouldn't have been concerned about Trayvon. It was a small gated community where people knew each other, and Trayvon was visiting, which also made Zimmerman suspicious of Trayvon.

That aside, it wasn't illegal for Zimmerman to approach Trayvon either way. Trayvon may have been scared by the guy and decided to fight him instead of run, which also isn't illegal unless Zimmerman was in fact walking away. And then if Trayvon was beating Zimmerman because he actually feared for his life, then that wasn't illegal either. And if Zimmerman felt afraid for his life because his head was being hit against pavement, then shooting Trayvon was perfectly legal too. It is the grey area that people with agendas try to pretend doesn't exist. The grey area where maybe they both made stupid choices but neither committed a crime.

Maybe you can straighten something out for me

How did Trayvon know Zimmerman was carrying a gun when it was concealed? Why did Trayvon go toward the outskirts of the complex and backtrack to confront Zimmerman when he could have just left the complex? Everyone should learn a lesson here, be careful who you attack without physical provocation because that person may be armed. If you believe in liberty you believe in the right of self defense,otherwise you really are not liberty minded. There is no evidence anywhere that Zimmerman did anything wrong that would have precipitated someone attacking him and that is why the prosecution case was simply that Zimmerman profiled Trayon as a thug, hunted him down and shot him. They lost because there was no evidence to support their belief. For many people it tskes their life being put in jeopardy before they will see the need to have a weapon to defend themselves. If Zimmerman had not been armed there is a good chance we would be talking about his death being a travesty. From your comments you obviously do not carry a weapon for defense. Be afraid, be very afraid because you are surrounded by people everyday who do carry and you never know when one of them might start shooting. Are you kidding me!!!!

my thoughts on the questions you are asking.

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

martin initiated force upon zimmerman by throwing the first punch... martin is not "innocent" in that case... then he didn't walk away after his punch knocked george on his butt... no, he proceed to pummel him and bash his head into concrete and tell him "you're gonna die tonight, MF'er."

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

his gun was concealed and he was talking on a phone. so trayvon didn't even know he had a gun.

now IF the guy had a gun visible in his hand, i picked up a bad vibe from him, and he was following me, i'd want to pull my gun out and question him as to what he is doing following me with a gun in his hand. or possibly a better option would be to flee for cover and see if i can ditch them. and if they pursue me, ambush them.

another scenario is, trayvon could have called 911 and said he is being followed by a shady character and needs some assistance, or at least an escort, because he is in fear for his life. he also could have called family and\or friends for help.

either way, the situation you describe is basically every cop in amerika. should we attack them for following us with guns? you can say, "cops aren't 'strange men'" and i will just say to you, if i haven't personally met you and i know nothing about you, you are a stranger. i don't care what type of clothing you wear or who you claim to work for.

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

When they attack me or make an attempt to attack me. the only time you can truly DEFEND is when someone else is ACTUALLY in the process of ATTACKING you. otherwise, if you attack someone first, you become the initiator.

I use Blue Wave, but don't expect one of THEIR silly taglines.

All logical....

...so it will be made bad. Logic no longer matters here.

No

Stand Your Ground laws are based on Noahide laws. Only certain people are allowed to utilize the law.

Listen to this whole podcast, especially the last 35 minutes, and you'll understand. It's a Lutheran pastor from Texas and a guest discussing the case.

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/tutradionetwork/2013/07/17/mda-...

"If this mischievous financial policy [greenbacks], which has its origin in North America, should become endurated down to a fixture, then that government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off its debts and be without debts. It will hav

check out the below video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bF-Ax5E8EJc

I use Blue Wave, but don't expect one of THEIR silly taglines.

Downvoters: FYI the is ALSO a Comment Button

Can't defend you views with Words?

I would say that most people see no need to defend against

your fabricated story line. Anyone that has seen the evidence provided can see that your story line is fabricated based on emotion rather than reality. All we can go off of is the evidence provided and make the best judgement, and the fact that Martin did not continue home shows that he at the very least was looking to confront Zimmerman, which proved to be his fatal mistake.

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

While I agree with your sentiments regarding Trayvon

I have come to the conclusion that the verdict was the correct one, for the same reason the OJ Simpson verdict was the correct one -- The prosecution could not prove their case beyond all shadow of a doubt. The issue is not black vs white, or even murder vs self defense, the issue is, we do not really know what happened for certain, and a conviction in that case is unwarranted.

do you feel Zimmerman is a Hero like some others do?

It's one thing to agree with this specific verdict on technical terms but it's quite another to hold Zimmerman up as a defender of the 2nd Amendment or anything other than what he really is, which is a murderer.

No,

killing someone, even on the long shot that it is self defense, is not a heroic action. As I said, I agree with your sentiments regarding Trayvon.

This site takes a little getting used to by non-racists,

as there are many vocal people with fast typing skills who simply assume that if a person is not white or is a Mexican immigrant, he is guilty of something by definition. They are in the vast minority, but, as I said, they are vocal and type very quickly.

Down voting for ignorance...

As a minority your post is offensive. I have read every post relating to this case, and by far yours is the most reaching and racist I have read to date. I think you have it backwards, this site takes getting used to for those that present a false narrative of racism, and your post takes the cake.

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