If Trayvon was indeed beating the shit out of Zimmerman it's not hard to see why.
Fact is he was alone, unarmed and he had someone following him. It's not unimaginable that he was scared for his life and fight or flight instincts kicked in.

Why do people keep using the term "unarmed" as if that automatically renders someone harmless? It's such a disgustingly pathetic appeal to emotion term.

Jeffrey Dahmer was also largely "unarmed" when he murdered his victims. The prerequisite for committing a crime does not require you to carry a gun.

Quote from: A E S T H E T I C S on September 28, 2015, 07:08:28 PM

Can you at least concede that Trayvon going to pound town on Zimmerman was not in the slightest bit warranted, regardless of whether he thought he was being followed or not?

If I "think" (he wasn't even 100% sure Zimmerman actually was following him by the way) I'm being followed, my first reaction isn't to go berserk and start swinging swift right hooks at my alleged stalker, and I don't think that would be most people's initial reaction either.

You also aren't a 17 year old kid. I would be freaked out if I was being stalked, and I don't question him trying to defend himself.

Oh yes, because trying to beat a man to death is definitely a sane response. And while chanting the words, "You're gonna die tonight" (witness accounts) is totally a scared 17 year old fending off DA WHITE MAYN

Yeah, a 17 year old who's into fights and being a burglar. I'm sure he's so scared.

Quote from: A E S T H E T I C S on September 29, 2015, 02:16:59 AM

Why do people keep using the term "unarmed" as if that automatically renders someone harmless? It's such a disgustingly pathetic appeal to emotion term.

Jeffrey Dahmer was also largely "unarmed" when he murdered his victims. The prerequisite for committing a crime does not require you to carry a gun.

Because someone benign armed with a firearm shooting someone completely unarmed makes a very big difference in a court of law. There's no emotion about it, it's the legality of it.

If I shoot the OP in self defense because he was pulling a pistol on me, it's not likely I'd be sent to prison for murder or manslaughter. If I shoot the OP in self defense while he was just running at me unarmed, things start getting a lot trickier and I'm much more likely to be charged with some degree of murder for not exhausting any other options.

Things that don't fall in line with your narrative aren't all appeals to emotion, I'm afraid.

Except he wasn't really just 'running at him' was he? Multiple eyewitness testimonies, the grass stains on Zimmerman's jacket and his injuries (as well as Trayvon's lack thereof) corroborate with the fact that Trayvon was practically pounding his head into the concrete.

So yes, I agree, 'unarmed' is a term that needs to be discussed in a case like this, but it's the way people utilize it to suit their agenda that I take umbrage with. It's essentially a meaningless term without the proper context.

Quote from: A E S T H E T I C S on September 29, 2015, 01:18:04 PM

Quote from: challengerX on September 29, 2015, 08:04:44 AM

Quote from: A E S T H E T I C S on September 29, 2015, 02:16:59 AM

Why do people keep using the term "unarmed" as if that automatically renders someone harmless? It's such a disgustingly pathetic appeal to emotion term.

Jeffrey Dahmer was also largely "unarmed" when he murdered his victims. The prerequisite for committing a crime does not require you to carry a gun.

Because someone benign armed with a firearm shooting someone completely unarmed makes a very big difference in a court of law. There's no emotion about it, it's the legality of it.

If I shoot the OP in self defense because he was pulling a pistol on me, it's not likely I'd be sent to prison for murder or manslaughter. If I shoot the OP in self defense while he was just running at me unarmed, things start getting a lot trickier and I'm much more likely to be charged with some degree of murder for not exhausting any other options.

Things that don't fall in line with your narrative aren't all appeals to emotion, I'm afraid.

Except he wasn't really just 'running at him' was he? Multiple eyewitness testimonies, the grass stains on Zimmerman's jacket and his injuries (as well as Trayvon's lack thereof) corroborate with the fact that Trayvon was practically pounding his head into the concrete.

So yes, I agree, 'unarmed' is a term that needs to be discussed in a case like this, but it's the way people utilize it to suit their agenda that I take umbrage with. It's essentially a meaningless term without the proper context.

I wasn't talking about the Zimmerman case or any case in particular.

Well can you at least not agree that using 'unarmed' in such an emotionally manipulative way doesn't aid the legal justification of any of the parties involved?

Just because someone is 'unarmed' does not give them any more of a legal grounding than the opposition does.

Quote from: A E S T H E T I C S on September 29, 2015, 01:31:45 PM

Quote from: challengerX on September 29, 2015, 01:27:04 PM

Quote from: A E S T H E T I C S on September 29, 2015, 01:18:04 PM

Quote from: challengerX on September 29, 2015, 08:04:44 AM

Quote from: A E S T H E T I C S on September 29, 2015, 02:16:59 AM

Why do people keep using the term "unarmed" as if that automatically renders someone harmless? It's such a disgustingly pathetic appeal to emotion term.

Jeffrey Dahmer was also largely "unarmed" when he murdered his victims. The prerequisite for committing a crime does not require you to carry a gun.

Because someone benign armed with a firearm shooting someone completely unarmed makes a very big difference in a court of law. There's no emotion about it, it's the legality of it.

If I shoot the OP in self defense because he was pulling a pistol on me, it's not likely I'd be sent to prison for murder or manslaughter. If I shoot the OP in self defense while he was just running at me unarmed, things start getting a lot trickier and I'm much more likely to be charged with some degree of murder for not exhausting any other options.

Things that don't fall in line with your narrative aren't all appeals to emotion, I'm afraid.

Except he wasn't really just 'running at him' was he? Multiple eyewitness testimonies, the grass stains on Zimmerman's jacket and his injuries (as well as Trayvon's lack thereof) corroborate with the fact that Trayvon was practically pounding his head into the concrete.

So yes, I agree, 'unarmed' is a term that needs to be discussed in a case like this, but it's the way people utilize it to suit their agenda that I take umbrage with. It's essentially a meaningless term without the proper context.

I wasn't talking about the Zimmerman case or any case in particular.

Well can you at least not agree that using 'unarmed' in such an emotionally manipulative way doesn't aid the legal justification of any of the parties involved?

Just because someone is 'unarmed' does not give them any more of a legal grounding than the opposition does.

It does make it so you shouldn't go looking for trouble when armed with a handgun. That alone should have gotten Zimmerman some sort of charge.

You don't pursue people, get into a scuffle and then shoot your attacker (that you followed) and say it was all in self defense. The situation would have never occurred had he stayed in the car.

I agree that following a suspicious character in the night isn't exactly the most rational thing to do, as do most people.

But that's not really the crux of the argument. The moment Trayvon subdued him and instigated a felony battery is the moment that he lost any legal legitimacy to him being followed, and whatever other kind of tenuous 'self defence' argument people keep bringing up.

Actually, never mind.