There is nothing reckless about carrying a gun. He had a carry and conceal permit and it was a lawful action. In fact, it turned out to be a prudent choice since he felt he needed it to defend himself against the assault from Martin. The worst you can say about Zimmerman based on what we know is that he may have been a little over zealous in his role as captain of the Neighborhood Watch. But at the same sense, I can point to an incident that happened in my neighborhood about a month ago. My neighbor was broken into during the middle of the day, the neighbor on the other side saw it happening, called the cops and followed the perp in their car. The cops caught the punk immediately and our neighbor was basically the hero of the day. I don't see any reason to believe Zimmerman's motives were different. He was trying to be a good neighbor.
I'm so sick of Martin being referred to as innocent. Martin assaulted Zimmerman. People keep saying Trayvon was walking home from the store and got shot, as if Zimmerman walked up alongside him and blew him away in cold blood for no justifiable reason. Trayvon was on top of him and assaulting him. If Trayvon didn't make that incredibly bad and ILLEGAL decision, he would still be here today.
First of all, I'm not trying to take your gun so calm down. You guys are so ready to be ANGRY you read into things what you need to feed your pre-existing condition of rage. You are also so eager to find the black victim and the black population at fault that you don't look at the situation objectively or undertstand the difference between a moral argument vs a position on the lawfulness of Martin or Trayvons actions.
I understand that Zimmerman having a gun was not unlawful and I didn't say that carrying a gun was the reckless behavior. Following Martin, especially on foot was reckless. What if Martin had a gun? He would have gotten the jump on Zimmerman and Zimmerman would be a dead man. He is not a cop, he isn't trained in how to handle situations like this and while it was not unlawful to follow Martin it was unwise and I consider it reckless. I disagree with it being a prudent act. Think about it. What would happen if every time ANYONE thought they needed a gun they had one available to shoot someone with. Really?? Now that's what we call AN OPINION; yours vs mine. Not a debate about the lawfulness of carrying a gun or whether or not people should be ALLOWED their precious guns.
I also never said that Zimmerman was a BAD man. This is not the wild west. Life is not that black and white. Maybe if Z had followed at a safe distance and not pursued him on foot like he was filming a Bad Boys sequel they would both be alive today, maybe then....Z would also be a hero. You know, Z's life is pretty devastated by this too. This decision was imprudent not only because of the loss of T but because of the devastation it has caused Z and his family as well.
My comment about T was that on THAT evening he was innocent...he was not doing anything worthy of being followed with a firearm over. Z himself said T was walking through the neighborhood. Z DECIDED that T was "suspicious".
The use of the word justifiable in subjective in this situation and the verdict does not mean that Z is completely innocent it just means that the jury did not have enough evidence to convict him of the charges. Trayvon, according to the evidence, was on top of Z when Z shot him, that does not mean that Z didn't start the fight it simply means that at that point T had the upper hand and Z decided to shoot him.
You can not make the claim that Trayvons actions were illegal. It assumes the validity of Zs statement and we have no other witnesses to the moment the fight was initiated that can verify. The lack of testimony to challenge Zs statements does not make them true. It makes them all we have available to present in court and that is a wholly different matter. It is quite possible that, had he been alive to provide his side of the story, T would clam that he was standing his ground.
Separate fact of conjecture.
