Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman

[Johnnypenso]

No, it's not. Because the difference here is that Zimmerman is actually responsible. Perhaps not of murder, but certainly of a wrongful death. Zimmerman set in course a chain of events that ended with him killing Martin. It's not as if Martin simply came up to him and started belting the living daylights out of him. Zimmerman instigated the contact that led to Martin attacking him. If Zimmerman had never made contact with Martin, Martin would still be alive.

Zimmerman is not an innocent bystander in this.

So following someone is a course of events that might be likely to lead to death. I don't think so. And according to all the evidence, Martin did come up to him and start belting him when he was under no threat of physical harm and that's what his friend basically testified to as his state of mind. Zimmerman did not instigate any contact at all. Observing isn't contact. Did you follow the trial?

Plain and simple. It's just that Zimmerman had won. If Martin had won, everybody knows the media wouldn't have mentioned anything and he'd already be doing 25 to life. That's where the controversy is. Why is the "stand your ground" law so picky-choosey? I honestly don't have an opinion, each circumstance is different.

It wasn't a stand your ground case, it was a self-defence. The defence did not use the stand your ground statutes in this trial.

It is fair to say that Zimmerman's actions ensured that an altercation between himself and Martin was possible, probable even......snip... .

That's a load of baloney, pardon my french. Since when does observiing and following someone from a distance ensure an altercation is probable. When normal people are followed they either run away or call the cops. If you choose to turn and confront someone following you, in the middle of the night, get the upper hand and he turns out to have a gun, you get shot. Here's an idea. Don't lie in wait and initiate a physical assault on a "creepy a$$ed cracker" because you think he's following you and you don't like the colour of his skin, and you probably won't get killed. Walk away, run away, go home, call the cops, hide and let him walk past you. There are lots of options short of a criminal assault.

 

[niky]

Following someone in an unmarked car is what we call stalking in these here parts. It's not against the law, but it does mark you as a threat to the other person.

 

[Keef]

That's like saying a raped girl got what she deserved for wearing a short skirt to a bar.

It's nothing like that. Zimmerman did things he shouldn't have done, but he didn't break any laws and there's no evidence that he physically assaulted Martin. But, given the way events played out, and the fact that Zimmerman was clearly a victim of assault, he was justified in defending himself.

 

[arora]

You just made my point as I was comparing Zimmerman to the chick

I guess I'm always misunderstood around here, it was an analogy specific only to what prisonmonkey said(hence the quote)

 

[prisonermonkeys]

A girl in a short skirt at a bar could set in course a chain of events also, instigating the contact that leads to her being attacked. If she never wore a short skirt or went to the bar she would not have been raped.

Of course Zimmerman is not an innocent bystander in this, he was a part of the neighborhood watch. I'd bet dollars to doughnuts the neighborhood was getting tired of being innocent bystander as their houses were being robbed.

I see you're fixated on the idea that Zimmerman is some kind of hero whose actions were entirely justified.

But here's the problem: Zimmerman evidently didn't consider the consequences of his actions when he followed Martin. Perhaps he could never reasonably forsee that his actions would have led to one of them dying, but it clearly never crossed his mind that following Martin would attract Martin's attention, and may even provoke Martin into doing something - like attacking him.

 

[arora]

I don't think Zimmerman is a hero, far from it. I'm not surprised you say that though, anything to be confrontational

Didn't read the rest of your dribble

I think the guy is a jerk, but I also think the law was upheld.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Didn't read the rest of your dribble

How can you expect anyone to pay any attention to any argument you make when you refuse to even read what they say?

 

[Touring Mars]

That's a load of baloney, pardon my french. Since when does observiing and following someone from a distance ensure an altercation is probable.

I said "possible, probable even" - the altercation was made possible by Zimmerman taking exception to Martin's presence and deciding to follow him. A meeting between the pair was made distinctly more probable by the fact that he continued to look for Martin after losing sight of him (which was approximately the same time as the 911 operator advised him to hang back). It is certainly not baloney, as you put it, since probable is a relative term.

Don't lie in wait and initiate a physical assault

I agree that one ought not to do this if one wants to avoid a fight, but there is precisely zero independent evidence to say that this is exactly what Martin did, since Zimmerman's own account cannot be considered as independent evidence. For all you know, Martin may have been hiding in an attempt to lose Zimmerman before proceeding home. Maybe that is unlikely given how close to home Martin was, but there's as much independent evidence to support the idea that Martin was hiding than there is to support the idea that Martin was 'lying in wait' with the intention of attacking Zimmerman. You say it as if it were established fact, but it quite simply isn't. As I've said several times, Zimmerman may well have told the complete truth in his testimony, but his testimony was never independently verified, and therefore it cannot be considered as totally reliable.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I said "possible, probable even" - the altercation was made possible by Zimmerman taking exception to Martin's presence and deciding to follow him. A meeting between the pair was made distinctly more probable by the fact that he continued to look for Martin after losing sight of him (which was approximately the same time as the 911 operator advised him to hang back). It is certainly not baloney, as you put it, since probable is a relative term.

I agree that one ought not to do this if one wants to avoid a fight, but there is precisely zero independent evidence to say that this is exactly what Martin did, since Zimmerman's own account cannot be considered as independent evidence. For all you know, Martin may have been hiding in an attempt to lose Zimmerman before proceeding home. Maybe that is unlikely given how close to home Martin was, but there's as much independent evidence to support the idea that Martin was hiding than there is to support the idea that Martin was 'lying in wait' with the intention of attacking Zimmerman. You say it as if it were established fact, but it quite simply isn't. As I've said several times, Zimmerman may well have told the complete truth in his testimony, but his testimony was never independently verified, and therefore it cannot be considered as totally reliable.

How is an altercation "probable" by following someone at a distance? Since when is it an acceptable response by anyone to simply attack someone they think is following them? I'll answer for you. It's not acceptable, ever, unless you are being threatened in some way and need to defend yourself. No proof was offered during the trial that Zimmerman initiated the contact or the ensuing struggle, none, zero. None of us can ever know all the nitty gritty details of what happened, only Zimmerman knows that and he's not saying. All the forensics and witness testimony point to Martin as the aggressor in the fight.

If Zimmerman intended to do Martin harm with his gun, why didn't he pull it out while they were standing? Why did he let Martin pound his head into the pavement a few times and break his nose before firing? If he was the aggressor, why not just blow the kid away and say he came at you saying he was going to kill you and you thought he had a gun, it was dark etc. That's a perfectly justifiable, "stand your ground" defence in Florida.

 

[Danoff]

No, it's not. Because the difference here is that Zimmerman is actually responsible. Perhaps not of murder, but certainly of a wrongful death. Zimmerman set in course a chain of events that ended with him killing Martin.

No that's not clear at all. None of the evidence available supports that position. Following someone or questioning them is not setting in motion a chain of events that results in whatever ensues later.

It is fair to say that Zimmerman's actions ensured that an altercation between himself and Martin was possible, probable even, but there's a difference between this and actually instigating physical contact. Who is to blame for that will probably forever remain a mystery, since the only account of what happened came from Zimmerman himself, and that cannot rightly be considered reliable (although I'm not saying that it's untrue)... but, since there is no credible witness testimony to the contrary, Zimmerman cannot be proven to have initiated physical contact. Establishing who touched who first in this case is simply not possible based on the available evidence

...and if it were, that would not be enough. Consider this scenario:

- You walk up to someone out of the blue and punch them in the face (assault and battery)
- You two brawl for a few minutes (their self defense)
- They begin to beat you to death (pounding your head into pavement)
- You then make a clear attempt to withdraw from the fight ("alright, I'm done, I don't want to harm you" - hands in the air)
- They continue to beat you to death, they have now initiated a new altercation
- You are now justified in using deadly force to protect your life (according to US law).
- You pull out a gun and shoot them dead.

You'd be guilty of assault and battery in this example, but you would not be guilty of murder despite the fact that you provoked and initiated the first altercation. They'd be guilty of attempted murder.

Really a fair amount of additional evidence needed to be supplied before Zimmerman could be justly convicted of murder.

 

[Johnnypenso]

...and if it were, that would not be enough. Consider this scenario:

- You walk up to someone out of the blue and punch them in the face (assault and battery)
- You two brawl for a few minutes (their self defense)
- They begin to beat you to death (pounding your head into pavement)
- You then make a clear attempt to withdraw from the fight ("alright, I'm done, I don't want to harm you" - hands in the air)
- They continue to beat you to death, they have now initiated a new altercation
- You are now justified in using deadly force to protect your life (according to US law).
- You pull out a gun and shoot them dead.

You'd be guilty of assault and battery in this example, but you would not be guilty of murder despite the fact that you provoked and initiated the first altercation. They'd be guilty of attempted murder.

Really a fair amount of additional evidence needed to be supplied before Zimmerman could be justly convicted of murder.

I would dare to say that most people would not understand the example you gave, which is a good example of how the law works. I think too many people these days just want to operate on their emotions and feelings and throw logic and the law out the window. Everyone feels sorry for the kid and his parents and siblings and it was a terrible series of events that led to his death, but feeling sorry for the kid doesn't make George Zimmerman a murderer or even guilty of a crime.

 

[playnthru]

any opinions on this?

Here's some fun facts for you.

The same prosecutors over charged both her case and the Zimmerman case. Since they did such a horrible job on the Zimmerman case. Now the national media, including Jesse Jackson, are turning their attention on her case. Chances are good that women's case will get new attention and in a crazy way it will all be thanks to Zimmerman beating their bad wrap!

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog...ecutor_angela_corey_may_face_a_reckoning.html

It's messed up by Angela Corey it seems.

 

[Sanji Himura]

There may be an alternate theory as to why Mr. Martin bought an Arizona drink and a bag of skittles, and it doesn't look pretty.

According to RashManly, Mr. Martin may have bought those particular items to get himself doped up. His drug of choice, a codine based drink called "Lean" or "Purple Drank". The missing ingredient? Cough Syurp.

Granted, there was already plenty of other evidence that acquitted Mr. Zimmerman, and they have no credible sources, so take with the usual grain.

 

[arora]

How can you expect anyone to pay any attention to any argument you make when you refuse to even read what they say?

Your browser doesn't allow you to see emoticons?

There may be an alternate theory as to why Mr. Martin bought an Arizona drink and a bag of skittles, and it doesn't look pretty.

According to RashManly, Mr. Martin may have bought those particular items to get himself doped up. His drug of choice, a codine based drink called "Lean" or "Purple Drank". The missing ingredient? Cough Syurp.

Granted, there was already plenty of other evidence that acquitted Mr. Zimmerman, and they have no credible sources, so take with the usual grain.

I don't think it maters if the guy wanted to get high, what maters is his behavior as the scene unfolded. Still not seeing why he could not simply talk to Zimmerman and maybe say "Hey, hows it going?"

 

[Keef]

any opinions on this?

I do have opinions on this.

I don't know if you've ever taken class to earn your concealed carry weapon license. Often they're taught by off-duty police officers. They don't teach you to fire warning shots. In fact, they teach you specifically not to fire warning shots. Possibly collateral damage being one of the reasons - that bullet has to land somewhere.

What they do teach is you is to think logically and avoid a confrontation at all costs. But if one does occur and your life is threatened via a drawn weapon or violent attack, you shoot to kill that person and shoot them until you're certain they're dead. Ten round magazine? One in the chamber? Shoot them until you know the treat is gone. One of the reasons for was specifically cited with a bit of a chuckle from the crowd but the cop was serious - this was self defense on your part and a dead guy can't argue against that in court.

From what we know, Zimmerman did basically everything by the book. He didn't break any laws that we know of and when his life was put in danger he shot the guy dead and won his self defense case.

The other lady did everything wrong. How the hell are you going to claim self defense if the situation clearly wasn't dire enough to kill the other person? You can't try to scare you husband because he's arguing with you by randomely shooting a gun. And who's to know if she was just flailing a gun and firing willy-nilly for fun and then claimed self defense so she could get away with it? Her biggest mistake was letting the other guy live. What if he stepped into court and said, "Man, all I did was run up to this lady to say her dog jumped the fence and she pulled out a gun and started shooting in the air like a crazed maniac!" Well, that doesn't sound like much a self defense case to me. That sounds like a crazy ass lady who has much disregard for the safety of people around her.

 

[Touring Mars]

That's insane, Keef... you're saying that because the situation wasn't dire enough to kill the other person, she can't claim 'self-defense'... so she should have killed the guy instead in order to somehow prove the threat was real?? You've got that completely arse over tit... you are using the outcome to define the seriousness of the threat... the fact is, you cannot possibly say how dire the threat is simply based on how the (allegedly) threatened person reacts.

In any case, the comparison between Alexander's case and Zimmerman's are completely spurious - Alexander's life wasn't being threatened, and she didn't even fire a 'warning shot' - by all accounts her conviction was based on the fact that she stormed out of the house in a huff and came back in with a gun and shot at her former partner... there was no self-defense involved at all, and yet, by your reckoning, and I quote, "Her biggest mistake was letting the other guy live." In other words, you think she should have murdered her husband because at least then she might have gotten away with it? Right...

 

[McLaren]

That other case lost any grounds for self defense the moment it was revealed she left the situation & returned with the gun. What makes it more is that she made a threatening statement just before hand as well.

 

[niky]

"Warning shots" are an incredibly big "NO". During our weapons training, we're taught that we do NOT discharge firearms without a clear target in mind. Randomly shooting into the air is homicidally dangerous, especially in a populated area.

 

[Keef]

In any case, the comparison between Alexander's case and Zimmerman's are completely spurious - Alexander's life wasn't being threatened, and she didn't even fire a 'warning shot' - by all accounts her conviction was based on the fact that she stormed out of the house in a huff and came back in with a gun and shot at her former partner... there was no self-defense involved at all, and yet, by your reckoning, and I quote, "Her biggest mistake was letting the other guy live." In other words, you think she should have murdered her husband because at least then she might have gotten away with it? Right...

I listed various things she did wrong based on her claim of self defense. You went a step beyond that to claim there was no basis for self defense at all - I agree with that. Clearly the jury agreed too. We all agree on this.

Even if her self defense case actually existed, had she fired warning shots it probably would have failed and she'd have been charged with public endangerment at minimum, if not the same charge she did receive.

So yes I'm saying that if you're going to claim self defense you should start by making sure the other person can't claim their side because that's what a cop told me.

 

[Touring Mars]

So yes I'm saying that if you're going to claim self defense you should start by making sure the other person can't claim their side because that's what a cop told me.

That's pretty irresponsible advice to say the least.

If you're going to claim self defense, you should start by making sure you have some evidence to back up your claims. Zimmerman had supporting evidence to back up his claims (e.g. witness testimony that Martin was 'on top' of Zimmerman during the fight, the wounds to the back of his head etc.). I reckon this evidence was crucial in justifying Zimmerman's actions.

But in general, the idea that you can improve your chances of a successful self defense claim by ensuring your assailant dies is extremely dubious, both legally and morally. Zimmerman was found not guilty because he was tried for murder and the prosecution failed to show compelling evidence for that. But had he been tried for manslaughter, the aforementioned evidence (Zimmerman's injuries, witnesses who say Martin was on top of Zimmerman) could have been pivotal.

 

[FoolKiller]

That's insane, Keef... you're saying that because the situation wasn't dire enough to kill the other person, she can't claim 'self-defense'... so she should have killed the guy instead in order to somehow prove the threat was real?? You've got that completely arse over tit... you are using the outcome to define the seriousness of the threat... the fact is, you cannot possibly say how dire the threat is simply based on how the (allegedly) threatened person reacts.

I think the important thing to note here is that Keef is basing the idea on the wording of the law. I'm sure he would prefer if it was safe and legal to fire a warning shot and that could end the altercation. Heck, if the law allowed it I would keep a low powered shotgun with rock salt in the first round or two.

But in this case, the law does not allow for warning shots. From a legal standpoint, it is "smarter" to kill the other person. Without that you have a hard time proving the necessity of deadly force, particularly if the guy is alive and you are unharmed.

The law is stupid in that regard.

 

[team trans]

Trayvon Martin vs George Zimmerman

I think it is clear that Trayvon Martin's Human Rights were violated by George Zimmerman.
However what I do not understand is that everyone now wants to violate George Zimmerman's rights. I do not believe he is a danger to the public, but he should answer for his acts.

you should know what youre speaking of ,before you let your stuff out,martin was a drugie and a thief because he looks like obama hes ok,due to the reverse discrimanation that has taken this country over,why did he have jewerly from another persons house in his back pack
why did he have a tool he was going back to retriveNow Zimmerman will have to change his name and move far away and live in fear for ever ,because of miss reported info,tring to make martin into something he wasn't ,an inocent kid ,no way!

 

[tanveerahmed2k8]

RACISM killed Trayvon Martin, I don't care what your media has said about him.

 

[Famine]

martin was a drugie

[Citation needed]

a thief

[Citation needed]

why did he have jewerly from another persons house in his back pack

[Citation needed]

why did he have a tool he was going back to retrive

[Citation needed]

Entire post

[Shift key, grammar needed]

RACISM killed Trayvon Martin, I don't care what your media has said about him.

Pretty sure it was a bullet. No-one's ever died from a racismshot wound to the chest.

 

[Zenith]

RACISM killed Trayvon Martin, I don't care what your media has said about him.

On that note, maybe it's time to examine the public's reaction to the verdict.

 

[Maccer_42]

team trans View Post
martin was a drugie

[Citation needed]

Could be cigarette smoke who knows.

http://www.miaminewsday.com/nationa...-of-him-smoking-pot-texts-about-fighting.html

http://www.wagist.com/2012/dan-linehan/was-trayvon-martin-a-drug-dealer

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...reference-guns-fighting-pot-article-1.1353832

Might not be his, but it was taken with his phone.

I don't have anything against Trayvon Martin possibly smoking weed or being a drug dealer, and I don't think just because he may have been both of those things it means he was a bad or violent person.

team trans View Post
why did he have jewerly from another persons house in his back pack

[Citation needed]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3014413/posts

They might not have been stolen from another persons house but he did have female jewelry in his backpack, this wasn't on the day of his death though.

team trans View Post
why did he have a tool he was going back to retrive

[Citation needed]

I can't find anything to support he was looking retrieve his "tool" to break into a house so that is speculation.

 

[Famine]

And that's the difference between a very badly typed bunch of claims and a post with actually interesting evidence.

Still, the drug thing is a reach (if I had Facebook when I was his age, I'd have slept with Jet from Gladiators and Paula Abdul), albeit reasonable, while on the day he was killed we don't know what he had on him, in his backpack, where he was going or for what reason.

 

[playnthru]

RACISM killed Trayvon Martin, I don't care what your media has said about him.

Really? You don't?????


Because that is what our media said about him. It so happens they're proven WRONG!

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

That's insane, Keef... you're saying that because the situation wasn't dire enough to kill the other person, she can't claim 'self-defense'... so she should have killed the guy instead in order to somehow prove the threat was real?? You've got that completely arse over tit... you are using the outcome to define the seriousness of the threat... the fact is, you cannot possibly say how dire the threat is simply based on how the (allegedly) threatened person reacts.

In any case, the comparison between Alexander's case and Zimmerman's are completely spurious - Alexander's life wasn't being threatened, and she didn't even fire a 'warning shot' - by all accounts her conviction was based on the fact that she stormed out of the house in a huff and came back in with a gun and shot at her former partner... there was no self-defense involved at all, and yet, by your reckoning, and I quote, "Her biggest mistake was letting the other guy live." In other words, you think she should have murdered her husband because at least then she might have gotten away with it? Right...

Absolutely wrong, I agree she was overcharged, but to discharge a weapon in the air to scare someone away that is stupid. That is why it is illegal to shoot your weapon in the air on New Years eve and so on...

And that's the difference between a very badly typed bunch of claims and a post with actually interesting evidence.

Still, the drug thing is a reach (if I had Facebook when I was his age, I'd have slept with Jet from Gladiators and Paula Abdul), albeit reasonable, while on the day he was killed we don't know what he had on him, in his backpack, where he was going or for what reason.

Would you have pictures from a phone or camera that you took though to support these claims like he did with the Mary Jane plant?

RACISM killed Trayvon Martin, I don't care what your media has said about him.

When you say "your media" who are you actually referring to? Also where did you learn to troll?

 

[Johnnypenso]

From Wikipedia, why you don't fire guns into the air:

A study by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that 80% of celebratory gunfire-related injuries are to the head, feet, and shoulders.[4] In Puerto Rico, about two people die and about 25 more are injured each year from celebratory gunfire on New Year's Eve, the CDC says.[5] Between the years 1985 and 1992, doctors at the King/Drew Medical Center in Los Angeles, California, treated some 118 people for random falling-bullet injuries. Thirty-eight of them died.[6] Kuwaitis celebrating in 1991 at the end of the Gulf War by firing weapons into the air caused 20 deaths from falling bullets.[6]