Yeah, different experiences. I would never expect my child, no matter the age to try and take care of violent people themselves. Violence is necessary when there is no other choice, but violence should never be used because someone feels like running and getting help makes them less of a "man".
Your assumption that they need to "take care of them," as opposed to escaping them, is a little disturbing to me. Avoiding violence altogether, rather than simply passing the buck onto the parent, would be far preferrable, in my mind.
Yeah, different experiences. I would never expect my child, no matter the age to try and take care of violent people themselves. Violence is necessary when there is no other choice, but violence should never be used because someone feels like running and getting help makes them less of a "man".Your assumption that they need to "take care of them," as opposed to escaping them, is a little disturbing to me. Avoiding violence altogether, rather than simply passing the buck onto the parent, would be far preferrable, in my mind.
I guess I was confused about what you were talking about then. It seemed to me that you were implying a situation where avoidance was not really possible. Of course, avoiding violent confrontation is almost always the best bet.
And what crime was Martin involved in that required Zimmerman to chase him down and confront him?
He was breaking the imaginary curfew AND wearing a hoodie -- obviously he was up to no good. Possession of skittles doesn't look too good, either. Of course, we are all assured that it had nothing at all to do with Martin being (a) a teenager and/or (b) an African American, or with (c) Zimmerman being something of a paranoid delusional.
I have been in this situation when i was in my teens many times. Every time my response was to book and as fast as possible. The last thing i would have ever done is confront a random wierdo on the street. I kid you not this situation came up alot.
Also, from the diagrams i saw, Martin certainly wasn't backed into a corner. It was open space in either direction. So unless he used a Matrix move, i seriously doubt Martin was cornered at any point.
I heard from the initial press conference that there wasn't enough evidence to file charges. And if they wanted to charge him with negligent homicide, why on earth would the go overboard and obviously overcharge to second degree murder?
Bottom line in my opinion, there is no way Zimmerman had produced a weapon and pointed it at Martin, then all of the sudden Martin decides to jump the guy with a gun. Thats ridiculous. Martin ATTACKED Zimmerman for whatever reason. Maybe he was confronted, maybe he wasn't. if someone runs or walks up to you and wants to know what you are up to is your first response to try and beat that person up?
The witnesses changing their stories after their initial interviews are almost guaranteed to make everybodies opinion moot. Zimmerman will most likely be aquitted.Unless the people fear a repeat of the 92 L.A. riots. I got to experience that first hand.
I think they overcharged so that it gives the jury options.
Or plea bargaining.
Still, there is evidence that Martin tried to get escape Zimmerman at least once, possibly more than once. I would be on Zimmerman's side if there wasn't so much ground covered by both Zimmerman AND martin. There was some type of pursuit or attempt to escape that may be outlined later in the trial.
Regarding la 92, I wasn't there, and I don't think many people want to see that again.
I have been in this situation when i was in my teens many times. Every time my response was to book and as fast as possible. The last thing i would have ever done is confront a random wierdo on the street. I kid you not this situation came up alot.
Also, from the diagrams i saw, Martin certainly wasn't backed into a corner. It was open space in either direction. So unless he used a Matrix move, i seriously doubt Martin was cornered at any point.
I heard from the initial press conference that there wasn't enough evidence to file charges. And if they wanted to charge him with negligent homicide, why on earth would the go overboard and obviously overcharge to second degree murder?
Bottom line in my opinion, there is no way Zimmerman had produced a weapon and pointed it at Martin, then all of the sudden Martin decides to jump the guy with a gun. Thats ridiculous. Martin ATTACKED Zimmerman for whatever reason. Maybe he was confronted, maybe he wasn't. if someone runs or walks up to you and wants to know what you are up to is your first response to try and beat that person up?
The witnesses changing their stories after their initial interviews are almost guaranteed to make everybodies opinion moot. Zimmerman will most likely be aquitted.Unless the people fear a repeat of the 92 L.A. riots. I got to experience that first hand.
XxAnthraxusxX
Please explain to me what exactly you think happened and how it puts Zimmerman in the right.
Please explain to me what exactly you think happened and how it puts Zimmerman in the right.
Well before stories were changed,witnesses placed Martin on top of Zimmerman pounding his face in. Sounds like a good reason to shoot to me. Nothing anybody can say will convince me that Martin couldn't have possibly escaped from Zimmerman, if he was even accosted by him... It was self defense in my opinion.
Assault and battery=crime
Asking someone what they are up to=not crime
Following someone and observing their activities in public= also not crime
When you attack someone and get the upper hand, if that person happens to be armed expect to get force applied to you. If Martin was so worried about GZ why didn't he call police himself? Because criminals don't call the police.
I'd say he answered that pretty clearly. I don't necessarily agree with his interpretations, but I can't say he didn't break down, step by step, what passes for his reasoning.
You still haven't answered the question. Which of the following was a crime:
Walking home?
Running from a creepy guy following him?
Asking said creepy guy why he's following you?According to Martin's girlfriend, he was complaining about being tired and that he thought he had lost Zimmerman. And then Zimmerman appeared.
I've also been in the same boat. Sometimes running away worked. Sometimes it didn't.
I think they overcharged so that it gives the jury options.
I believe his claim that he believed Martin was the only criminal comes from his belief that Martin physically attacked Zimmerman first. Basically doing assault (illegal attack) against Zimmerman, while Zimmerman wasn't doing anything illegal initially. Of course I could be wrong and that is not what he meant when he said that.
EDIT: Or just read above.
Attacking the guy thats followed you for four blocks (see map) and run after you (see 911 call) down an alley(see map) is LEGAL in florida. That sort of behavior is the very definition of creating a reasonable belief that someone intends to harm you.
XxAnthraxusxX
Please explain to me what exactly you think happened and how it puts Zimmerman in the right.
I don't want to come off as too snide, but I'd really rather he didn't. There's only so much my poor stomach can take.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm gonna let the trial play out, see what else comes up.
Please explain to me what exactly you think happened and how it puts Zimmerman in the right.Well before stories were changed,witnesses placed Martin on top of Zimmerman pounding his face in. Sounds like a good reason to shoot to me. Nothing anybody can say will convince me that Martin couldn't have possibly escaped from Zimmerman, if he was even accosted by him... It was self defense in my opinion.
Assault and battery=crime
Asking someone what they are up to=not crime
Following someone and observing their activities in public= also not crime
When you attack someone and get the upper hand, if that person happens to be armed expect to get force applied to you. If Martin was so worried about GZ why didn't he call police himself? Because criminals don't call the police.I'd say he answered that pretty clearly. I don't necessarily agree with his interpretations, but I can't say he didn't break down, step by step, what passes for his reasoning.
Still doesn't fly. If anything, Zimmerman was the criminal by stalking Martin as defined by Florida law.
Fla. Stat. § 784.048. Stalking; definitions; penalties. (2008)
(1) As used in this section, the term:
(a)"Harass" means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress in such person and serves no legitimate purpose.
(b)"Course of conduct" means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of "course of conduct." Such constitutionally protected activity includes picketing or other organized protests.
(c)"Credible threat" means a threat made with the intent to cause the person who is the target of the threat to reasonably fear for his or her safety. The threat must be against the life of, or a threat to cause bodily injury to, a person....
But that is just the definition for the terms used in the statute. The actual crime in question is:
(2) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
(3) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person, and makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury of the person, or the person’s child, sibling, spouse, parent, or dependent, commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
Since it was not "repeatedly" he wasn't stalking him.
But if I'm alone, getting attacked by someone I don't know, whose intentions I don't know, I am not going to let him render me helpless if there's anything I can do about it. It's fairly hard to kill some in a fight, but it's easy to kill someone who's unconscious or otherwise not able to resist. Especially if I've got a gun he can use.
If, as Zimmerman claims, he was pinned down screaming and Martin wasn't stopping, then he had reason to fear for his life and that part of the self-defense claim is valid.If you start the fight you cannot claim self defense.
776.041 Use of force by aggressor. —The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.Once you're on top of someone in a fistfight you kind of have a tiger by the tail. There's no way to really disengage without leaving yourself open.
Zimmerman ran after someone that was just minding their own business. Of course they're going to beat the snot out of you if you catch them.
People do not just throw a switch from "Oh my god he's going to kill me" to "i think I've beaten him enough I can stop now" especially when they're taken by surprise.
This is a pretty standard self defense law modeled on the Model Penal Code, and reflective of the way self defense has worked for a long time in most states. You can't start a fist fight, lose the fist fight, then claim you were assaulted. Unless, of course, you gave up, clearly communicated it, and the person you assaulted starts up again.
However, if you start a fist fight, and they escalate it to the point where you reasonably fear for your life, you are back to self defense, so long as if you have the opportunity you retreat first. That's an exception to the stand your ground law. You don't get to stand your ground if you started the fight to begin with.
It is really going to come down to how the jury sees Zimmerman's actions, who they believed started it, and if Zimmerman reasonably thought he was in imminent danger of serious bodily injury or death.
Just keep in mind no one is going to hear everything until the trial. Both sides have a vested interest in not trumpeting their trial strategy.
You can't retreat if you are pinned to the ground being beaten in the face. I honestly don't know what happened prior to that, but eyewitnesses place Martin on top of Zimmerman doing just that. Regardless of what transpired Martin is obviously the one who escalated the violence wether he intitiated it or not.
The media coverage of this whole event has been sensationalist, shameful and honestly, unethical at every turn. Wait until some crowd of thugs puts some "Justice for Trayvon" upside your face and we will see if you do the same song and dance.
Truth be told, i don't have a horse in this race,really. They could execute Zimmerman at dawn tommorow and it wouldn't bother me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Regardless of what transpired Martin is obviously the one who escalated the violence wether he intitiated it or not.
Paranoid gun nut with a hero complex. Sees someone "suspicious" (read: black). Gets his gun, gets in his truck and follows him. Calls the cops. Cops say no need to follow him. The "suspect" sees him and tries to evade. Gun nut gets out of car and pursues on foot. "Suspect" evades again. Finally, gun nut corners his quarry, who *gasp* fights back.
I'm sorry, I'm always *ALWAYS* going to side against the guy who brought a gun to a fistfight.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can't retreat if you are pinned to the ground being beaten in the face. I honestly don't know what happened prior to that, but eyewitnesses place Martin on top of Zimmerman doing just that. Regardless of what transpired Martin is obviously the one who escalated the violence wether he intitiated it or not.
Bull.
How on earth is it obvious that Martin is the one that escalated the violence just because he's winning the fist fight? Zimmerman followed a guy in his car. He followed him on foot. You think he's NOT going to try to finish off his citizens arrest by grabbing Martin? I don't suppose that Martin gets the right to punch Zimmerman then either?
How the hell do you give the right to shoot someone to one guy, the obvious instigator of the whole mess, but not the right to throw a punch to the other who was an innocent victim? How does the person who was actually acting like a criminal get the right to shoot the one that was not? What on earth are you thinking?
Step by step. Walk me through what you think happened.
xxanthrusxx
Would you have no problem if it was the other way around and Zimmerman was on top beating the crap out of Martin before he got shot? Because that's what other eyewitnesses said, ones that may not be heard from in this trial.
The aggressor during the ENTIRE encounter was Zimmerman.He hit Martin's fists with the back of his head. If that doesn't say 'aggressor', then the media doesn't know what does.
That Zimmerman sucks at Fisticuffs is not evidence that Martin started the Fisticuffs.
That Zimmerman sucks at Fisticuffs is not evidence that Martin started the Fisticuffs.The aggressor during the ENTIRE encounter was Zimmerman.He hit Martin's fists with the back of his head. If that doesn't say 'aggressor', then the media doesn't know what does.
Also, if you get into a fist fight with someone and then kill them, you might be guilty of manslaughter at the very least. SYG is Florida state law, but that doesn't make "he started it," a justification for murder.
I'm gonna disagree with you. I know, you're going to argue that part about repeatedly. But here's the thing, Martin believed he had gotten away. According to his girlfriend, he says as much and then turns around and sees Zimmerman coming towards him. It can be construed as three seperate incidents. The first being Zimmerman following in his truck. Then Zimmerman getting out and chasing Martin on foot. The third and final time was when Martin got away and Zimmerman continued to look for him. Sorry, but that fits the bill when it comes to stalking.
I'm not going to argue with you a lot. :-) The key phrase that supports your arguement is "however short." I think your arguement has validity. I think There's probably case law that defines that phrase and what makes a submissible case. If I get bored I'll do some research over the weekend.
"what is the minimal evidence you would accept to prove that Zimmerman was the victim here and
Perhaps a gunshot wound to the chest?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We don't know that Zimmerman chased Martin after he hung up on the 911 call.
Is this bill clintons definition of know or something?
Zimmermans car is 4 blocks away from where he admits he went, and the body was found. Are we supposed to believe that Zimmerman went in a random direction and it just happened to be the same direction that martin went in?
We don't know who started the fight, but we do know that the forensic evidence we have includes bruises on Martin's fists and defensive wounds on Zimmerman, but no bruises on Zimmerman's fists - no evidence that Zimmerman made any aggressive moves against Martin.
Grabbing doesn't bruise your fists. Either does punching badly.
That raises the question, "what is the minimal evidence you would accept to prove that Zimmerman was the victim here and Martin was the aggressor who picked a fight with the wrong guy?"
I'd need something from before the 9 11 call, because as soon as you start following someone and come after them down an ally you're giving them every reason to believe you intend to harm them.
"what is the minimal evidence you would accept to prove that Zimmerman was the victim here andPerhaps a gunshot wound to the chest?Okay, so you do not believe that anyone engaged in self defense in any situation should ever end up shooting the attacker in the chest.
I don't agree with your position, but I respect it. I acknowledge that some people feel that way about guns (ie. it is preferable for a person to be an assault victim than to defend themself with a gun).
I think you may be putting words in his mouth here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, so you do not believe that anyone engaged in self defense in any situation should ever end up shooting the attacker in the chest.I don't agree with your position, but I respect it. I acknowledge that some people feel that way about guns (ie. it is preferable for a person to be an assault victim than to defend themself with a gun).
No. If (for some reason I cannot fathom) you're carried a concealed, or even plainly, weapon and are jumped on the street and you fear for your life? You should still attempt to not kill.
But that's not what we're talking about here. The "victim" was the person stalking a 17 year old boy who was armed with a bag of skittles and a hoodie. In order for it to be self defense there had to have been nothing Zimmerman did to either provoke or prevent the incident. He could have, ya know, not stalked a freaking teenager with a gun at night. That's the behavior of a predator, not of prey.
@LT-Let me ask you. What if the incident were changed by the lack of a gun. Some guy is stalking a teenager and, after attempting to flee multiple times, the teenager attacks someone he sees as an aggressor. During the fight he beats his aggressor into the pavement so brutally that his head cracks and he dies.
Is this justified? Why not? If, as long as you feel legitimately threatened, you're allowed to kill someone threatening you, how would that not be self defense for Trayvon? How can an incident be two men who are BOTH legitimately claiming self-defense?
Which law do you base that on? Stand your Ground doesn't say that.
No. The reason it's called Stand Your Ground is that, when confronted by an aggressor, you don't have to be reasonable and try to evade. You can just fight. Which means Trayvon was justified in his actions.
Source please. I just Googled for this, but couldn't find anything.
You can also hear him breathing heavily as he hangs up the phone, so either he's running or he gets out of breath while talking.
Grabbing to the extent required to justify getting your head repeatedly slammed into the sidewalk does, however, leave forensic evidence - tears in the clothing of the person being grabbed, for example.
ANY level of touching after what zimmerman was doing would justify getting his head slammed into the sidewalk because he's acting like a creepy abductor.
Which law do you base that on? Stand your Ground doesn't say that.
Yes. It does. Martin is not required to retreat if he reasonably believes that someone is threatening him or intends to do him harm. Zimmerman's behavior in following martin lets martin come to the reasonable conclusion that martin is trying to rob him or abduct him.
The absolute best case scenario for Zimmerman would be that Martin stepped behind a bush somewhere and then popped out and started beating Zimmerman: that would actually be a LEGAL tactic in Florida.
I have been grabbed in fights in dozens of occasions and my clothes have never torn.
Zimmermans car is 4 blocks away from where he admits he went, and the body was found. Are we supposed to believe that Zimmerman went in a random direction and it just happened to be the same direction that martin went in?Source please. I just Googled for this, but couldn't find anything.
Grabbing doesn't bruise your fists. Either does punching badly.Grabbing to the extent required to justify getting your head repeatedly slammed into the sidewalk does, however, leave forensic evidence - tears in the clothing of the person being grabbed, for example.
Which law do you base that on? Stand your Ground doesn't say that.
as soon as you start following someone and come after them down an ally you're giving them every reason to believe you intend to harm them.
Well said and + 1. There's a lot of things in Zimmermans version of events that don't add up to where the body was found, unless the confrontation was a wire-fu one.
We don't know that Zimmerman chased Martin after he hung up on the 911 call.We don't know who started the fight, but we do know that the forensic evidence we have includes bruises on Martin's fists and defensive wounds on Zimmerman, but no bruises on Zimmerman's fists - no evidence that Zimmerman made any aggressive moves against Martin. That raises the question, "what is the minimal evidence you would accept to prove that Zimmerman was the victim here and Martin was the aggressor who picked a fight with the wrong guy?"
Honestly, given the tenor of the 911 call, the fact that Zimmerman should never have left his car and chased Martin and the fact that Martin is the one who was shot and killed, I don't think there's anything that would convince me that Zimmerman was the victim.
It's possible that it was legally self defense, but that's different than saying Zimmerman was the victim.As far as chasing goes: I reiterate that if Zimmerman had followed neighborhood watch protocol and not chased at all, he wouldn't have been threatened and Martin wouldn't have been dead.
Beyond that, he did only run after Martin briefly during the call as judged by the heavy breathing. He claimed to have lost Martin at that point. The only thing that is clear about what happened after that is that he did not return to and stay at his vehicle. That he wouldn't tell the dispatcher where he'd be, makes me suspect he didn't intend to. He had plenty of time, during the call and immediately after, to retrace his steps, but somehow he wound up well down the path between the rows of houses. It's very hard for me to see how he got there, unless he was still following or looking for Martin.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My answer is "no". Nor should it. Because a society where escalation of force is legal is not a society which can be maintained over the long term.
.....?!? so how does that work for zimmerman?
You can argue about what you want to be true, but any reasonable self defense statute is going to allow you to act on reasonable belief that someone is trying to harm you.
The law from florida says...
A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force
If Martin can reasonably reach the conclusion that Zimmerman was after him to rob him, kill him, or abduct him (he can) then he can use his fists against him.
My answer is "no". Nor should it. Because a society where escalation of force is legal is not a society which can be maintained over the long term......?!? so how does that work for zimmerman?
You can argue about what you want to be true, but any reasonable self defense statute is going to allow you to act on reasonable belief that someone is trying to harm you.
The law from florida says...
A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force
If Martin can reasonably reach the conclusion that Zimmerman was after him to rob him, kill him, or abduct him (he can) then he can use his fists against him.
Hey look, deadly force is excluded!
That, fundamentally, is the problem with SYG laws. Especially if they're based on "reasonable perception of harm", rather than actual crimes.
Well what's the other option?
People shouldn't be more afraid of the government protecting muggers than the muggers. Criminals shouldn't be able to count on a populace that's been pre cowed into compliance by a legal system that protects the bad guys.
the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessaryThe question I have with the issue you raise is "can a 17 year old, lean, kid in great shape outrun a much older, out of shape guy?" If he can, then assaulting Zimmerman wasn't necessary.
1) He's not required to retreat.
2) For a good chunk of their race, zimmerman was driving.