Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

CptJake wrote:

Hazardous Harry wrote:

If you were accosted by someone at night who knocked you down then as you called for help started hitting you on the ground in a dark area, would you fear for your life?

On the other hand, if someone had been following you in a dark area for (judging from the map) quite a while, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that they had some sort of criminal intent? Either to mug you or case your place? Is it unreasonable to confront them?

I can only imagine Zimmerman's response when the person he has been chasing turned around and asked him what the hell he was doing.

Read the timeline and look at the maps that have been linked to? Watch the video? It is VERY possible Martin made it to the house he was staying at and went back after Zimmerman. If that is the case (as it appears to be) your 'following in a dark area' theory (and that is all it is because known evidence does not support it) goes out the window.

So let me get this straight, because Martin has gone back to confront Zimmerman for following him, it's his own fault for whatever took place, even if Zimmerman was the one who actually provoked the fight?

I would think that Zimmerman's actions could only be condemned or justified on the basis of whether or not he provoked Martin when he was confronted. There would be only two people that knew exactly what was said before the fight started, and one of them is dead.

Andrew1975 wrote:

On the other hand, if someone had been following you in a dark area for (judging from the map) quite a while, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that they had some sort of criminal intent? Either to mug you or case your place? Is it unreasonable to confront them?

I can only imagine Zimmerman's response when the person he has been chasing turned around and asked him what the hell he was doing.

If someone is following you do you just go and attack them? Or do you maybe threaten them and tell them to go away. Again we don't really know what happened but we have a guy whose history is not of a race hater, but actually a equal opportunity helper, and a kid who in the past had just randomly punched strangers.

Yeah, definitely no bias here.

biccat wrote:Two quick questions for those who are on the side that Zimmerman is guilty:

If it's found that Zimmerman was attacked as he claimed, would you still think Zimmerman is guilty of murder?

Maybe.
For me it all hinges on whether or not Zimmerman's acts constitute aggression. My initial opinion was formed on the infallible barometer of my "gut feeling."
So yes if it appears Z was attacked and acted (legally) in self defense the only thing he will be guilty of is poor judgement.

I also want very much for this prosecutor to HAVE to argue for the duty of retreat that lefty gun haters don't seem to think exists in the SYG law, that it isn't a "free pass" to kill people in the streets, and most of all that it works.

Yeah, definitely no bias here.

Are those facts biased? How?

So let me get this straight, because Martin has gone back to confront Zimmerman for following him, it's his own fault for whatever took place, even if Zimmerman was the one who actually provoked the fight?

How did he provoke the fight? Following someone is not a crime. The only story we have is that Zimmerman followed him and Martin attacked him.

Andrew1975 wrote:

Yeah, definitely no bias here.

Are those facts biased? How?

Martin had a habit of randomly beating up strangers in the street?

That's not what this is about at all, the fact is that Zimmerman did follow Martin. The fact is that Zimmerman shot Martin. What happened in between is what is up for debate, and so far shows support for Zimmerman's side (if only because Martin is dead).

Hazardous Harry wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:

Yeah, definitely no bias here.

Are those facts biased? How?

Martin had a habit of randomly beating up strangers in the street?

He beat up a bus driver for no reason didn't he?

Andrew1975 wrote:

He beat up a bus driver for no reason didn't he?

Well, I'd ask for a link on that. But it still doesn't have much bearing on the case at hand, whether Martin really was a thug doesn't give Zimmerman free man to gun him down at the slightest provocation.

Hazardous Harry wrote:
That's not what this is about at all, the fact is that Zimmerman did follow Martin. The fact is that Zimmerman shot Martin. What happened in between is what is up for debate, and so far shows support for Zimmerman's side (if only because Martin is dead).

Wow, alright, I've just realized that no one can agree on Martin's height or weight, despite the existence of an easily measured corpse.

Good job, media, good job.

AustonT wrote:
It seems very likely that if I was attacked in the dark by an unarmed person, thrown to the ground and called for help that my wife would immediately respond with one or more rounds from her own firearm. Hopefully from a position of at least partial cover and safety and while on the phone with, or calling 911, and without hitting me; but that's asking an awful lot.

Yes, always watch Da Wimminz. They are packing and they are mean!

Well, I'd ask for a link on that. But it still doesn't have much bearing on the case at hand, whether Martin really was a thug doesn't give Zimmerman free man to gun him down at the slightest provocation.

So you think breaking someones nose and bashing their head into the ground is slight provocation? Good to know. I mean killing someone with your hands is so 2000s. That never happens anymore.

Not that any of this deserves a death penalty but on one hand you have:

Trayvon Martin was suspended from school three times in the months before he was shot dead by a neighborhood watchman, it emerged today.
The new claims, revealed in a leaked report, paint a different picture of a teenager who frequently found himself in trouble with authorities.
It was also revealed that he might have attacked a bus driver, according to a Twitter account that it is claimed belonged to the teen.
The Miami Herald claims that in October, he was caught with a 'burglary tool' - a flathead screwdriver - and 12 pieces of women's jewellery. Martin insisted that they did not belong to him.
Earlier, he had been suspended for skipping school and showing up late to class. And most recently, in February, he was suspended again when officials found a 'marijuana pipe' and an empty baggie with traces of the drug.

And on the other hand you have a guy who regularly did charity work in the African American community and was a member of the neighborhood watch.
It looks like he may have had some issues in the past with his ex claiming domestic abuse and resisting arrest though so he's no angel either.

I mean yes it's biased only in the same way as when your chickens are missing do you blame the dog or the fox? The dog could have done it, but most of the time it's the fox and the facts (one sided story and physical evidence) point to the fox.

Good job, media, good job.

As always newsertainmnet fails again!

Frazzled wrote:

AustonT wrote:
It seems very likely that if I was attacked in the dark by an unarmed person, thrown to the ground and called for help that my wife would immediately respond with one or more rounds from her own firearm. Hopefully from a position of at least partial cover and safety and while on the phone with, or calling 911, and without hitting me; but that's asking an awful lot.

Yes, always watch Da Wimminz. They are packing and they are mean!

Mine took a fair amount of coaxing and when the shooting happened last year she was shocked enough to become a regular carrier, since I was refusing to handle handguns. Now its part of her routine and I am glad for it.

Andrew1975 wrote:

Well, I'd ask for a link on that. But it still doesn't have much bearing on the case at hand, whether Martin really was a thug doesn't give Zimmerman free man to gun him down at the slightest provocation.

So you think breaking someones nose and bashing their head into the ground is slight provocation? Good to know. I mean killing someone with your hands is so 2000s. That never happens anymore.

You might be on to something if there was strong evidence that Martin just leapt out of nowhere and started bashing Zimmerman, as opposed to the confrontation ending on one or the other (and it is impossible to definitively say who) provoking them into a fight.

Not that any of this deserves a death penalty but on one hand you have:

Trayvon Martin was suspended from school three times in the months before he was shot dead by a neighborhood watchman, it emerged today.
The new claims, revealed in a leaked report, paint a different picture of a teenager who frequently found himself in trouble with authorities.
It was also revealed that he might have attacked a bus driver, according to a Twitter account that it is claimed belonged to the teen.
The Miami Herald claims that in October, he was caught with a 'burglary tool' - a flathead screwdriver - and 12 pieces of women's jewellery. Martin insisted that they did not belong to him.
Earlier, he had been suspended for skipping school and showing up late to class. And most recently, in February, he was suspended again when officials found a 'marijuana pipe' and an empty baggie with traces of the drug.

And on the other hand you have a guy who regularly did charity work in the African American community and was a member of the neighborhood watch.
It looks like he may have had some issues in the past with his ex claiming domestic abuse and resisting arrest though.

I mean yes it's biased only in the same way as when your chickens are missing do you blame the dog or the fox? The dog could have done it, but most of the time it's the fox and the facts (one sided story and physical evidence) point to the fox.

It is an unhealthy bias when you're talking about killing an young human being. Whatever Martin has done does not give free reign to Zimmerman (or even a presumption that Zimmerman's story is correct). So stop pretending it does.

But it does show a history of violence and a different reality from the poor little boy just out for some Skittles.

SlaveToDorkness wrote:But it does show a history of violence and a different reality from the poor little boy just out for some Skittles.

I'd argue that showing the victim had a history of violence is a matter for the court to take into account. The police accepting Zimmerman's story on it's face value is exactly why there is such outrage in the media at all.

It is an unhealthy bias when you're talking about killing an young human being. Whatever Martin has done does not give free reign to Zimmerman (or even a presumption that Zimmerman's story is correct). So stop pretending it does.

Its actually a fair description of the two. I never said he had free reign to just hawl off and shoot people. The currently supported senerio is that Martin Confronted Zimmerman and initiated the assault. If that turns out to be true than it is Martin's fault that he got shot and Zimmerman had every right to believe his life was in danger and therefore every right to defend himself in any way that he saw fit. Look at my posts I'm saying there should be a full investigation of what happened. You are the one holding Zimmerman over the flames like everyone else that is looking to lynch him regardless of the facts.

I'd argue that showing the victim had a history of violence is a matter for the court to take into account. The police accepting Zimmerman's story on it's face value is exactly why there is such outrage in the media at all.

But they didn't just accept it at face value. They looked at the crime scene (I'll admit rather cavalierly at first), took Zimmerman in ans interrogated him and the story made sense. If anyone should be criticized here it may be the police procedure. However after further investigation, the story still seams to fit.

Ronin-Sage wrote:1) As it stands, I don't see any solid evidence suddenly emerging to sway anyone's beliefs at this point. Now, if evidence *did* exist to support the idea that Zimmerman had little choice but to use lethal force, then obviously I would adjust my position.

2) Is there any evidence that points to Zimmerman being knocked down and basically stomped on, as you seem to describe? As far as I know 'we' don't know how he got on the ground(since we're on the topic on of wrestling, that's something to consider).

That's not really answering the question. If the facts come out as Zimmerman described them, do you think he should be convicted?

Someone has already said you don't get a right to self defense against an unarmed person, I'm just curious where others stand on the issue.

AustonT wrote:For me it all hinges on whether or not Zimmerman's acts constitute aggression. My initial opinion was formed on the infallible barometer of my "gut feeling."
So yes if it appears Z was attacked and acted (legally) in self defense the only thing he will be guilty of is poor judgement.

But if the facts are as they appear to be, do you think Zimmerman's acts constitute aggression? Do you think he acted lawfully?

If you were on a jury, and Zimmerman's case were substantiated, would you vote to convict?

AustonT wrote:Biccat since you're here:
How the hell did the charges get form this...to 2nd degree murder?

There's at least a colorable argument that 2nd degree murder will stick (it passes the laugh test), so the Prosecutor is charging as much as she can. If she charged manslaughter, it changes the plea situation.

I suspect the prosecutor is bluffing to prevent this from going to trial. Especially given some of the opinions I've heard from some former prosecutors. The indictment is not just bad, it's really bad.

Andrew1975 wrote:

It is an unhealthy bias when you're talking about killing an young human being. Whatever Martin has done does not give free reign to Zimmerman (or even a presumption that Zimmerman's story is correct). So stop pretending it does.

Its actually a fair description of the two. I never said he had free reign to just hawl off and shoot people. The currently supported senerio is that Martin Confronted Zimmerman and initiated the assault. If that turns out to be true than it is Martin's fault that he got shot. Look at my posts I'm saying there should be a full investigation of what happened. You are the one holding Zimmerman over the flames like everyone else that is looking to lynch him regardless of the facts.

Funny.

Hazardous Harry wrote:
I would think that Zimmerman's actions could only be condemned or justified on the basis of whether or not he provoked Martin when he was confronted. There would be only two people that knew exactly what was said before the fight started, and one of them is dead.

whether or not he provoked Martin when he was confronted.

Yes but like many people on this thread you might see following Martin as legitimate provocation.....which it isn't. So what are you talking about? There is no defense if Martin was the first one to make physical contact no matter what Zimmerman did.

Again it is completely possible and even smart that if Zimmerman shot Martin illegally that Zimmerman would then bust his own nose, bash his own skull into the ground and rub his jeans in the grass. It's completely possible possibly even likely. But the investigation does not seam to point that way.

Andrew1975 wrote:There is no defense if Martin was the first one to make physical contact no matter what Zimmerman did.

Sure there is, not being able to see it doesn't mean it isn't there.

dogma wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:There is no defense if Martin was the first one to make physical contact no matter what Zimmerman did.

Sure there is, not being able to see it doesn't mean it isn't there.

Legally there is no excuse for assault except castle, no? People are basically allowed to provoke you all they want. Which again doesn't seam the case here anyway, none of the neighbors reported a shouting match or anything. Just Zimmerman screaming for help.

Of course if Zimmerman pulled first, I could see attacking him out of self defense, again though not the story and I doubt provable either way.

biccat wrote:

AustonT wrote:For me it all hinges on whether or not Zimmerman's acts constitute aggression. My initial opinion was formed on the infallible barometer of my "gut feeling."
So yes if it appears Z was attacked and acted (legally) in self defense the only thing he will be guilty of is poor judgement.

But if the facts are as they appear to be, do you think Zimmerman's acts constitute aggression? Do you think he acted lawfully?

If you were on a jury, and Zimmerman's case were substantiated, would you vote to convict?

1. I do.
2. Maybe. The more that comes out the more I think: Yes.
3. At this point with the information on hand: No. Beyond a reasonable doubt is a high hurdle, as it should be.

DIDM wrote:

well thank god you have nothing to do with the legal system then

self defense never involves killing someone who is unarmed. What ever happened to winging someone? Shoot to injure not kill. Bloody hell, don't fething shoot at all

Has there ever been a marksmanship course, self defense school, or anything of the sort that taught people to shoot to injure with a firearm? I've never heard of anything of the sort, but I won't immediately dismiss the idea as being impossible.

Bromsy wrote:

DIDM wrote:

well thank god you have nothing to do with the legal system then

self defense never involves killing someone who is unarmed. What ever happened to winging someone? Shoot to injure not kill. Bloody hell, don't fething shoot at all

Has there ever been a marksmanship course, self defense school, or anything of the sort that taught people to shoot to injure with a firearm? I've never heard of anything of the sort, but I won't immediately dismiss the idea as being impossible.

Such a thing is about as real as a low powered rifle.

I suppose I should say that one of those is real, just not in the media.

Bromsy wrote:

DIDM wrote:

well thank god you have nothing to do with the legal system then

self defense never involves killing someone who is unarmed. What ever happened to winging someone? Shoot to injure not kill. Bloody hell, don't fething shoot at all

Has there ever been a marksmanship course, self defense school, or anything of the sort that taught people to shoot to injure with a firearm? I've never heard of anything of the sort, but I won't immediately dismiss the idea as being impossible.

Shoot to 'stop the threat' is always how I've heard the normal approach described.

Andrew1975 wrote:

whether or not he provoked Martin when he was confronted.

Yes but like many people on this thread you might see following Martin as legitimate provocation.....which it isn't.

I'd say having someone follow you is enough reason to confront them, though not outright assault them.

So what are you talking about? There is no defense if Martin was the first one to make physical contact no matter what Zimmerman did.

Not at all, if Zimmerman wilfully provoked Martin into throwing the first punch (and there are countless ways in which that can be done).

If, for example, someone was to directly say to your face something decidedly unpleasant about your mother, you taking a swing at him could very well be justified (in certain circumstances). They certainly wouldn't be entitled to draw a gun and shoot you in response, unless you were acting in a manner that indicated you weren't going to stop until they were dead.

Again it is completely possible and even smart that if Zimmerman shot Martin illegally that Zimmerman would then bust his own nose, bash his own skull into the ground and rub his jeans in the grass. It's completely possible possibly even likely. But the investigation does not seam to point that way.

I would say that Zimmerman breaking his own nose and hitting his head against the concrete is extremely unlikely. Just because Martin was an active participant in the scuffle doesn't mean he is the one that provoked it.

I would say that Zimmerman breaking his own nose and hitting his head against the concrete is extremely unlikely. Just because Martin was an active participant in the scuffle doesn't mean he is the one that provoked it.

But the guy is obviously a criminal mastermind, I mean who else calls 911 before they provoke a fight so they can shoot someone! Wile E Coyote, Super genius that's who.

Andrew1975 wrote:

I would say that Zimmerman breaking his own nose and hitting his head against the concrete is extremely unlikely. Just because Martin was an active participant in the scuffle doesn't mean he is the one that provoked it.

But the guy is obviously a criminal mastermind, I mean who else calls 911 before they provoke a fight so they can shoot someone!

Are you going to answer the rest of my post?

Zimmerman wouldn't have had to have planned this out to make him liable. He could have pushed Martin when confronted, instigating the fight, and then his use of lethal force later on would be completely unjustified regardless of any calls made to the police beforehand.

Hazardous Harry wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:

I would say that Zimmerman breaking his own nose and hitting his head against the concrete is extremely unlikely. Just because Martin was an active participant in the scuffle doesn't mean he is the one that provoked it.

But the guy is obviously a criminal mastermind, I mean who else calls 911 before they provoke a fight so they can shoot someone!

Are you going to answer the rest of my post?

Zimmerman wouldn't have had to have planned this out to make him liable. He could have pushed Martin when confronted, instigating the fight, and then his use of lethal force later on would be completely unjustified regardless of any calls made to the police beforehand.

Right but I'm saying that is just as likely as him covering up an illegal shot by breaking his own nose. What is his motive to force a confrontation? The guy is playing at being a superhero, I just don't see him forcing the confrontation. Again his past shows his character, and that is of a dogooder. I mean the guy probably saw himself as The Tick!

Andrew1975 wrote:

Right but I'm saying that is just as likely as him covering up an illegal shot by breaking his own nose.

You're saying that it's just as likely that he may have provoked the confrontation as covering up shooting him in cold blood? I must be misreading your argument, because you can't be positing something so ridiculous.

What is his motive to force a confrontation? The guy is playing at being a superhero, I just don't see him forcing the confrontation. Again his past shows his character, and that is of a dogooder. I mean the guy probably saw himself as The Tick!

And odds are he had the view that Martin was some scumbag casing a place out. If he was confronted by Martin, it's very possible that he was the one who lost his temper first, then took it too far.

Z's past has also shown him to be suspicious of dark skinned individuals and suspecting them of crimes.

d-usa wrote:Z's past has also shown him to be suspicious of dark skinned individuals and suspecting them of crimes.

Where are you getting that. He has a history of being suspicious of, well, suspicious people. I have seen he has made like 40 calls to the police and something like 11 of them were about dark skinned individuals. That's hardly a high average or out of proportion. In fact that means 75% of the time he was calling about people that were not dark skinned.

You're saying that it's just as likely that he may have provoked the confrontation as covering up shooting him in cold blood? I must be misreading your argument, because you can't be positing something so ridiculous.

That's exactly what I am saying. Its rather unlikely that he did either of the two. I find it more likely that he would panic before a real confrontation and shoot Martin and then cover it up, than sit their and bait the guy into a confrontation. Makes more sense to me. They are both more unlikely than what he described had happened.

The most likely way I see Zimmerman being at fault is if he pulled out his gun first basically forcing Martin to be defensive. Which is possible, but not what the investigation has shown.