Trayvon Martin

vant0037

BinFrog wrote:

Self-defense is one part of this case. A part which, again, I am not talking about. The media is trying to portray this part of the story as if Zimmerman was told to stand down and he defied an order. That is not at all what happened. Again....I am not defending ANY of his actions. I'm just sick of how the media loves to manipulate and distort the facts to play with your emotions. See: NBC editing of the audio tapes of George's phone call.

Well, let's not look to the media for guidance on much these days. If you want to discuss whether or not Zimmerman "defied an order," fine. I won't debate you on that; he didn't defy an "order." But again, in a case where the charge is murder, one element of which is that someone died (no one refutes that), and the charged person says "I was defending myself," whether he defied an order or not couldn't be more irrelevant. The only issue up for debate in this case is self-defense.

It appeared you were trying to link the issue of whether he defied an order to stop following to whether or not he acted in self-defense. If you weren't doing that, I apologize. But of those two issues - self-defense and whether he disobeyed an "order" - one is of complete consequence to this case, and one is not.

vant0037

pjhawks wrote:

and the other part of the story that get's lost is that Zimmerman was out there as a representative of a neighborhood watch group. he was out there to look for suspicious individuals. and found one.

Any discussion of Martin's disciplinary issues are only relevant if Zimmerman knew of those things before the altercation. Further, self-defense isn't judged by whether Trayvon Martin was "suspicious" looking. It's going to be whether George Zimmerman, without being the instigator, reasonably believed he was subject to imminent attack. The issue of whether he followed Martin then, in defiance of an "order" or not, becomes vital.

Blockhead

JimmyV wrote:

Blockhead wrote:

JimmyV wrote:

When I read about a rape victim who stalked their attacker through the streets before the attack I will let you know.

Approaching a man is now grounds for getting your head smashed into concrete?

1) That is not an accurate depiction of Zimmerman's actions and 2) "getting your head smashed into concrete" after strapping on your gun, getting in your car, stalking a guy down the street after being told by authorities to stop does not equal someone getting raped.

There is nothing illegal about following someone or walking up to them and asking them questions. If that person retaliates with violence he is 100% in the wrong...
It was previously reported that there had been numerous break ins and other crimes in the area. He carries a weapon, and you automatically assume it's to start trouble.

Millions of people carry 24/7, not to start problems but to protect myself and my family. And as it turns out Trayvon was previously looking for a gun, doesn't that automatically make him a trouble maker according to your logic?

JimmyV

Blockhead wrote:

There is nothing illegal about following someone or walking up to them and asking them questions. If that person retaliates with violence he is 100% in the wrong...
It was previously reported that there had been numerous break ins and other crimes in the area. He carries a weapon, and you automatically assume it's to start trouble.

Millions of people carry 24/7, not to start problems but to protect myself and my family. And as it turns out Trayvon was previously looking for a gun, doesn't that automatically make him a trouble maker according to your logic?

Not about my logic and I have assumed nothing of the sort. It is about your comparison of poor, innocent George Zimmerman to a rape victim. Not at all the same thing.

Moonpig

Blockhead wrote:

vant0037 wrote:

BinFrog wrote:

It means he was advised by a non-emergency police dispatcher that they didn't need him to pursue the suspect. This was not an order by an officer of the law...it had no legal ramifications. Essentially it was a suggestion. A suggestion that was ignored, but a suggestion nonetheless.

I say this politely, but that couldn't be more incorrect.

He was told by a non-emergency dispatcher to stop following him. You're right, he was free to continue to do so (which is probably why he's not also charged with say, obstructing legal process or something, right?).

But that fact, that he didn't stop, whether in violation of a police's order or not listening to someone not in a position to make orders, is extremely critical when assessing a self-defense claim.

When you read about a rape victim shooting her attacker do you think she should go to jail for murder?

Long time no speak Blockhead

Godfather.

Its Evolution Baby wrote:

Godfather. wrote:

cant read cursive ????? must be a "cracker" only thing....

Godfather.



Defense attorney Don West grilled Rachel Jeantel about a letter she had a friend write for Martin's parents in the weeks after the February, 2012 incident, describing the phone conversation she had with Martin as he walked from a convenience store in Sanford, Fla., back to his father’s fiancee’s home in a gated community. West pressed her on what he indicated were inconsistencies between the letter and Jeantel's subsequent depositions and testimony - in particular her recent revelation that Martin told her he was being followed by a "creepy-ass cracker."

"Why wasn't 'creepy-ass cracker' in prior interviews?" asked West, one of the attorneys for Zimmerman, who is facing a charge of second-degree murder.

"Nobody asked me," replied Jeantel, who said she can't read cursive, which the letter is written in.



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/06/27/te ... z2XQvzgdvf

You know the defense is grasping at straws when part of there case is admitting that he's a "creepy-ass" cracker. That doesn't do a lot for me in going towards Not Guilty.

right wrong or otherwise he wont get off at least not without a full scale riot.

Godfather.

ComeToTX

Whether he gets off or not his life is fucked. Which is good because he seems like a real fuckhead.

Blockhead

JimmyV wrote:

Blockhead wrote:

There is nothing illegal about following someone or walking up to them and asking them questions. If that person retaliates with violence he is 100% in the wrong...
It was previously reported that there had been numerous break ins and other crimes in the area. He carries a weapon, and you automatically assume it's to start trouble.

Millions of people carry 24/7, not to start problems but to protect myself and my family. And as it turns out Trayvon was previously looking for a gun, doesn't that automatically make him a trouble maker according to your logic?

Not about my logic and I have assumed nothing of the sort. It is about your comparison of poor, innocent George Zimmerman to a rape victim. Not at all the same thing.

Its an analogy.... just because you approach someone, that does not give them the right to attack/assault you. And if they do, you are well within your right to perform self defense...

JimmyV

Blockhead wrote:

JimmyV wrote:

Blockhead wrote:

There is nothing illegal about following someone or walking up to them and asking them questions. If that person retaliates with violence he is 100% in the wrong...
It was previously reported that there had been numerous break ins and other crimes in the area. He carries a weapon, and you automatically assume it's to start trouble.

Millions of people carry 24/7, not to start problems but to protect myself and my family. And as it turns out Trayvon was previously looking for a gun, doesn't that automatically make him a trouble maker according to your logic?

Not about my logic and I have assumed nothing of the sort. It is about your comparison of poor, innocent George Zimmerman to a rape victim. Not at all the same thing.

Its an analogy.... just because you approach someone, that does not give them the right to attack/assault you. And if they do, you are well within your right to perform self defense...

I see what you are saying but, again, when I read about a rape victim who behaved the way George Zimmerman did before the attack I'll let you know. And if George Zimmerman had really just "approached" Trayvon Martin as you claim I am willing to bet nobody gets shot that day.

JonnyPistachio

Blockhead wrote:

JonnyPistachio wrote:

Its Evolution Baby wrote:

I don't buy any part of Zimmerman's defense. Mostly because Martin is dead because of Zimmerman's actions and not the other way around. Had Martin beat Zimmerman to death it would be more of an example of the Stand your Ground law IMO.
1. He was told to stop pursuit. He responded that "they" will get away with it again. Why does one kid represent all crime in the neighborhood?
2. He gets out of the car to confront Martin. From there there is different variations of what occured. It's clear Martin one the one on one confrontation but there is NO WAY that a 17 year old kid held down a grown man who weighs 30 to 50 pounds more than him. If Zimmerman had the strength to grab his gun he had the stregth to kick Martin off of him and run away. Why didn't he? Becuase of his ego and anger. At least that is what the Prosicution will try to prove.
3. Zimmerman had the "right" to follow Martin, get out of the car, get his ass kicked, and kill Martin suddenly in self defense??? If you confront someone, get in a fight, lose and then kill the person...I have trouble seeing the self defense argument. Had he stayed in the car BOTH would be alive today. Neither would be heading to jail.
4. Hopefully Zimmerman is better at taking directions in prison. He will definitely be made an example of. :twisted:

Well said. Very well said.
Even if I was in Zimmerman's shoes, I wouldve just taken the beating and tried to escape. Well, actually, I would've stayed in my car or not stalked the kid in the first place.

For all the people defending Zimmerman, would you have done the same if you were in his shoes? Follow the kid in your car, going out of your way, then following him on foot in the dark in the rain?

Very well said... LOL...
A concerned citizen keeps a sharp eye out for suspicious characters and calls the the police.
Zimmerman did exactly that.

Yeah LOL indeed,
A concerned citizen? You crack me up. So I guess you're saying you wouldve done the same as Zimmerman? :?

He's an over-zealous, wanna be cop who took it much too far.

JonnyPistachio

Blockhead wrote:

JimmyV wrote:

Blockhead wrote:

There is nothing illegal about following someone or walking up to them and asking them questions. If that person retaliates with violence he is 100% in the wrong...
It was previously reported that there had been numerous break ins and other crimes in the area. He carries a weapon, and you automatically assume it's to start trouble.

Millions of people carry 24/7, not to start problems but to protect myself and my family. And as it turns out Trayvon was previously looking for a gun, doesn't that automatically make him a trouble maker according to your logic?

Not about my logic and I have assumed nothing of the sort. It is about your comparison of poor, innocent George Zimmerman to a rape victim. Not at all the same thing.

Its an analogy.... just because you approach someone, that does not give them the right to attack/assault you. And if they do, you are well within your right to perform self defense...

This is very true. And its also why the Stand your ground law is being highly scrutinized. To what degree is self defense appropriate? However, this is certainly why Zimmerman has a chance to get off, because of a questionable law.

Putting this law aside for a moment, I dont think it was necessary to end someone's life after getting a few noggin scrapes and a punch to the nose. We'll just see if those six women on the jury agree.

And throughout all the proceedings, we've come to see how over dramatic, inaccurate, and honest Zimmerman is. He's an obvious liar, and a piece of shit.

MotoDC

vant0037 wrote:

pjhawks wrote:

and the other part of the story that get's lost is that Zimmerman was out there as a representative of a neighborhood watch group. he was out there to look for suspicious individuals. and found one.

Any discussion of Martin's disciplinary issues are only relevant if Zimmerman knew of those things before the altercation. Further, self-defense isn't judged by whether Trayvon Martin was "suspicious" looking. It's going to be whether George Zimmerman, without being the instigator, reasonably believed he was subject to imminent attack. The issue of whether he followed Martin then, in defiance of an "order" or not, becomes vital.

Even if self-defense is accepted as a viable defense for Zimmerman, what is (generally speaking) the threshold for using lethal force in that defense? i.e., what justifies firing a gun at someone?

PJ_Soul

otter wrote:

I disagree. Zimmerman will walk. And deserves to walk. Here's why:
He thought he was a good guy.
He was concerned Martin was a bad guy.
He called the cops; if he had any plan to start a fight he would have called buddies to get his back.
Martin kicked his ass fair and square.
He thought his gun would be used to kill him; if he was acting like a gangster he would have had his finger on the trigger before he got punched in the nose.
He was the one screaming for help; nobody yells for help as they are pummeling someone's head. Martin was not beat up, Zimmerman was.

Hey Vant, Martin was a better fighter and tougher than Zimmerman. Size never ever matters in a street fight.

I find Zimmerman's story completely believable. Martin was pissed some dude was following him and when they were face to face he punched him then proceeded to beat the shit out of him. Zimmerman says Martin saw his gun and said "Ur gonna die tonight". Then Zimmerman held his hand got his gun and shot him. It's a fucking shame but he was protecting himself. The gun was legal and Zimmerman was a neighborhood watch cheif or something. He was trying to help his community not rolling around the streets looking for trouble.

It's too bad a young guy died but there are consequences with your actions; if Zimmerman died I would say the same thing. You risk your life anytime you choose to fight.

vant0037

MotoDC wrote:

Even if self-defense is accepted as a viable defense for Zimmerman, what is (generally speaking) the threshold for using lethal force in that defense? i.e., what justifies firing a gun at someone?

I only practice in Minnesota, so I can only give a general idea of the law in FL. Most self-defense laws (even stand-your-ground statutes) are similar.

In Minnesota, a person may use "reasonable force" against another "in resisting an offense against the person." This generally plays out in court as a "tit-for-tat" type situation: if someone tackles you, you are entitled to do whatever is necessary to get away. This is where it gets dicey for defendants raising the defense: anything beyond what is reasonably necessary to repel the initial offense is prohibited. So, if instead of pushing the person off of you, you push the person away and stand over them, delivering 20 kicks to the ribs, self-defense probably no longer applies to you when you're inevitably charged with assault.

In Minnesota, a defendant is justified in "resisting" an offense only if the defendant (1) has an actual and (2) reasonable belief that serious bodily harm is imminent, (3) does not provoke the incident, and (4) has no reasonable opportunity to retreat.***(this is the difference; under "stand-your-ground," you have no duty to retreat first).

Because self-defense inquiries are so fact intensive (i.e. case-by-case situations, assessed by juries of 6-12 people), what's "reasonable force" really depends. To raise a justifiable use-of-force defense, the defendant must first present a sufficient threshold of evidence to prove he acted in self-defense. If the defense is adequately raised, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defense does not apply. Typically, this is how the application of a self-defense claim works, whether in a stand-your-ground state or not.

So, presumably, one of the things the jury will consider in weighing a self-defense claim for Zimmerman, is the reasonableness of his actions. The reason I believe this could be tricky for the defense is the sheer fact that Zimmerman's defense is truly all-or-none; for a jury to even reach the point of reasonableness, they have to first concede that everything Zimmerman says is accurate. In other words, without other witnesses, how else can they even entertain self-defense, if not believing his entire story? That's usually a tall order for a jury, for a number of reasons, and that becomes even more difficult when you factor in the other circumstantial evidence out there (namely, Zimmerman's "pursuit").

Cosmo

I'm going to let the court system sort this one out.
Mostly because i don't know the facts of the case and I do not rely on the news (and I use that term, 'news', loosely) outlets for factual information.

otter

Cosmo wrote:

I'm going to let the court system sort this one out.
Mostly because i don't know the facts of the case and I do not rely on the news (and I use that term, 'news', loosely) outlets for factual information.

Thanks for letting the court system sort this one out Cosmo. I'll tell you the facts...

It's sad and awful that another young man got shot and died.
It's sad and awful that another young man got kicked out of school, got into shit he shouldn't have, and got into the tough guy culture.

It's unfortunate that average citizens need to watch their own neighborhood.

Zimmerman was an active good neighbor trying to protect the very property and well being of Trayvon Martin who was living in the same neighborhood.

Martin acted suspicious by running when he noticed a person looking at him so the neighborhood watch guy called the cops. :( This is the exact point of the whole problem. In a society people acknowledge each other they don't automatically feel threatened.

Zimmerman was acting responsibly; Martin overreacted, assumed Zimmerman was a "creepy ass cracker", and punched him in the nose. And then (according to the eye witness on the stand) "beat him MMA style".

If Martin was truly scared he could have: ran to his Dad, ran and hid, just ran, or called the cops himself. His friend said he stayed on the phone with her.

I think Trayvon Martin was a tough dude who liked to fight because that is what his texts said, his pics showed, and why he was kicked out of school (all facts). Some guys enjoy fighting, it's a young man thing a lot of times.

I mean c'mon....was Zimmerman out hunting young black kids?

Guitar92player

otter wrote:

Cosmo wrote:

I'm going to let the court system sort this one out.
Mostly because i don't know the facts of the case and I do not rely on the news (and I use that term, 'news', loosely) outlets for factual information.

Thanks for letting the court system sort this one out Cosmo. I'll tell you the facts...

It's sad and awful that another young man got shot and died.
It's sad and awful that another young man got kicked out of school, got into shit he shouldn't have, and got into the tough guy culture.

It's unfortunate that average citizens need to watch their own neighborhood.

Zimmerman was an active good neighbor trying to protect the very property and well being of Trayvon Martin who was living in the same neighborhood.

Martin acted suspicious by running when he noticed a person looking at him so the neighborhood watch guy called the cops. :( This is the exact point of the whole problem. In a society people acknowledge each other they don't automatically feel threatened.

Zimmerman was acting responsibly; Martin overreacted, assumed Zimmerman was a "creepy ass cracker", and punched him in the nose. And then (according to the eye witness on the stand) "beat him MMA style".

If Martin was truly scared he could have: ran to his Dad, ran and hid, just ran, or called the cops himself. His friend said he stayed on the phone with her.

I think Trayvon Martin was a tough dude who liked to fight because that is what his texts said, his pics showed, and why he was kicked out of school (all facts). Some guys enjoy fighting, it's a young man thing a lot of times.

I mean c'mon....was Zimmerman out hunting young black kids?

I get what you are saying, but the fact still stands that Zimmerman was ignoring the police and followed the kid, creeped him out, and all that shit went down.

If Zimmerman doesn't get charged with murder, then I understand, but in my opinion he should get charged with something considering that this all would have been avoided if he had listened to the cops.

otter

He was charged with murder. 2nd degree murder....didn't he? He is on trial right now. I believe he has been charged with 2nd degree murder. But he could get manslaughter, which incidentally sounds much more brutal IMO.

PJ_Soul

otter wrote:

I mean c'mon....was Zimmerman out hunting young black kids?

Kinda? He had a skewed view of things I think...

JonnyPistachio

otter wrote:

Zimmerman was acting responsibly; Martin overreacted, assumed Zimmerman was a "creepy ass cracker", and punched him in the nose. And then (according to the eye witness on the stand) "beat him MMA style".

Again I ask, would you have done the same thing as Zimmerman? Drive up to the kid, then after told not to follow, get out of your car in the dark rain, and walk after the kid in the dark, behind houses? Thats what you would've done too?

PJ_Soul wrote:

otter wrote:

I mean c'mon....was Zimmerman out hunting young black kids?

Kinda? He had a skewed view of things I think...

definitely a skewed view. Didnt he make dozens of calls to emergency in a years time, none of which amounted to anything? He's a proven liar too.

But I also agree with Cosmo. Lets the courts iron this one out. There's a good chance he'll walk. If he gets off, the Stand Your Ground law will be under the microscope once again.