General

Re: The Trayvon Martin case

gotlucky — Tue, 26 Jun 2012 21:55:21 GMT

George Zimmerman Passed Lie Detector Test Day After Trayvon Martin Killing

Re: The Trayvon Martin case

Wibee — Mon, 30 Apr 2012 04:22:07 GMT

It is hard to stay objective.

With the media dishonesty toward Zimmerman, the racist accusations, the situation involving private gun ownership and private policing; it is easy to have a soft spot for Zimmerman.

The one thing you can clearly tell from the 911 tapes is that in Zimmerman's mind, that kid was guilty. You can tell he already made up his mind about Martin during the 911 call.

Re: The Trayvon Martin case

ThatOldGuy — Sat, 28 Apr 2012 14:31:33 GMT

Consumariat:
So is Zimmerman claiming that Trayvon started to follow him?

From what I have read, Zimmerman's story goes something like: he was following Trayvon and called the cops to be advised; the cops said that it isn't necessary to follow him and Zimmerman says "OK" and starts walking back to his car; while walking back to his car, Trayvon confronts Zimmerman saying "Are you looking for trouble?" Zimmerman replies "No" and Trayvon says, "Well, you found trouble;" Trayvon then attacks Zimmerman.

Consumariat:
If so, what would be Trayvon's reason for doing so? What motivation would there be for Trayvon to attack Zimmerman?

I don't know. Should the above story be true, then I guess that Trayvon was sticking up for the image he puts on the internet. Trayvon was a tough kid (I know I've placed sources above in the thread regarding this). He could also have been agitated that someone was following him.

Re: The Trayvon Martin case

bloomj31 — Sat, 28 Apr 2012 14:15:40 GMT

Who followed whom is irrelevant. Following someone is not an act of aggression nor does it necessarily constitute a physical threat. This guy was part of the neighborhood watch after all, maybe he was trying to keep an eye on Trayvon to make sure nothing happened.

Who struck first is the only relevant question as far as I can tell. There were only two witnesses, one is dead so we can't ask him. I am interested to hear Zimmerman's story and to see whether or not the jury buys the veracity of his account.

Also, there was no way for Zimmerman to know if Trayvon was armed just by looking at him. I am also uncertain as to whether or not Trayvon knew Zimmerman was armed at first, he may not have been walking with his gun out. So perhaps Trayvon started a fight he thought he could finish. Perhaps not, no way to be sure.

Re: The Trayvon Martin case

Consumariat — Sat, 28 Apr 2012 14:03:51 GMT

So is Zimmerman claiming that Trayvon started to follow him? If so, what would be Trayvon's reason for doing so? What motivation would there be for Trayvon to attack Zimmerman?

Re: The Trayvon Martin case

ThatOldGuy — Sat, 28 Apr 2012 01:26:20 GMT

LogisticEarth:
If it was Martin, then it's self defense.

Wouldn't it only be self-defense if Zimmerman initiated violence on Trayvon?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but it seems that your post states that following someone isn't necessarily an aggressive act in one spot (Following someone in public isn't necessarily an aggressive or violent act) to an aggressive act in another spot (If it was Martin [who escalated the confrontation to violence], then it's self defense).

This latter point, that if Trayvon escalated the confrontation to violence then it is self-defense, is under the condition that Zimmerman aggressed against Trayvon by following him, I'm guessing?

Re: The Trayvon Martin case

LogisticEarth — Sat, 28 Apr 2012 00:10:36 GMT

Man with gun calls police to say he's following someone. Police tell man with gun to stop following him. Man with gun shoots said person being followed. Man being followed turns out to be unarmed.
Regardless of the race issue, the bloke with the gun doing the following is clearly to blame.

Not under common self defense law (even without the "stand-your-ground" provisions), it's not. Following someone in public isn't necessarily an aggressive or violent act. It comes down to who escalated the confrontation to violence. If it was Zimmerman, then he's to blame. If it was Martin, then it's self defense.

The "stand your ground" law actually doesn't really apply to this case, as it seems that Martin had Zimmerman pinned on the ground when the shooting occured. At that point, under standard "duty to retreat" self defense laws, the ability of Zimmerman to retreat wasn't a reasonable option if he felt his life was in danger.

Re: The Trayvon Martin case

ThatOldGuy — Sat, 28 Apr 2012 00:06:39 GMT

Consumariat:
Police tell man with gun to stop following him.

Man with gun says, "Okay."

Now who's the aggressor? Did he continue following and provoke Trayvon or did he turn around and Trayvon confront Zimmerman?

I don't pretend to know, but the case isn't as clear-cut as this post makes it seem.

Re: The Trayvon Martin case

Consumariat — Fri, 27 Apr 2012 23:34:11 GMT

Man with gun calls police to say he's following someone. Police tell man with gun to stop following him. Man with gun shoots said person being followed. Man being followed turns out to be unarmed.

Regardless of the race issue, the bloke with the gun doing the following is clearly to blame.

Re: The Trayvon Martin case

bugmenot — Fri, 27 Apr 2012 23:11:27 GMT

Err... it seems safe to say, from what's been released, that they found at the scene: one big, dead black kid and one beat up little hispanic who HAD called the police to report a suspicious person in HIS neighborhood. I think Martin's race DID play a part in it - he wanted to be a badass gangsta and discovered that the life of a violent criminal criminal can come to a quick end.

Unarmed???? Your ignorance shines before you - it is NOT very hard to kill a man with your bare hands, expecially one that's... oh, about 2/3 your size. If you want a picture of Martin about hte time he died, look at http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/29/second-trayvon-martin-twitter-feed-identified/

Yeah... case closed.... cops are generally stupid, but not THAT stupid.....

Re: The Trayvon Martin case

gotlucky — Sun, 22 Apr 2012 20:55:00 GMT

Autolykos:

My mind is not made up about whether Zimmerman justifiably shot and killed Martin.

Same for me.

Autolykos:

I'm inclined for the time being to think that it wasn't justified. Regarding acting in self-defense, if you punch me in the nose and I then shoot you in the head, killing you almost instantly, I'd say that I was not in any way acting in justifiable self-defense.

I agree with your second statement. In regards to your first statement, I think there are just too many plausible scenarios :

Zimmerman confronts and initiates violence against Martin. Martin acts in self-defense and Zimmerman escalates to deadly force.
Zimmerman confronts and initiates violence against Martin. Martin escalates the violence to deadly force but Zimmerman wins.
Zimmerman confronts Martin, but Martin iniates violence. Zimmerman escalates to deadly force and kills Martin.
Zimmerman confronts Martin, but Martin initiates violence. Zimmerman acts in self-defense but Martin escalates to deadly force, but Zimmerman wins.

There are more possibilities, but I don't think it's necessary to list them all. Obviously, if Zimmerman's head injuries weren't that serious, then it would cast doubt on his story. But I think that if someone bashes another's head against anything, I think that is escalating the situation, even if the injuries turn out to not be that serious.

Re: The Trayvon Martin case

bloomj31 — Sun, 22 Apr 2012 15:25:15 GMT

The first question that has to be answered is whether or not Zimmerman initiated the physical conflict.

From John James' article:

“Even if George Zimmerman was injured in his fight,” said Abrams, “it doesn’t change the fact that the prosecutors clearly believe that Zimmerman was the aggressor. And if Zimmerman was the aggressor and they got into a fight, that doesn’t allow him to use deadly force. It simply — you can’t be losing a fight and then decide to use your gun to protect yourself.”

Re: The Trayvon Martin case

Autolykos — Sun, 22 Apr 2012 15:03:59 GMT

gotlucky:
Oopsies . I assumed you were insinuating that if his injuries were not severe enough that he was not acting in self-defense. My mistake. ?

My mind is not made up about whether Zimmerman justifiably shot and killed Martin. I'm inclined for the time being to think that it wasn't justified. Regarding acting in self-defense, if you punch me in the nose and I then shoot you in the head, killing you almost instantly, I'd say that I was not in any way acting in justifiable self-defense.

Re: The Trayvon Martin case

Autolykos — Sun, 22 Apr 2012 15:02:03 GMT

That's not what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is that, if Zimmerman's injuries were superficial, it would cast doubt on the validity of his justification for shooting Martin, i.e. in self-defense.

Re: The Trayvon Martin case

triknighted — Sun, 22 Apr 2012 14:54:37 GMT

Autolykos:

From what I understand, wounds can appear more serious than they really are. Superficial wounds can produce a lot of bleeding.

To use a parallel, if someone robbed me of only $1.00 instead of $500.00, are you saying that I should resist less in one scenario than the other due to the severity of the assault? My point is that degree doesn't matter in situations of principle.