Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman Tangent #654

Jenee didn't state so. Forbin did.

Also, it's easy to be reasonable when other like-minded people are being reasonable.

The hard part is recognizing when other like minded people are being unreasonable and pointing it out. I used to think Forbin was a reasonable person. But ... anyone who thinks Zimmerman was justified in killing a 17 year old child has lost their ability to be reasonable.

Funny, I was the one who started that thread and railed hard against the injustice of it all.

But now, I realize I was wrong. Because of the trial.

Regardless of what else happened that night, and the majority of that we don't know, Austin Martin was on top of Zimmerman smacking his head into the pavement when he was shot. Zimmerman couldn't retreat, he was trapped. And the only witness who actually saw anything of the fight identified them only by their clothes, not their skin color, but said that the guy wearing Zimmerman's clothes was screaming for help. All of this matches the forensics at the scene, and Zimmerman's abrasions that were treated that evening at the local hospital.

So as much as I dislike the concept of Zombie being right about that, Zimmerman was absolutely able to claim self-defense in that situation.

Austin Martin was assaulting Zimmerman, could have disengaged, certainly could have outrun tubby little Zimmerman, but chose to continue to do him bodily harm. That's when he was shot.

I didn't like being wrong, pisssed me off considering how much I invested in it, but ultimatelly I had to come to the realization that the jury came to the correct conclusion.

But then to me, this is primarily a moral, not an emotional, issue.

Edit: Corrected the name

It's hardly self-defense if you stalk someone and they confront you. Then it's Martin who was standing his ground and defending himself against a stalker with a gun.

If Zimmerman still ended up on the losing end of that, it's his own fault. It's not self defense.

Trayvon Martin. Not Austin.

Problem is, even if Zimmerman was following Martin, that isn't true. If someone stalks you or trespasses on your property, you don't have the right to do whatever you want to them.

Martin was in the process of assault when he was shot. Zimmeramn had a right to fear for his life at the time.

Zimmerman says on tape with the police that he lost Martin and ended the call. That much we know for fact.

Zimmeramn claims that Martin approached him and attacked him. Whether true or not, when Zimmerman fired he had reason to believe Martin intended him serious bodily harm, and he had no way to escape.

Police tapes show Zimmeramn was screaming for help at least 38 seconds when the shot as fired.

So yeah, I'm not sure how you convict with that. Nor do I think should you.

That doesn't mean I don't support BLM, but it does mean I think they were wrong in this case. Part of it was Zimmerman's attorneys put a gag order on him, so none of his side of the story came out. By then, the narrative was formed, especially considering they used a much younger picture of Martin in the initial media stories.

There have been some very egregious situations with police and black well-being. Around this same time there were situations were a policeman was on tape shooting a man fleeing from him and putting his taser down next to him, claiming he had stolen the taser and fired in self-defense. He shot him in the back. The worst one IMO was where a bouncer disarmed a man who intended to shoot up a nightclub, but who was then killed by the police responding. Jemel Roberson. Absolutely horrific. But for some reason those didn't explode in the media like this one did.

Oh FFS. I'm not going to again go over everything wrong with that trial.

Zimmerman WAS stalking Martin. Period
Martin knew he was being stalked because twice Zimmerman told the dispatcher that Martin was looking at him and Martin told his girlfriend while on the phone with her
Zimmerman told the police he lost Martin and was going to follow (stalk) on foot.
Dispatcher told Zimmerman to KEEP HIS FUCKING ASS IN THE FUCKING CAR
Zimmerman disobeyed a police officer.
In doing so, put himself in danger and now had to get himself out.
In doing so, put his own life before that of the child he was stalking.

Despite having his phone on him as well as his ID, it took the police 3 days to contact his parents.

And those are the facts that we know.

It's possible he was, but we do not know that with any surety.

The first true, the second possible, but then that girlfiend was caught lying under oath and claimed she was a minor when she was eighteen. So a pretty lousy witness.

He was the head of the neighborhood watch. Pretty silly to assume that the neighborhood watch has no legal right to keep eyes on a suspect.

She said 'We don't need you to do that' when he said he was following him to be able to report Martin's whereabouts to police. He responded 'OK.' That was the last thing that was recorded. We don't know what happened after that.

Dispatchers aren't police officers, and their requests have no force whatsoever. You are completely wrong here.

Put himself in danger? Why? If there was no danger from Martin, how could he have been in danger?

The 6'2" child who fractured his nose, give him two black eyes, and slammed his head into the concrete giving him multiple abrasions.

How the fuck is that relevant, even if true?

Some facts, some suppositions, a couple of opinons and some lack of internal consistency, sure.

Still spouting falsehoods and biased shit about the Martin case, despite being corrected over and over.
And, Jesus, Jennee, why are you racist against Hispanic people being able to defend themselves?

A 17 year old child? Who was an MMA fighter and was bashing someone's head against the ground at the time?

And again:

Totally incorrect. Upon being told, Zimmerman did, in fact, turn around and go back to his vehicle.
BTW, a dispatcher is not a police officer, but Zimmerman DID obey her. Stop lying.
And Martin had come TO Zimmerman then, to confront him, and decided to attack him.
Stop repeating biased media talking points that were discredited or disproven by the facts presented at Zimmerman's trial.

That's what Zimmerman claims. We don't know that's accurate either - but even if Zimmerman did follow Martin, the forensic evidence shows that Martin beat the hell out of Zimmerman before Zimmerman fired, and an eyewitness testified at trial that Zimmerman was trapped under Martin with no ability to retreat.

Certainly not a 2nd degree murder case jusftified, far too much doubt.

Not to relitigate this again, but if Zimmerman followed Martin and Martin was the initial aggressor, it is a different case than if Zimmerman followed Martin and was himself the initial aggressor.

Can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was the second rather than the first? Not to a lot of people. Yes, to a lot of others.

Aaaand enough of that umpteenth rehash of established facts versus Jennee's ignorance and prejudice.
Back on ignore.

The residents held an organizational meeting to create a neighborhood watch. Zimmerman was selected to be the coordinator, not "the head". One is an active role, the other an administrative role.

I'm not entirely certain you would consider any 17 year old a credible witness. Regardless of race or gender.

What do you mean, we don't know what happened after that? Zimmerman said, he got out of the car and continued stalking Martin on foot. He even called the dispatcher back while he was on foot stalking Martin.

Oh, well, fine. No one ever needs to listen to a dispatcher because they aren't cops. Got it. I'll let everyone who didn't get the memo know.

He put himself in danger by stalking a stranger without any idea who that person was, why they were there, what weapons they had in their inventory .... I'm certain this is the reason we tell children not to speak to strangers - not all strangers are a danger to children. We don't know it until after the fact. Which is why I said he was putting himself in danger. He had no idea what could happen to him.

My friend's daughter was 5 foot 4 inches tall when she was 10 (2 inches taller than me). Did her height make her an adult? Should I have expected her to make adult decisions?

So, because Zimmerman followed a teenager into a dark alley and ended up getting his ass handed to him, I'm supposed to believe he is a victim? Fuck him and fuck anyone who defends him.

This.

So many people want to believe Martin was the aggressor and they have no more proof than I do, but still want to call me a liar and call me stupid. But, it makes more sense that Zimmerman confronted Martin and got his ass handed to him.

I've had her on ignore for months. It's much more peaceful that way.

We don't know Zimmerman was following Martin when the attack occurred - we only know that Zimmerman lost that fight and was screaming for help and couldn't retreat when he shot.

As to the rest, it's irrelevant in terms of whether Zimmerman should be behind bars. You have to prove he was the aggressor. That has not been proven. So he can't be convicted of murder, can he?

We have Zimmerman's testimony. He said he left his vehicle to walk up "this' sidewalk (in the direction Martin went) to find an address on the other side of the ... grouping of buildings. He also said that on his way back to the vehicle is when Martin confronted him. So, we do know he was following Martin. If all he needed was an address, he didn't need to go down a dark sidewalk between buildings where anyone - didn't even have to be Martin - could have jumped him. Now you are placing him in danger.

This is the thing that every woman knows, but apparently men do not. You don't fucking walk down a deserted, darkened corridor and not expect danger. He knew what the fuck he was doing even if he was talking out of the other side of his mouth.

So just the guy in charge who organizes when people are actively on watch.

So nice to know you don't consider me a sexist or racist. But if I'm ageist, it's about old people, not young people.

The girl in question was 18, a legal adult, and the problems came from her choosing to lie under oath. That is a good reason not to believe someone.

He followed him on foot, the dispatcher said he didn't need to do that, he said OK. His claim was he then turned around to find his car, and Martin approached him. There are no witnesses one way or the other - we don't know.

Oh, so he should have the expectation that the 'child' would be able to severely beat him.

Physics mean larger people have advantages in fights. But then, you've already ceded the fact that Martin wasn't a child and that Zimmerman was at risk.

No, forensics and the eyewitness should have something to say about that.

And the law absolutely says he should be a free man.

It is not irrelevant as to whether Zimmerman should be behind bars. It was the central issue in the case.

If Zimmerman threw the first punch or grabbed Martin first, he is the initial aggressor and therefore not entitled to kill in self-defense even in a fight that he was losing badly. He would therefore should be guilty of some form of homicide.

The State obviously didn't meet its burden in the eye of the jury that heard the case.

But an inconvenient truth is that sometimes Jury A might find the evidence one way, while Jury B might find it another, even assuming both juries are full of reasonable people.

Not always. Properly trained, a smaller person can have some advantages. Not always, but sometimes.

Once again, you do not get to decide who follows you down the street, may not attack them for that reason, and are responsible for the outcome of any violence you initiated. Whether or not you are a likeable person is irrelevant.

It's irrelevant because there was no evidence, forensic or otherwise, that indicated that Zimmerman was the aggressor. The only evidence that suggested such came from someone who perjured herself on the stand, and lied not only about her age but her name. Even if you belive her, it was third party - she wasn't a direct witness to the events.

Even then I"m not sure you have the proper take on the law. Florida statute 776.012(2) is what covers legal use of deadly force for self defense. It doesn't require unlawful force by the other party, only a belief that your life is in immediate danger or great bodily harm. Read it for yourself: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ute&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.012.html

In Ohio a self-defense claim requires the burden of proof to be on the one making said claim. In every other state in the union, the prosecution needs to get beyond reasonable doubt that it wasn't self-defense.

No, we know he had been following him previously. That's different than following him now. Indeed, if Zimmerman's account is accurate, he was walking away from Martin when Martin attacked him. We don't know if that's true. But we do know that Zimmerman had been pummelled and was trapped when he fired, and that's all we need to know to give an innocent verdict based on Florida law. Even if you don't like that law.

As to the rest, careful - you are sounding awfully like because Zimmerman was in the wrong place at the wrong time he 'deserved it.'

The fact that it could be that Zimmerman could have been telling the truth or lying about who was the aggressor does not make who was in fact the aggressor "irrelevant." Just potentially unprovable.

And it's also just not true that there's "no evidence." There's always some evidence -- it's just what people might make of it.

There is circumstantial evidence. A reasonable person could believe Zimmerman's account that after he was following this guy and lost sight of him, Martin ambushed him and started beating the crap out of him and told him, "You're going to die today." An equally reasonable person could look at the circumstances and conclude that Zimmerman was tracking Martin, was amped up and that it was in their mind beyond a reasonable doubt that he was the initial aggressor.

A reasonable person could dismiss the girlfriend's testimony for the reasons you have or for other reasons. Or a reasonable person could believe it in total. Or a reasonable person could pick and choose what to believe about her testimony.

If one believes her account about Martin talking to her about how scared he was, it seems pretty unlikely that Martin ambushed Zimmerman.

Obviously, not licensed in FL and I'm not going to be doing actual in-depth research on FL self-defense law. But the pertinent section seems to be this:

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ng=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.041.html

If Zimmerman physically attacked Martin without provocation, I would argue he at least potentially was committing a forcible felony.

2(a) could have provided shelter for Zimmerman as I read it even if he was the initial aggressor but the general rule still applies that if he was the aggressor, he likely doesn't get to claim self defense.

Can we peel the Martin/Zimmerman posts out of this thread and create a separate thread titled "Jennee is too emotionally retarded to understand facts" please? Or tack it onto the old Trayvon case thread? Or just delete them and consign them to oblivion where they belong?

Raoul, I believe you may be too rational to discuss this topic

Fuck Jenee you are stubborn and ENSLAVED to your narrative. Zimmerman wasn't "stalking" Martin he was trying to keep tabs on him because he was trying to do his job. Sorry if Martin happened to be black, Zimmerman couldn't control that. Martin was younger and (mostly likely) faster than Zimmerman thus he could have hauled ass home at any time if he truly thought Zimmerman was a threat. Apparently he did think Zimmerman was a threat because he told a friend over the phone that a "creepy white guy" was following him. His friend advised him to get out of there, if memory serves. SO WHY THE FUCK DIDN'T MARTIN HAUL ASS HOME JENEE? Can your fucking biased race obsessed pea-brain process that idea? I fucking doubt it. So Martin was feeling cocky and thought he could jump fat old whitey and beat his ass. Martin did what a lot of WHITE OR BLACK kids might do and Zimmerman thought that getting his head slammed against the ground was not in his best interest. Did you know that can cause you to lose consciousness and thus beaten to death when you can't defend yourself Jenee? Tragedy occurred seconds later to nobody's surprise.

Bottom line race obsessed Jenee - IF MARTIN WERE WHITE NOBODY WOULD GIVE A FUCK - because that doesn't support the narrative - your narrative you live and breath 24/7 - that evil white men are hunting down innocent young black men. You think people can't see right through your bullshit delusional rationalizing?

And just so you can't throw the "evil white male conservative hates blacks" card, level headed rational minorities right here on wordforge quite often try to talk sense to you in threads like this and similar threads but your brain is locked up like an engine without a fucking drop of oil - it's a total fucking loss.

And calling Forbin a racist gun nut? SERIOUSLY? He's probably one of the more responsible, easy going non-judgemental & reasonable people on this board. If I could have a whole neighborhood (hell a community!) of Forbins I'd move there in a minute.

Final thought: there's no empirical proof that liberalism is a mental disease, but damn you sure make a good case for it.

I don't agree with Raoul on too many things politically, but he does look at things fairly and logically so you have to respect that.

I have to explain two things AT LEAST five times per week. #1: Following someone is. not. a. crime. Following someone is not a crime. FOLLOWING SOMEONE IS NOT A CRIME. Period. It's not. Get it out of your head. #2: Cussing someone out is. not. a. crime. Cussing someone out is not a crime. CUSSING SOMEONE OUT IS NOT A CRIME. Period. It's not. Get it out of your head.

Here's the deal. The Police will gladly take a report on either of those things. But, it's up to the courts to decide whether or not a crime has been committed. The Police sent up reports to me today for harassment, for disorderly conduct, for reckless endangerment, and for assault. I denied each and every charge because the narrative in the report did not meet the statutory definition for ANY of those crimes.

Just because the police report says X does not mean that X actually occurred. The Police, if they've been properly trained, have a firm grasp on Probable Cause. However, they have no idea about Judicial Cause and what I have to do to make a case.

Which of course makes the assertion that Zimmerman was the aggressor irrelevant, because it can't be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. This is exactly why the jury members who unanimously acquited said they acquitted. Even the one who believed there was circumstantial evidence that Zimmerman was guilty, but couldn't prove that beyond a reasonable doubt.

2(a) explicitly states that being the aggressor is irrelevant in those cases, and it uses the same construction as the earlier passage I cited.

I understand your job as a lawyer is to argue up is down and black is white, but that doesn't change what the statute says, only that some people need to be given a reason to justify why they can ignore it.

Ultimately, it's a matter of historical fact that the jury did not ignore it.

I thought Zimmerman's 100 million dollar defamation suit against the Martin family and the prosecution was pretty fucking classy. Jesus Christ, dude. Quit while you're ahead. Even if Zimmerman had done absolutely nothing wrong the night Martin was killed, a teenage boy died. Get the hell over yourself.