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.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Do you wear it late at night at a time when no one should be walking the street?

To be fair, I must have forgotten about the legally enforced curfew and that they roll up the streets at 9pm sharp.

Typically, In a suburban neighborhood you do not want to walk the street late at night. I know its like that around here, if you are out and about past 11 or so you can get the cops called on you.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I know its like that around here, if you are out and about past 11 or so you can get the cops called on you.

Or just plain shot, which you would find to be completely understandable.

Listen, I'm not calling you a clown, but you're making a clown argument. You have found yourself in a hole. You should stop digging.

Maybe I am.
Im getting my ladder and going.

I guess so. I've taken midnight walks back when I lived in suburbia (probably in dark clothing as well) and I was unharassed, but to each their own.

Honestly, I'd probably have been utterly blown away if the the cops DID show up. I genuinely don't consider it suspicious, and can think of many valid reasons to be awake at that time of the night.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Well that change is a bit, but fromm what i understand it was late at night, at an hour when no one should be walking around.

Land of the Free.

Opening hours 9;00-17;30, 9:00 - 12;30 on Wednesdays.



.. A quick bit of googling/wikipedia suggests the shooting took place at 19;09 (EST).

That doesn't strike me as being terribly late, although for all I know it might get dark real early over there and you're all tucked up in bed by 18;30, which explains why there's no late night entertainment whatsoever in the USA.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Do you wear it late at night at a time when no one should be walking the street?

At the ripe old hour of 7? Frequently.

Zimmerman was a self-appointed watchdog in a gated community. You may not agree that is a necessary thing to do, but its what was being done and really isn't relevant to the case.

Now Trayvon was a stranger to the area. If a stranger is seen walking around late at night in a gated community, especially wearing what he was, I would be suspicious.



We may never know exactly what happened in the confrontation, but its clear that Trayvon and Zimmerman fought.

The evidence doesn't show that Zimmerman confronted Trayvon and gunned him down in cold blood.


My guess is that Zimmerman confronted Trayvon, who responded in a hostile manner and probably threatened him. Which prompted the call to the police.

Then the scuffle happened, in which Zimmerman got beaten pretty badly and shot Trayvon as defense.


We should also keep in mind the photos of Trayvon getting shown on the media were taken several years before this incident, so he looks like some innocent little teenager. Not a big tough guy.

And frankly race is the only thing thats keeping this case in the media, its disgusting. If Trayvon had been a white guy the media would have been on Zimmermans side, after all then he would be the minority.

The evidence doesn't show that Zimmerman confronted Trayvon and gunned him down in cold blood.

Evidence be damned! I think GZ confronted TM with every intention of starting a fight to justify shooting him to bring fulfillment to his hero complex.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Then the scuffle happened, in which Zimmerman got beaten pretty badly and shot Trayvon as defense.

Zimmerman was not "beaten pretty badly", a broken nose and a few lacerations on the back of his head are not indicative of malice on the part of the assailant.

 dogma wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

Then the scuffle happened, in which Zimmerman got beaten pretty badly and shot Trayvon as defense.

Zimmerman was not "beaten pretty badly", a broken nose and a few lacerations on the back of his head are not indicative of malice on the part of the assailant.

Hmm, well I think it depends on the ferocity of the attacker. What do you do, wait until you're knocked unconscious to start fighting back?

Lacerations to the back of the head are serious wounds, you can easily get killed by blows to that area.

 dogma wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

Then the scuffle happened, in which Zimmerman got beaten pretty badly and shot Trayvon as defense.

Zimmerman was not "beaten pretty badly", a broken nose and a few lacerations on the back of his head are not indicative of malice on the part of the assailant.

Those cuts on the back of his dome are his tickets to freedom.

The wounds we see could easily be caused by a single punch. I am also worried that 7pm is late at night. I know Florida is full of old people, but still...

 dogma wrote:
Zimmerman was not "beaten pretty badly", a broken nose and a few lacerations on the back of his head are not indicative of malice on the part of the assailant.

I dunno, as a lay person I'd consider a broken nose to be in the "fairly good ass beating" territory.. Do they stop boxing matches if someone breaks a nose? Honest question, I have no idea.

 Ouze wrote:

I dunno, as a lay person I'd consider a broken nose to be in the "fairly good ass beating" territory.. Do they stop boxing matches if someone breaks a nose? Honest question, I have no idea.

No idea, but I once swallowed lots of blood in order to win a wrestling match in the wake of a broken nose.

I would assume "No." as this guy:



has a face.

My opinion:

This is in the media due to race. The media intentionally misled the local and national population by misrepresenting the age and build of Travon as well as the way they reported the 911 call.

The picture combined with the photos and reports of the lacerations on the back of his head means he'll walk.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Now Trayvon was a stranger to the area. If a stranger is seen walking around late at night in a gated community, especially wearing what he was, I would be suspicious.

And the solution to that suspicion is to call the police, not to go provoke a confrontation. Unless there was something beyond "looking suspicious" to give credible evidence that a crime was about to occur, Zimmerman was not justified in doing anything. The fact that he appointed himself the neighborhood vigilante doesn't change this one bit.

My guess is that Zimmerman confronted Trayvon, who responded in a hostile manner and probably threatened him. Which prompted the call to the police.

Why do we assume that Zimmerman is innocent? IMO, given his behavior before the fight, it's more likely that he approached the "suspicious" stranger already convinced that he was up to something and needed to be stopped, and stopped him in a confrontational manner. Rude words were probably exchanged (would you be polite to someone who stopped you out of nowhere and demanded to know what you were doing?), and maybe Zimmerman grabbed him to prevent him from walking away, Martin threw a punch in response, and the whole thing escalated from there.

I don't know about you, but I think that's a lot more plausible than a situation where Zimmerman is just an innocent victim who was attacked for no reason.

Then the scuffle happened, in which Zimmerman got beaten pretty badly and shot Trayvon as defense.

It isn't self defense if you're the one who started the fight in the first place.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
For all the arguments about who started the confrontation, I can't help but think that Zimmerman was the one creeping about in the dark with a loaded gun. That's a man looking for trouble IMO. The court will have the full facts on which to make a decision though.

Or alternatively he was just the nighborhood watch guy, and has the absolute right to CC in Florida, which probably saved his live.

From what I recall he wasn't with any official neighbourhood watch scheme, he was doing it on his own with a gun. Out of interest, where do you draw the line before its just vigilantism?

First of all, we don't know what happened.

Zimmerman will have is day in court.

My gut reaction is that Zimmerman was all "neighborhood watch mode" and aggressively pursued Trayvon. And Trayvon reacted aggressively to Zimmerman. An unfortunate brawl ensued that unfortunately took Trayvon's life.

A Fubar situation all over.. but, that's "my gut" talking...

So.. let's all calm down and have some pie!

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
For all the arguments about who started the confrontation, I can't help but think that Zimmerman was the one creeping about in the dark with a loaded gun. That's a man looking for trouble IMO. The court will have the full facts on which to make a decision though.

Or alternatively he was just the nighborhood watch guy, and has the absolute right to CC in Florida, which probably saved his live.

From what I recall he wasn't with any official neighbourhood watch scheme, he was doing it on his own with a gun. Out of interest, where do you draw the line before its just vigilantism?

Wikipedia has this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin
"In September 2011, the Twin Lakes residents held an organizational meeting to create a neighborhood watch program. Zimmerman was selected by neighbors as the program's coordinator, according to Wendy Dorival, Neighborhood Watch organizer for the Sanford Police Department.[5][92] Zimmerman "once caught a thief and an arrest was made...He helped solve a lot of crimes," said Cynthia Wibker, secretary of the homeowners association."

 whembly wrote:
First of all, we don't know what happened.

Zimmerman will have is day in court.

My gut reaction is that Zimmerman was all "neighborhood watch mode" and aggressively pursued Trayvon. And Trayvon reacted aggressively to Zimmerman. An unfortunate brawl ensued that unfortunately took Trayvon's life.

A Fubar situation all over.. but, that's "my gut" talking...

So.. let's all calm down and have some pie!

A very sensible gut feeling that very few seem to share sadly

 Lt. Coldfire wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
For all the arguments about who started the confrontation, I can't help but think that Zimmerman was the one creeping about in the dark with a loaded gun. That's a man looking for trouble IMO. The court will have the full facts on which to make a decision though.

Or alternatively he was just the nighborhood watch guy, and has the absolute right to CC in Florida, which probably saved his live.

From what I recall he wasn't with any official neighbourhood watch scheme, he was doing it on his own with a gun. Out of interest, where do you draw the line before its just vigilantism?

Wikipedia has this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin
"In September 2011, the Twin Lakes residents held an organizational meeting to create a neighborhood watch program. Zimmerman was selected by neighbors as the program's coordinator, according to Wendy Dorival, Neighborhood Watch organizer for the Sanford Police Department.[5][92] Zimmerman "once caught a thief and an arrest was made...He helped solve a lot of crimes," said Cynthia Wibker, secretary of the homeowners association."

http://thegrio.com/2012/03/21/zimmerman-not-a-member-of-recognized-neighborhood-watch-organization/

Seems disagreement on this point, you can understand the confusion here as to how legitimate his neighbourhood watch status is.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
http://thegrio.com/2012/03/21/zimmerman-not-a-member-of-recognized-neighborhood-watch-organization/

Seems disagreement on this point, you can understand the confusion here as to how legitimate his neighbourhood watch status is.

We can article point all day. There's plenty that say he was part of one and plenty that say he wasn't part of one. I just linked that article as it seemed you had already made your decision. I say wait for the facts.

Even if it was a legit neighborhood watch, and he was a legit member, I can imagine that they might be trying to paint him away as not being a member. So statements for either position are going to be easy to find I would think.

Prosecution going to crucify him and make him Juda. Defense going to make him a golden child.

He's gonna plead out and nobody on either side is going to have any fun on here

 Peregrine wrote:


Why do we assume that Zimmerman is innocent?

"Innocent until proven guilty" perhaps?

Its kinda the main deal of our modern legal system.

It could just as likely have been as Whembly described.


Why are you automatically assuming he's guilty? Especially when the physical evidence is quite strong for the opposite.

He's not going to go to jail, but thanks to the Media he's pretty much had his life ruined because he was doing what he thought was right.

 d-usa wrote:
He's gonna plead out and nobody on either side is going to have any fun on here

I doubt that very much.

 Grey Templar wrote:
"Innocent until proven guilty" perhaps?

Not when you're pleading self defense.