Thread: Unarmed black teenager was shot by neighbourhood watch volunteer

^ This case does appear to be swinging back in the other direction. At this point only time will tell what the outcome will be.

In reality Saint Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman repeatedly bashing his head into the sidewalk according to multiple sources so it's clearly a case of self defense. President B. Hussien Obama will probably give Zimmerman the Medal of Freedom at a White House ceremony soon.

This has become one of those frenzied American lynch mob cases where supporters dig into positions before all the facts are known. Anderson Cooper gives the story 30 minutes every night followed by Piers Morgan covering the exact same ground for another 30 minutes. A total waste of time undeserving of this much media attention.

Originally Posted by FailSafe

Originally Posted by robuzo

Originally Posted by FailSafe

^

Yes, police reports and eyewitness accounts don't count as 'damning evidence'- your brainless liberal sensibilities are really funny.

Quote something from that report that you think counts as evidence. The only thing I heard that I don't recall hearing elsewhere is that Martin's father said the crying for help was not his boy. Big fucking deal. Some wannabe vigilante pussy is crying for help one minute and blasting the guy he stalked the next. It had already been established that it was the killer who was crying for help after getting decked by a teenager.

Tell me this- had Martin thrown a punch and the fatassed armed loser fallen, cracked his head and died would you be defending the boy's right to defend himself?

The fact that it looks like it was Zimmerman who called for help and this was backed up by the parents is pretty big, considering how they said it was Martin at first (and went on national TV to proclaim this)- did you also hear on the link I provided that witnesses corroborated Zimmerman's account that Martin was the aggressor? What do you think would be presented as evidence if there is ever a trial?

If eyewitness accounts said that Zimmerman attacked Martin and Martin defended himself, yes, I would defend Martin- however, it appears that isn't the case (which you should well know by now).

Here's what I believe happened- Zimmerman came across as a tough guy and possible rent-a-cop to Martin, who decided he wasn't going to take any shit from the guy- they got into a verbal altercation, which (it appears) advanced to a physical altercation due to Martin's actions (note that Zimmerman had already called the police and knew they were on their way)- Martin started slamming Zimmerman's head into the pavement (corroborated by witnesses and backed up by his injuries)- Zimmerman then shot Martin to prevent possibly being killed himself.

Let me ask you a question- if you were in a fight, even if you had started it and it was entirely your doing, would you let the other person kill you before you used deadly force to defend yourself? If Martin was the one using deadly force, then Zimmerman was within his rights to defend himself using the same, even if he initiated the altercation.

Actually, there is nothing so far to suggest that Zimmerman initially got that close to Martin so he may not have come across at all. Zimmerman was following Martin after exiting his vehicle....that is when the call was recorded in which the dispatcher asked him if he was following. When Zimmerman answered that he was....the dispatcher said "we don't need you to do that". Zimmerman said "OK"

It would seem that Zimmerman broke off his contact at that time, and began walking back towards his vehicle......but Martin turned and came after him. Zimmerman states that Martin approached from behind and asked "do you have a problem"
Zimmerman answered "no".....Martin then says "you do now" and punches him in the face......
Martin ends up on top of Zimmerman....pounding him into the pavement....Zimmerman is yelling for help....no help comes, so he pulls out his 9mm in a state of panic and fires it into Martin. (it has already been confirmed that Martin was shot in the chest from very close range..which would fit this description of the event) Injuries on the face and the back of Zimmerman's head also fit this version of the event......not to mention at least one eye witness and several others who heard Zimmerman calling for help.

What is most disturbing about this case (apart from the life wasted) is the speed and ease with which so many people jump on the racist bandwagon, and now that they are on it, no amount of fresh information will make them get off....however much it may vindicate Zimmerman. The power of those media images of the innocent black kid and the tough evil looking white bully just stick, like shit to a blanket. They are even reaching back to 1960's civil rights era for comparative supporting cases FFS.....cases which actually bear no resemblance at all to this one.....but in the world of race politics that won't matter I suppose.

Originally Posted by robuzo

^Have to disagree with you there. The issue is the "no retreat" provision, not this particular case. Look at the other cases in which people have walked after killing someone because they felt threatened- even after they gave pursuit. As much as given the history I understand the anger of black people in Florida, the conversation is being sidetracked. People on the left and right are talking about the problems with this law, which has been copied across the country.

The first day it was about that and the legal issues were examined in depth but since then it has been all about whether or not racial epithets were uttered, conflicting eye-witness reports, school grades, testimonies by friends and familiy and accounts of previous behavior. If anything, the issue of the 'no retreat' provision has been marginalized.

Originally Posted by ENT

Now the point is, was I the assailant, for all six people present, the initial victim of the attempted strangulation, the initial assailant, the neighbour who called the cops and the three cops, could say that I was on top of the guy on the floor, holding him down.

The only relevant comparison would be whether the force you used in your particular incident was justified (and it sounds like it was)- if the guy had pulled a weapon or you felt your life was in imminent danger, would you have acted differently? If you felt the only way to save your own life was to kill the guy, would you have done it?

I see the point you're making, but it's really not a question of who initiated the incident (Zimmerman or Martin)- it's whether one of them crossed the line to where it became a life-threatening situation.

Now, we're getting there!
Under normal circumstances, the initiator of the event is considered the prime assailant.

Originally Posted by ENT

Now, we're getting there!
Under normal circumstances, the initiator of the event is considered the prime assailant.

So if I call you a nasty name, I'm the 'prime assailant' even if you kill me over it?

The person who initially used deadly force is to blame (and evidence points to Martin as having done so)- if Zimmerman was in fear for his life (even if he initiated contact with Martin) he was justified in defending himself.

I'm not saying Zimmerman doesn't bear any culpability here, but I do think he was within his rights.

I've never had to decide whether I must kill a man in combat yet.
I don't ever think that lethal force would ever be necessary using Aikido, but the situation could arise where, at close quarters, I could turn an assailant's weapon upon himself, very possible.

Not having served in the military, I have never had the unpleasant duty to end another person's life.

At long range, or in a surprise (blind) move at close quarters, sure, I could be easily targeted and killed.

^

If your head was being repeatedly slammed into the pavement by someone you believed was trying to kill you, and you were armed with a gun, would you have used it (and felt justified in doing so) to save your own life, even if you were the one who initiated contact?

I would have.

You could say that you would never have been in that position, but that's not the point- this guy was.

Name calling is not combat.
No evidence exists or is even suggested that Martin used lethal force!

Zimmerman did.

Originally Posted by ENT

No evidence exists or is even suggested that Martin used lethal force!

WHAT? There are eyewitness accounts as well as Zimmerman's injuries to back up the claim that Martin used deadly force.

I've been smashed up pretty badly in the way you have just described and got out of it without using a gun.
I wasn't armed. Hard to say if I'd use a gun to kill my assailantif I had one on me.

I was instructed to shoot at non-life threatening points to stop a man, ie, first knees then points of shoulders.

I'm horrified to read of cops poking suspects out in the chest and head.
Apparently they are not now the marksmen that I once respected.

Originally Posted by FailSafe

Originally Posted by ENT

No evidence exists or is even suggested that Martin used lethal force!

WHAT? There are eyewitness accounts as well as Zimmerman's injuries to back up the claim that Martin used deadly force.

There is not one single verified statement yet made to conclude who wsas the aggressor in the situation.
So far, it is all hearsay and conjecture.
The forensic report on the matter will finally be presented in court and no amount of public opinion is going to change that evidence.

Zimmerman refused to see the forensic doctor when requested at the time of the event.
That suggests something odd had occurred.

Trial by media or forum discussion will determine nothing, we don't have any evidence, on;y reports of reports and opinions that we can discuss.

No problem there, but this case will have some pretty serious knock on effects for the police and the law makers.

There were eye witnesses including cops who stated that they saw me on top of the guy who preferred caharges of assault against me in the situation I described a few posts back.
It didn't mean didly squat in the end.

Originally Posted by Humbert

Originally Posted by robuzo

^Have to disagree with you there. The issue is the "no retreat" provision, not this particular case. Look at the other cases in which people have walked after killing someone because they felt threatened- even after they gave pursuit. As much as given the history I understand the anger of black people in Florida, the conversation is being sidetracked. People on the left and right are talking about the problems with this law, which has been copied across the country.

The first day it was about that and the legal issues were examined in depth but since then it has been all about whether or not racial epithets were uttered, conflicting eye-witness reports, school grades, testimonies by friends and familiy and accounts of previous behavior. If anything, the issue of the 'no retreat' provision has been marginalized.

Right, all I am saying is that doesn't make the incident unimportant, just that the national discussion, such as it is, misses the most salient point. I might not feel that way if I were black, but I might if I were able to step back and be objective. Blacks are killing blacks under dubious circumstances and getting away with it.

Originally Posted by ENT

There is not one single verified statement yet made to conclude who wsas the aggressor in the situation. So far, it is all hearsay and conjecture.

No- there are actual eyewitness accounts in the police report (eyewitness accounts are not 'hearsay' or 'conjecture'):

The Orlando Sentinel is reporting that police sources say Martin was the aggressor on Feb. 26, knocking Zimmerman to the ground with a single punch and then climbing on top of the 28-year-old neighborhood watch captain and slamming the back of his head into the ground. Police say this account, given by Zimmerman, is supported by eyewitnesses, according to the Sentinel's report.

One such witness reportedly told police that he saw Martin on top of Zimmerman, striking the man, while Zimmerman cried out for help. The attack left Zimmerman bloodied, police sources told the Sentinel, and led him to fire at Martin in self-defense.

Trayvon Martin case: Police release new details that help George Zimmerman's claim that he fired in self defense. - Orlando Sentinel

Originally Posted by FailSafe

Originally Posted by ENT

No evidence exists or is even suggested that Martin used lethal force!

WHAT? There are eyewitness accounts as well as Zimmerman's injuries to back up the claim that Martin used deadly force.

No, there aren't, and Zimmerman's injuries didn't require him to go to hospital.

Nonetheless, any physical encounter can turn out deadly. I personally know two guys who killed other men in fights by accident. That Martin was a willing, to some degree, participant means that this probably wouldn't hold up as even second-degree murder, but the fact that Zimmerman needlessly engaged in an encounter while carrying a deadly weapon and only needed to defend himself as a result of his own willing actions make this probably a case of reckless manslaughter- but for a stupid Florida legal provision, in the absence of which Zimmerman (and many others in similar cases in Florida) may not have been quite so bold in the first place.

Originally Posted by robuzo

No, there aren't, and Zimmerman's injuries didn't require him to go to hospital.

Yes, there are, and he suffered a broken nose and injuries to the back of the head where it was slammed into the ground.

Originally Posted by robuzo

but the fact that Zimmerman needlessly engaged in an encounter while carrying a deadly weapon and only needed to defend himself as a result of his own willing actions make this probably a case of reckless manslaughter

Talk about conjecture...

I doubt whether the validity of the Florida law will ever come into question. No arrest was made based upon the judgment of the the investigating officers that Zimmerman, by his own account of the situation, was indeed acting in self-defense. Eye-witness accounts are often unreliable and contradictory so unless some solid evidence is presented that confirms that Zimmerman was assaulted we will continue to have a media orgy over this.

Originally Posted by Humbert

I doubt whether the validity of the Florida law will ever come into question. No arrest was made based upon the judgment of the the investigating officers that Zimmerman, by his own account of the situation, was indeed acting in self-defense. Eye-witness accounts are often unreliable and contradictory so unless some solid evidence is presented that confirms that Zimmerman was assaulted we will continue to have a media orgy over this.

By "validity of the Florida law" do you mean its application as it stands in this case or whether or not it is a valid law in the first place? The authors of the law and the governor who signed it (all R) are already saying it needs to be reexamined because it wasn't meant to apply in cases such as this. I'll have to look and see if anyone replied to the question I posed earlier- I think if Zimmerman had been killed the law might just as well have protected Martin, although whether the south Dixie cracker cops would have let him proceed to his dad's house with a dead white guy lying there is a matter of question.

Originally Posted by robuzo

The authors of the law and the governor who signed it (all R) are already saying it needs to be reexamined because it wasn't meant to apply in cases such as this

I had not heard that Robuzo. If so I withdraw my opinion.