Trayvon Martin

Some of the witnesses testified to seeing wrestling and grappling between GZ and TM. Jeantel also testified that she believed GZ pushed TM. If that is true, it would be consistent with both Zimmerman initiating the physical component of the altercation and the lack of injuries to Martin.

TM winning the fight (which he clearly did) doesn't mean Zimmerman didn't try to strike TM. I don't know too many people who would not even try to fight back if it is indeed true that TM threw the first punch.

GZ could easily have tried to throw the first punch or push only to not connect because TM dodged it. We'll never know.

But what we do know is that the teenager was on the phone talking to a friend trying to get home and GZ was just sure TM was a criminal and audibly frustrated at the prospects he might get away. Setting aside the lack of conclusive evidence either way (I trust you'll concede this) on who threw the first punch, who is more likely to be a confrontational mindset? Mind you, I am not saying this is enough to convict. I am suggesting the circumstances point to GZ as being the likely aggressor.

Again, who starts a fight or crime while on their cell phone with their earbuds on? I've seen a few fights and watched hundreds of criminal cases and never seen any precdent for this. It makes absolutely no sense. That fact and circumstance points towards Martin as being caught off guard by GZ when the physical confrontation began as opposed to someone who doubled back and initiated the confrontation. If that was true, I'd have expected he would hang up the phone and for the earbuds to have been found in his pockets instead of by his dead body as they were. This points to TM being the respondent in the fight and not the initiator.

Again, by no means am I pointing this out as rock-solid evidence to render a conviction... but logically I believe it points to GZ being the instigator but losing badly in the fight.

 

Agreed.

I don't know where you get "multiple occasions" from, but it's pretty much the same thing as #1, so whatever, sure.

I disagree with this. It may have been against NW policy but it certainly wasn't illegal, and IMHO if you are doing something where you may possibly have run-ins with people committing crimes I for one would want to be armed. Of course, for me that would mean I simply wouldn't join a neighborhood watch that had a policy against CCW. But I don't consider this one to be a mistake on his part.

He very well may not have had a chance to. If he was surprised as he has claimed and as is supported by Jenteal's testimony all he got out was "What are you doing here?" before it turned physical. So it's hard to say this was a mistake since we don't know exactly what happened.

Again, his big mistake was #1.

Uh, "violate the spirit of Self-Defense"? What the hell does that even really mean? Self defense doesn't begin to apply until after it has gotten physical. It may well violate common sense (and again, hindsight is 20/20), but self defense doesn't even come into play at this stage. If you're talking about avoiding this outcome then *both Martin and Zimmerman* contributed to the outcome with bad decision making. Martin should have simply kept running if he was truly in fear (are you gonna tell me he couldn't outrun Zimmerman? Please...), and Zimmerman should have stayed in his vehicle and waited for police. I'm sure they would both do things differently if they could get a do-over.

 

I got an idea, go to a bar on the poor side of town. Find the a big black guy and shout the n word at him. Let him get in a punch or two, then shoot him dead. Self defense?

This situation isn't much different. Zimmerman may have not initiated the physical side of the fight, but his definitely the one who initiated the fight in the first place. He made the situation hostile, just like you would if you shouted the n word at someone.

 

Spirit of the law vs. literal interpretation of it is what this boils down to. The spirit of Self-Defense law is not to bait and harass someone into an altercation and retain the right to kill them. In that situation, since you are culpably negligent, Manslaughter applies in my opinion.

 

He did not get out of the car "Despite 911 advice" or however it was worded. He got out of the car before he was they didn't need him to follow. The operator asked him to keep eyes on Martin and tell them what he was doing. After he started chasing a running Martin he was asked not to do that (sort of) and he stopped running. He alleges that he lost Martin at that point and went back to his car only to get jumped by Martin who had doubled back.

There is no proof that he kept following Martin after being asked not to by 911. This is a misconception and was something I believed as well which led me to think he might get manslaughter.

 

You are hopelessly naive. Not many people walk away the same day after killing another human, even by 'accident'. It's cool you think that's okay.

I didn't say it made it racist. Period.

Newsflash, there are white people that DO think like this. No one is claiming that you or every other white person thinks like this. But it's a problem when it may lead to a teen's death.

Again. So what is right, but when it leads to a teens death that's a problem.

You are the one that seems to think that only black people have a issue with this. Not me.

The fact of the matter that there are people like you that try to constantly sweep racial issues under the rug. Sorry.

You keep going on about your opinion on how the case is so open and shut and how Trayvon attacked GZ. It's not secret that if GZ was black he'd be arrested and charged.

Hell, wasn't GZ himself against the racial injustice he saw going down in his OWN area? So now all of a sudden that doesn't exist? Alright then.

I mean Gingrich, GZ own attorneys, and the numerous people that pop up and give their opinion about this situation. The way you're putting it or the way you believe is that only black people and some small radical section of the country believes what you do and that's not true. No matter how many times you tell yourself it is true it isn't.

 

Pretty solid analogy. Using the N Word isn't illegal per se, but it's clear as day you are the instigator of the situation and are asking for a fight if you do this.

The sad part is I bet a lot of jurors would actually acquit in this situation. We tend not to get many Rhodes scholars as jurors these days...

 

Is there any data to back up that suspects are not allowed to go home the same day if the prosector decides not to bring charges due to self defense?

It isn't like Zimmerman was questioned for an hour, it was a long event. What are the stats on the average time self defense suspects are held?

 

What is it that Zimmerman did that "made the situation hostile?" I don't see what he did that merits being attacked. I don't see any evidence of him accosting Martin or that he ever called Martin a name.

Your analogy is way off base.

That said, you also don't have the right to beat someone up because you don't like the words they use.

 

Detective Serino testified that he believed GZ continued to follow TM. And he believe most of what GZ told him.

If he planned on halting his pursuit, why would he tell the 911 dispatcher in so many words "Forget meeting them at my car as we just agreed to per your recommendation and just have them call me when they get here and I'll them where I'm at".

Give me a logical reason please as to why you'd tell that to the 911 Dispatcher unless you wanted to continue to follow him.

 

I got an idea, follow, stalk, and run after any red blooded American and see how they react. They will get agitated, irritable, and maybe even hostile. Don't believe me? Just walk behind someone just a bit too closely. Maybe they don't punch you, but things might just get testy. That's 1/20 of what Zimmerman did.

 

If someone is following me and asks me a question I'm not going to start running.

All these attempts to justify assaulting someone are pathetic. I hope you don't practice that in real life because it will only lead to you feeling like the system doesn't work for you either when you get arrested for failing to obey the law.

 

And guess what? If I actually did what you said then I could claim self defense as well, as the other guy is the one who committed the crime.

You guys are simply never going to understand this. You do NOT have a right to punch someone just because they are following you. You do NOT have a right to punch someone if they call you a name. And if you DO punch someone for it, and they end up killing you during the fight, expect that there is a decent chance that they will walk.

Why don't you learn to keep your anger in check, instead?

 

Try my little experiment did. Invade someone's personal space. Maybe then move up to stalking and then chasing a random person. See how they react. You may say you wouldn't fear for your life if some random person was following you, but I think that's the BS you tell yourself.

 

If you think yelling the n word at someone isn't instigating a fight, then you are hopeless idiotic. If you think it is ok to chase someone if they run away, and feel like that is ok, you are hopelessly idiotic. If you think any reasonable person being chased wouldn't fear for his/her life, then you are hopelessly idiotic.

Why not go to a place like BestBuy tonight, wait till they close in their parking lot and stalk the women to their cars. How many times do you think you'll get peppersprayed?

 

It doesn't matter how many times you try to compare what happened to someone stalking women in the dark or screaming he N word it will never change the fact that is not close to what happened.

Also, if a woman thinks I'm stalking her to the car and she runs up to me, pepper sprays me, knocks me down and then gets on top of me smashing my head into the concrete, she'd be arrested for assault.

 

Er, no, in cases where law enforcement believes that the homicide was justified - as they did in this case - people often DO get released the next day. There is no reason to hold someone if you are not going to prosecute.

Then why do you keep insisting that this case was racially motivated?

Newsflash: there are BLACK people who think like this as well. And Asian. And Indian. And African. And hispanic. But MOST people don't, and most white people don't, so what's your point? You think it is more widespread than it actually is.

Blah blah blah. Again, he look at it in terms of someone fitting a description. Cry about it all you want, but that is unavoidable and will never change.

I think that it is mostly black people who are seeing this case and this verdict in terms of race. I know that most white people don't look at it that way.

The fact of the matter is that while there are still some genuine racial conflict issues in this country by and large most people have moved past it. Except for agitators such as yourself who are incapable of seeing anything in any prism not tainted by race.

My opinion is my opinion and it means just as much as yours does: zilch.

At least I recognize that it is an opinion, and don't state it as fact as you do with your opinions, like "It's not secret that if GZ was black he'd be arrested and charged.", which can only not be a secret if someone you know has a machine that can transport them to an alternate universe where Zimmerman was black.

I never said it doesn't exist, I said that you blow it out of proportion and see racial boogeymen under every rock. Which says more about your own racism than anything else.

You're obsessed with it. You, and people like Jackson, Sharpton, etc, have made an industry out of it. It's pathetic, it's dishonest, and it will tear this country apart.

Deal with it where it exists, but be honest about it. Believe me when I say that you will never solve this problem without getting white America on board, and displays like this are a MAJOR turnoff to us.

 

Would that jury come anywhere near finding her guilty? Hell no.