holy crap, that's some messed up logic...

Coward Association of America

I really can't wait till the whole facts are out for this case. Because it me it seems like either the facts keep changing OR everyone is injecting their own spin into this. Unfortunately as this seems to be growing more and more convoluted and with more and more conflicting statements I bet this will never be resolved properly.

Was Zimmerman overzealous for stalking this kid? Yeah. He should have just called the cops and let it be.

Does that give Martin the right to start beating the crap out of Zimmerman? No.

If Martin was on top of him pounding the shit out of him and not stopping? Yeah I'd shoot too because I'd be afraid of blacking out and this guy murdering me while I'm unconscious.

It's funny in my day to day life everyone considers me a liberal or at least a left leaning moderate. But here on the sift I must seem like Dick Cheney's hunting parnter! (the ones that didn't get shot obviously)

If anyone is interested after doing a lot of googling I was able to find the police report.

http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/Twin%20Lakes%20Shooting%20Initial%20Report.pdf

The cops' report is worth less than a piece of dung.

I don't know why Trayvon is at fault in any scenario. Since when are stalkers the victims when their targets defend themselves.

@Darkhand.

Did you even listen to Cenk's point?

A heavy adult male with a gun stalks an unarmed teen, then claim self-defense..

What logic are you using to conclude Zimmerman is somehow not guilt of murder?

What if Zimmerman had stalked a 17 year old white girl, then shot her dead after she fought back?

What you need to see more evidence then?

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

@Darkhand.
Did you even listen to Cenk's point?
A heavy adult male with a gun stalks an unarmed teen, then claim self-defense..
What logic are you using to conclude Zimmerman is somehow not guilt of murder?
What if Zimmerman had stalked a 17 year old white girl, then shot her dead after she fought back?
What you need to see more evidence then?


I do...bitches be crazy yo.

if i was walking home from a store, and some creepy guy i didn't know was following me in his car, i would run too.
if he continued to chase me, first in his car, then on foot, and caught up to me, i would try to defend myself.
if we're tangled in struggle and somehow i got a upper hand (well, i am young and athletic, and the other guy's a couch potato), i would try to knock him out to prevent him doing further harm to me.

does this now make me the aggressor, and does the other guy have right to shoot me to defend himself?

it's a simple question.

if anyone acted in self-defense, it's martin, not zimmerman.

til it's settled, still a *controversy

Adding video to channels (Controversy) - requested by Trancecoach.

WOW. wow.

Unfortunately getting hot headed like that makes his argument appear weaker. No matter how much logic and sense is being spat out, simple minded people can find themselves agreeing with the calmer one. Not that I blame Cenk, I was getting furious myself listening to this arsehat Pratt speak his bullshit

I just puked in my mouth a little......

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

@Darkhand.
Did you even listen to Cenk's point?
A heavy adult male with a gun stalks an unarmed teen, then claim self-defense..
What logic are you using to conclude Zimmerman is somehow not guilt of murder?
What if Zimmerman had stalked a 17 year old white girl, then shot her dead after she fought back?
What you need to see more evidence then?


Someone stalking you, whether anyone likes it or not, is not a just cause for you to turn around and beat the crap out of them.

If Martin turned around and punched him and knocked him on his ass I think that would have been a justifiable amount of force. But continuing to beat on him as some people suggesting to "knock him out" you don't understand how the body works. You can't tell the difference between "Oh yeah I knocked him out" and "Awesome! Internal bleeding and his brain is swelling now I can get away".

Does everyone here really believe because Zimmerman was being over zealous they feel he deserves to get knocked down and have someone sit on top of him and continuously punch him in the head?

Getting hung up on particulars is what the legal system is for. People all over the world expressing interest in this are losing site of the main point: Zimmerman shot an unarmed seventeen-year-old in his own neighborhood. The confrontation was a result of an unofficial neighborhood watch volunteer doing everything that a neighborhood watch volunteer should never do.

He should have been arrested, no question.

Oh, there was one eyewitness? Great, release the suspect pending trial and let the witness take the stand at the appropriate time. The actions of the police in sending a narcotics detective to a homicide scene, and their statement that Zimmerman (who had been arrested for assaulting a police officer previously) had a "squeaky clean record", are reason enough for officials to have listened to the pleas of the family to arrest the suspect.

Actually went and looked up the law. Because as more evidence comes out, I still thought that a teenager being followed by a much older adult (~10 years) should result in that teenager being covered under the SYG (Stand Your Ground) Law.

So looking at the text. Trayvon could use justfied force, in accordance with 776.012 and deadly force if he met the criteria of 776.012 (1). He was the person SYG, being stalked for unknown reason by a complete stranger. This is ignoring Zimmerman's comments and just looking at his actions. He followed a kid heedless of advice and the standard op of a neighborhood watch - call it in and remove yourself if no crime is taking place.

776.032 should not apply to Zimmerman, because he caused the confrontation by following. There was no defensive nature in stalking someone to the point of them defending themself from you.

776.041 could apply to Zimmerman as he is the clear aggressor (Again lots of people feel that aggressor means you threw the first punch, that's not what the law says, it's all about reasonable belief that you are in danger and I think being stalked = reasonable). The police had to verify that under 776.041 (1) wasn't happening, which I don't think it is easily proven that Zimmerman was commiting a hate crime via the stalking/profiling/shooting. 776.041 (2) only grants immunity if (A) OR (B) are fulfilled. I have not seen that the police have established (A) or (B) were fulfilled.

(A) Did Zimmerman exhaust every reasonable means of escape the danger of Trayvon? Does yelling help count? My argument here is that persistent following and disregard of advice of written material for conduct PLUS verbal command from dispatch shows that he is incapable of acting reasonably. The reasonable act would be to call it in and leave it the fuck alone. Plus he had no reason to be out of his vehicle after Trayvon.

(B) There is no evidence that Zimmerman tried to withdraw from conflict. There is evidence he was getting thrashed on the ground by his victim after he forced the confrontation on Trayvon, but not that he tried to de-escalate the encounter by either (A) or (B).

So again, I wonder why Zimmerman was let go when he there is no evidence to suggest he didn't force the encounter by his rash and impulsive decisions to get the people "who always get away". Then you count the "fucking coons", which according to many is "fucking punks" or "fucking goons" because "coon" is something no one under 40 has said in a decade. But coons sounds nothing like punks and goons is what all the kids are saying these days (sarcasm).


I've had this discussion on other sites. And overall people seem to keep preaching that you should apply the evidence and the evidence shows that Zimmerman was attacked. Following isn't illegal and questioning someone isn't illegal, and calling the police isn't illegal, and saying "fucking coons" isn't illegal, and ignoring advice of dispatch isn't illegal, and using lethal force in defense of yourself isn't illegal, and.....blah. But taken together, it shows that Zimmerman did a lot of stupid shit to provoke an incident that WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED if a reasonable and rational person had been in his place. And according to the SYG law, Martin was covered under it more so than Zimmerman. Yet far too many people are all about believing the police THIS TIME because......of some reason...whether it be Zimmerman is white, an adult, or is alive to "say so". Yet Martin is unbelievable because he is black, a teen, or hit Zimmerman (many believe unprovoked at that).

Over all, it has a lot of earmarks of a case of road rage. Where Martin does something to upset Zimmerman. Zimmerman follows Martin, violence goes down. In most cases I've heard, the guy who does the following and forces an encounter = guilty. Because it's unreasonable anger/decision making leading up to the event and there may not have been an offense in the first place...especially because there's no evidence of an offense to require that kind of action on the part of the guy following you to your home, work, or whatever destination...getting out and starting shit.


2011 Florida Statutes CHAPTER 776 JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE[14]

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—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. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—

(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.

(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).

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.

that was awesome @Porksandwich!
totally agree.
the whole situation could have been avoided if zimmerman had not escalated the situation.
and i really dont see how anybody can come to the defense of zimmerman.
he started the whole thing...escalated the situation and then uses deadly force and claims self defense.
WHAT?

take the beating you fucking pussy.
you dont kill a man because he is kicking your ass,especially since YOU are the one who instigated the confrontation.

and i am sorry @Darkhand but you are using the same circular logic that pratt is using.you cannot apply one set of logic to one person then turn around and say it does not apply to the other.
one person is the aggressor and the other is the defender.
you cannot,by definition,exchange these roles just to suit your narrative.
would you apply the same logic to a rape victim?
a woman who has been stalked and is being raped viciously and gets hold of a large,solid object and begins to beat her attacker over the head.
the rapist responds by pulling out a gun and shooting her in the chest..killing her.
did the rapist apply reasonable force to save his life?
by your logic...yes... but HE IS STILL THE ATTACKER/AGGRESSOR... not the victim.
so no matter how you wish to spin this situation... zimmerman will ALWAYS be the aggressor and that is the point.

@enoch

I've been having this back and forth with a guy on another forum. He keeps insisting that because Zimmerman was hurt, he was within his rights to shoot Trayvon under SYG. And I keep trying to point out to him that SYG does not say that, but it falls on deaf ears.

And then it comes to witness testimony being the gospel the witness identified as "John" backs up Zimmerman. But the girlfriend of Trayvon who was on the phone with him is also a witness, but somehow her testimony is no good because she's his girlfriend, or underage, or is "speculation" and if she were really a witness the police would have talked to her, etc, etc.

I mean strictly from how events have been reported. We have Zimmerman's own words, phone call, and actions to judge him by. And with Trayvon all we know is that he's dead, was wearing a hoodie, and was a black teen going to the store and back. Yet somehow Trayvon was doing something wrong because Zimmerman identified him as suspicious. Even though there is AT LEAST one black resident in that neighborhood and being black in the neighborhood should not = auto-suspicion even if it's predominately white.

Zimmerman kept chasing and Trayvon should be covered under the law because of it, we KNOW Zimmerman followed him. He wouldn't have "lost" him if Trayvon hadn't tried to actively avoid him by running away. Running away from a creep is not a crime, following a kid is questionable behavior. More so after he was told not to, and the fact that he's neighborhood watch "leader" and should have known better.

The whole thing smacks of Zimmerman having a chip on his shoulder that he isn't "catching the bad guys" and him acting in accordance with that goal...even if it means forcing an encounter. Perhaps he didn't mean to kill Trayvon, or isn't a racist. But I believe he wanted an encounter to happen so at least one of these "punks/goons/coons" were caught. And then he claimed self defense, when he forced the thing upon an individual who was trying to get away from him. It's just compounded by the fact that Trayvon wasn't of a similar age, weight, and build to Zimmerman. He simply did not have the life experience to temper the encounter against, and Zimmerman should have not pushed it. In a role reversal, I'd have no problem with Zimmerman shooting a teenager who was pursuing him after he ran.....but that's not what happened. He forced it upon Trayvon, and got his ass handed to him and shot out of fear. Which does not excuse his actions leading up to the event, he was not immune under self defense laws until he met criteria.

blocked in the UK

As I've said and as have others, Martin got into a fight out of pure fear (and for good reason, he was fighting for his life). It was already there in his phone call with his girlfriend, you could hear it. Zimmerman is nothing but a paranoid fear-filled vigilante. ...And as a sick joke he still walks the streets...

>> ^kceaton1:

As I've said and as have others, Martin got into a fight out of pure fear (and for good reason, he was fighting for his life). It was already there in his phone call with his girlfriend, you could hear it. Zimmerman is nothing but a paranoid fear-filled vigilante. ...And as a sick joke he still walks the streets...


Can you link to the recording of Martin's phone call? All I've found is the girlfriend reciting it and quotations of her reciting it. It wouldn't seem like something they'd have a recording of unless they tapped some other resource monitoring an existing wiretap or something.

Pratt can't make his points rationally, so he's yelling at Cenk and insulting him the entire time!

Cenk, on the other hand, is calmly evaluating complexities of conflicting data like a rationalist.

>> ^Darkhand:

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
@Darkhand.
Did you even listen to Cenk's point?
A heavy adult male with a gun stalks an unarmed teen, then claim self-defense..
What logic are you using to conclude Zimmerman is somehow not guilt of murder?
What if Zimmerman had stalked a 17 year old white girl, then shot her dead after she fought back?
What you need to see more evidence then?

Someone stalking you, whether anyone likes it or not, is not a just cause for you to turn around and beat the crap out of them.
If Martin turned around and punched him and knocked him on his ass I think that would have been a justifiable amount of force. But continuing to beat on him as some people suggesting to "knock him out" you don't understand how the body works. You can't tell the difference between "Oh yeah I knocked him out" and "Awesome! Internal bleeding and his brain is swelling now I can get away".
Does everyone here really believe because Zimmerman was being over zealous they feel he deserves to get knocked down and have someone sit on top of him and continuously punch him in the head?


According to the SYG law, which they claim let's Zimmerman walk away with no charges. Yes Trayvon had the right to defend himself from a pursuer if he felt that he was in danger. The level of damage he could inflict was dependent on how much danger he thought he was in. The law defines everything as "reasonable" for the level it has to meet. If someone chased you down in a vehicle, you escaped him and he continued looking until he found you again. That to me is reasonable grounds to assume this person means you harm.

Plus, I still have trouble fathoming how Trayvon got within striking distance of Zimmerman in the first place. I find it entirely unlikely that he would approach his stalker. So I believe that Zimmerman cornered him or caught him in a hiding spot. It just never would have happened if Zimmerman would have 1) not followed him 2) not got out of his vehicle.

And I'll just throw this out, carrying a gun carries with it a certain expectation that you will use said gun otherwise carrying it will end up getting you shot if you draw and don't use it. I think Zimmerman felt confident due to his gun and his willingness to use it. Substitute any other rational adult and they would not hunt down a kid and approach him to within striking distance, it's too predatory to continue forward once you've gotten within speaking distance of someone who has tried to evade you once already. Keep in mind that Trayvon had not committed a crime to warrant the amount of attention Zimmerman was giving him, nor the need to approach him beyond the distance a loud speaking or even shouting voice would carry. I certainly would not approach a kid on public property who ran away from me initially. I may be more inclined to hunt them down if they were on my private property or in a dangerous area, but neither of those fit this scenario.

The act of pursuing someone who is trying to get away is by it's nature aggressive. Martin had the right to defend himself from a stranger demonstrating aggressive behavior. The language and frustration Zimmerman expressed on the phone call also suggests he was not pleased to have someone get away on his watch, and perhaps semi-racist in nature.

On the flip side. If Trayvon had chased Zimmerman and still ended up shot to death, would this conversation even be happening? Trayvon would have been provoking the encounter and even if he never laid a finger on Zimmerman, the law states you can use deadly force if you believe someone means to great bodily harm or commit a felony.

It's a joke that Zimmerman has the right to "defend himself" with deadly force, in an encounter he forced upon a teenager against all advice and all material that Zimmerman had presented at a neighborhood watch meeting. The presenter came forward and spoke about it. Under the law he has to meet criteria as the aggressor. I do not believe the police have released information showing he fulfilled those criteria, and his immunity under SYG should be forfeit.

The language on the call "coon", the lack of a tox screen, and the various other screw ups by police. PLUS not holding him until they at least interviewed everyone they could find within a block of the shooting. Now all of those people are potentially tainted by Zimmerman's presence, the media coverage, and the bias of the sources of this information. It's up to the second investigation to hopefully see that they screwed the pooch and see if it was because they are incompetent, racist, or covering up for Zimmerman.

I don't blame anyone for being outrageously pissed and concerned over this. It essentially means you can walk down the street, stalk any lone person, and shoot them dead if they have anything in their hand you can claim looked like a gun or say anything like "I'll kill you...........................if you come any closer." Just the last part won't make it out of their mouth if you have your gun good and ready to blow a hole in them.

So if I want to murder someone in Florida, I:

1: Call the cops and explain to them I see someone suspicious.
2: Show my intended victim that I have a gun, begin chasing them.
3: Chase relentlessly until they do anything to react physically.
4: Shoot to kill.

Seems simple enough.

>> ^Porksandwich:

>> ^Darkhand:
>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
@Darkhand.
Did you even listen to Cenk's point?
A heavy adult male with a gun stalks an unarmed teen, then claim self-defense..
What logic are you using to conclude Zimmerman is somehow not guilt of murder?
What if Zimmerman had stalked a 17 year old white girl, then shot her dead after she fought back?
What you need to see more evidence then?

Someone stalking you, whether anyone likes it or not, is not a just cause for you to turn around and beat the crap out of them.
If Martin turned around and punched him and knocked him on his ass I think that would have been a justifiable amount of force. But continuing to beat on him as some people suggesting to "knock him out" you don't understand how the body works. You can't tell the difference between "Oh yeah I knocked him out" and "Awesome! Internal bleeding and his brain is swelling now I can get away".
Does everyone here really believe because Zimmerman was being over zealous they feel he deserves to get knocked down and have someone sit on top of him and continuously punch him in the head?

According to the SYG law, which they claim let's Zimmerman walk away with no charges. Yes Trayvon had the right to defend himself from a pursuer if he felt that he was in danger. The level of damage he could inflict was dependent on how much danger he thought he was in. The law defines everything as "reasonable" for the level it has to meet. If someone chased you down in a vehicle, you escaped him and he continued looking until he found you again. That to me is reasonable grounds to assume this person means you harm.
Plus, I still have trouble fathoming how Trayvon got within striking distance of Zimmerman in the first place. I find it entirely unlikely that he would approach his stalker. So I believe that Zimmerman cornered him or caught him in a hiding spot. It just never would have happened if Zimmerman would have 1) not followed him 2) not got out of his vehicle.
And I'll just throw this out, carrying a gun carries with it a certain expectation that you will use said gun otherwise carrying it will end up getting you shot if you draw and don't use it. I think Zimmerman felt confident due to his gun and his willingness to use it. Substitute any other rational adult and they would not hunt down a kid and approach him to within striking distance, it's too predatory to continue forward once you've gotten within speaking distance of someone who has tried to evade you once already. Keep in mind that Trayvon had not committed a crime to warrant the amount of attention Zimmerman was giving him, nor the need to approach him beyond the distance a loud speaking or even shouting voice would carry. I certainly would not approach a kid on public property who ran away from me initially. I may be more inclined to hunt them down if they were on my private property or in a dangerous area, but neither of those fit this scenario.
The act of pursuing someone who is trying to get away is by it's nature aggressive. Martin had the right to defend himself from a stranger demonstrating aggressive behavior. The language and frustration Zimmerman expressed on the phone call also suggests he was not pleased to have someone get away on his watch, and perhaps semi-racist in nature.
On the flip side. If Trayvon had chased Zimmerman and still ended up shot to death, would this conversation even be happening? Trayvon would have been provoking the encounter and even if he never laid a finger on Zimmerman, the law states you can use deadly force if you believe someone means to great bodily harm or commit a felony.
It's a joke that Zimmerman has the right to "defend himself" with deadly force, in an encounter he forced upon a teenager against all advice and all material that Zimmerman had presented at a neighborhood watch meeting. The presenter came forward and spoke about it. Under the law he has to meet criteria as the aggressor. I do not believe the police have released information showing he fulfilled those criteria, and his immunity under SYG should be forfeit.
The language on the call "coon", the lack of a tox screen, and the various other screw ups by police. PLUS not holding him until they at least interviewed everyone they could find within a block of the shooting. Now all of those people are potentially tainted by Zimmerman's presence, the media coverage, and the bias of the sources of this information. It's up to the second investigation to hopefully see that they screwed the pooch and see if it was because they are incompetent, racist, or covering up for Zimmerman.
I don't blame anyone for being outrageously pissed and concerned over this. It essentially means you can walk down the street, stalk any lone person, and shoot them dead if they have anything in their hand you can claim looked like a gun or say anything like "I'll kill you...........................if you come any closer." Just the last part won't make it out of their mouth if you have your gun good and ready to blow a hole in them.


Pork that's the problem though even your own article says "I have my doubts, I don't see how" but we don't know all the facts.

This law should not be under scrutiny until it's actually used and if it actually gets zimmerman off.

And the problem with your Theory about Martin being able to continuously pummel Zimmerman while he is on the ground is not true. Once Zimmerman is on his back the "Perceived Threat" is neutralized. It works the same way here in jersey with self defense but I can't use a gun. I answer force with equal force. Once my opponent is disabled I can't keep wailing on them.

Being stalked, in my opinion, does not allow you to feel like your life is in danger. Martin used his cellphone to text his girlfriend, why didn't he call the cops and try to get help?

But then again I'm not a lawyer OR a judge and nobody else is. So everything I say here could be wrong. We don't have all the facts so anyone claiming to know EXACTLY what happened is wrong.

It's just funny because it seems to me that liberals are siding with Martin and Conservatives and siding with Zimmerman. Everyone seems to have their own set of "Facts" and nobody is willing to believe that their own side (Liberal Media or Conservative Media) is injecting facts that may or may not be 100% credible into the case.

Everyone seems to be using this case as a means to push their own policy whether it's gun control reform, minority rights, or personal security. Everyone seems to just be ignoring the tragedy that some kid has had the rest of his life taken from him. Because really that's all we do know!

First this is a shamefully biased on Cenk's part. He's one of my favourite news sources, but this was sinking to CNN and Fox's standards with loaded words and so on.

As for the Martin-Zimmerman story, if it's justifiable for Zimmerman to shoot someone who's got the better of him, it must also be justifiable for Martin to beat the snot (far less harmful) out of someone who's pursuing him and causing a confrontation. And if Zimmerman caused the confrontation in the first place, then surely SYG doesn't apply.

And none of this answers the question of why Zimmerman hasn't been called in for police questioning. Surely, that's a minimum.

>> ^Darkhand:


Pork that's the problem though even your own article says "I have my doubts, I don't see how" but we don't know all the facts.
This law should not be under scrutiny until it's actually used and if it actually gets zimmerman off.
And the problem with your Theory about Martin being able to continuously pummel Zimmerman while he is on the ground is not true. Once Zimmerman is on his back the "Perceived Threat" is neutralized. It works the same way here in jersey with self defense but I can't use a gun. I answer force with equal force. Once my opponent is disabled I can't keep wailing on them.
Being stalked, in my opinion, does not allow you to feel like your life is in danger. Martin used his cellphone to text his girlfriend, why didn't he call the cops and try to get help?
But then again I'm not a lawyer OR a judge and nobody else is. So everything I say here could be wrong. We don't have all the facts so anyone claiming to know EXACTLY what happened is wrong.
It's just funny because it seems to me that liberals are siding with Martin and Conservatives and siding with Zimmerman. Everyone seems to have their own set of "Facts" and nobody is willing to believe that their own side (Liberal Media or Conservative Media) is injecting facts that may or may not be 100% credible into the case.
Everyone seems to be using this case as a means to push their own policy whether it's gun control reform, minority rights, or personal security. Everyone seems to just be ignoring the tragedy that some kid has had the rest of his life taken from him. Because really that's all we do know!


If you don't have any doubts given that the police didn't tox screen Zimmerman, Zimmerman was told not to follow, they had the wrong detective doing the investigation, and witnesses were coming forward weeks AFTER the incident to try to tell their side of it and saying police never investigated. Then I don't think you can call yourself objective.

I personally try to put myself in either person's shoes and decide if I think I would have acted the same way. I can see Trayvon's point of view more easily than I can Zimmerman. If I were a teenager visiting my father and someone in his neighborhood was following me, I would definitely try to run. And if they kept pursuing and had me trapped, you have the choice of letting them do whatever or fighting back. That part is going to vary on what is being said, but I think Zimmerman acted as aggressor there.

Now in Zimmerman's shoes, I don't own a gun, in fact I've never even held one or fired one. However, if I did have a gun, I certainly would not get so close to someone as for them to take my gun from me or prevent me from using my gun if I felt they were "suspicious". I also would not have gotten out of my vehicle to make that even more likely to occur. As for following a teenager, if they looked like a teen in physical appearance I wouldn't push the issue. If it were an adult acting like that, I might be concerned enough to try to keep them in view from a block away or something. I certainly would never have gotten out of my vehicle in either case of a non-injured teen or adult...they obviously don't want you to be near them if they RUN.

The SYG law, which I have quoted the relevant portions in a previous quote does not say that someone is neutralized when they are on their back. Reposting a portion of it:

2011 Florida Statutes CHAPTER 776 JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE[14]

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—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. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

If Trayvon could reasonably believe he was in imminent threat of death or great bodily harm the law clearly says he could use lethal force against Zimmerman. Given that Zimmerman was awake throughout and had the ability to draw a gun and shoot, he was not neutralized. Trayvon was within his rights to defend himself by beating Zimmerman to death if he reasonably felt his life was in danger. If Zimmerman said he had a gun, or the gun was detectable through clothing, or brandishing it, that's a clear indicator that Zimmerman had the ability to use lethal force against him.

Martin wasn't texting his girlfriend, he was speaking to her according to her testimony. She says the line went dead after she HEARD them ask questions and then shoving began.

As for stalking, people get restraining orders against stalkers all the time. If it wasn't a presentation of danger, the courts would not hand out these restraining orders against people who do such things.

I don't like labeling myself as liberal or conservative. Perhaps my life experience makes me favor Martin, but I think the presentation of information thus far indicates that in the moment Zimmerman was beyond the "norm" for behavior for an adult non-LEO against another civilian who was young if not underage. That's not even counting the confrontation, he went beyond the scope a normal citizen would prior to it. Whether that was because he "on something", "pissed", "racist", or had some other agenda.....we can't know. I think it's clear evidence of him not thinking acting reasonably or thinking clearly.

And I don't feel that I'm pushing an agenda. I'm applying the language of the law to the scenario, and I feel that Zimmerman violated Martin's rights and was let go because of the law that should have applied first and foremost to Martin who was actively trying to escape Zimmerman by Zimmerman's own admissions on the 911 tapes. The rest of the police screw ups is just fuel to the fire. It doesn't even matter if Zimmerman hated blacks at this point, although it will be important once they finally apply the law in some kind of rational way. To determine if this was a hate crime on his part, which will be left up to a jury.

Again, I can absolutely see why people would be upset on this case for a lot of reasons. But by far the most troubling is that it seems like you can put someone on the defensive, and straight up murder them as soon as they have lost all other options of flight and turn to fight. Not seeing that aspect of it, is by far the most troubling "blindness"/willful ignorance of the people coming out on the side of Zimmerman. Without evidence to show that Trayvon had a chance for escape, Zimmerman is 100% wrong in the wording of the law under 776.041 as the aggressor. If we can't apply the law by it's language, it's a useless law.

At Darkhand:

So i'm pretty sure you're a racist sympathizer. or just dumb.

If you instigate an attack, you can't claim self defense. Period.

If you were stalked and chased down and detained against your will by a belligerent man with a gun, who you knew hated you and was out to harm you...

You're telling me you'd simply punch him once then attempt to flee?

Zimmerman has the right to defend himself with lethal force?

But a skinny unarmed teenager using just his fists is wrong to fight for his life?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Your opinion is disgusting and indefensible. Full Stop.

To be clear on this. I don't think either Zimmerman or Martin is 100% innocent in this. I just feel that Zimmerman is the one who caused the whole event to happen.

There are some articles where police admit they have about a 1 minute window of where they don't know what happened.

There is Trayvon's girlfriend who said she was on the phone with him where she heard some specific questions asked by both parties and then some pushing or other something and the line went dead. If her story is true, they can verify it by cell phone logs as to when the line went dead and if she was on the phone with him when she claims.

If they can verify she was on the phone with him, her story actually lines up with what some of Zimmerman says. But they have not released what Zimmerman said the exact conversation was. He claims that Trayvon said something like "You got a problem?" and zimmerman said "no" and trayvon said "well you got one now" and hit him. Girlfriend says nothing like that was said, but the line may have been dead by then. So does Zimmerman admit to pushing or that Trayvon pushed him? Do the questions they asked each other line up with what the girlfriend heard? Does the girlfriend think Trayvon was scared/concerned/pissed/whatever?

What was the orientation of the fight? Zimmerman says Trayvon was beating his head and slamming it into the ground. How was Trayvon standing over him? Was he straddling him? Was he off to the side? Was he above Zimmerman's head? Was he sitting on his chest and beating him?

How did Zimmerman shoot Trayvon and not end up underneath him when he collapsed? Report says he fell with his arms underneath him face down in the grass. You could assume he grab for his chest when he was shot, but how did Zimmerman avoid him? How did Zimmerman not end up with blood on him? Do his clothes match with what he said happened when you look at it again and look at the clothing? The grass stains do, but does the blood?

We are to believe that Zimmerman was on his back and drew his gun from his waistband holster (they don't specify when he kept it). So his access to this gun is going to be impaired if Trayvon is sitting on him pounding his face. Plus he's going to be on his back when he shoots unless Trayvon let him up.

Far too many questions for Zimmerman to not be kept for the 48 hours they are allowed to hold someone while they investigated the case. They questioned him and let him go. Perhaps they answered all this and never released it. But then you have Zimmerman not being tox screened and them sending a narcotics detective instead of a homicide detective to do the investigation (according to http://abcnews.go.com/US/neighborhood-watch-killing-911-tape-reveals-racial-slur/story?id=15966309).

I'm not saying crucify Zimmerman or that he needs to have a bounty on his head. But the questions and no answers or address to them is not a positive sign that this crime was investigated properly. And since it has been weeks after the fact when the federal investigators were brought in, the chance of determining it given the iffy police work up front is going to be a lot less possible. That still does not mean Zimmerman's accounting is accurate until they exhausted possibilities. Not just go with what seems most apparent. If Zimmerman were fabricating, he'd pick the best explanation given the scene if he had planned or taken anytime at all to make something up. Plus his recollection of events are going to be driven out his natural bias in the situation, any person's view point would be.

Also in a gated community with a rash of breakins, I would think there would be some home security and other security cameras installed to try to curtail it. Especially on the "clubhouse" Zimmerman references in his 911 call.

How can Martin not be 100% innocent? I don't get how you think he could be at all culpable.>> ^Porksandwich:

To be clear on this. I don't think either Zimmerman or Martin is 100% innocent in this. I just feel that Zimmerman is the one who caused the whole event to happen.
There are some articles where police admit they have about a 1 minute window of where they don't know what happened.
There is Trayvon's girlfriend who said she was on the phone with him where she heard some specific questions asked by both parties and then some pushing or other something and the line went dead. If her story is true, they can verify it by cell phone logs as to when the line went dead and if she was on the phone with him when she claims.
If they can verify she was on the phone with him, her story actually lines up with what some of Zimmerman says. But they have not released what Zimmerman said the exact conversation was. He claims that Trayvon said something like "You got a problem?" and zimmerman said "no" and trayvon said "well you got one now" and hit him. Girlfriend says nothing like that was said, but the line may have been dead by then. So does Zimmerman admit to pushing or that Trayvon pushed him? Do the questions they asked each other line up with what the girlfriend heard? Does the girlfriend think Trayvon was scared/concerned/pissed/whatever?
What was the orientation of the fight? Zimmerman says Trayvon was beating his head and slamming it into the ground. How was Trayvon standing over him? Was he straddling him? Was he off to the side? Was he above Zimmerman's head? Was he sitting on his chest and beating him?
How did Zimmerman shoot Trayvon and not end up underneath him when he collapsed? Report says he fell with his arms underneath him face down in the grass. You could assume he grab for his chest when he was shot, but how did Zimmerman avoid him? How did Zimmerman not end up with blood on him? Do his clothes match with what he said happened when you look at it again and look at the clothing? The grass stains do, but does the blood?
We are to believe that Zimmerman was on his back and drew his gun from his waistband holster (they don't specify when he kept it). So his access to this gun is going to be impaired if Trayvon is sitting on him pounding his face. Plus he's going to be on his back when he shoots unless Trayvon let him up.
Far too many questions for Zimmerman to not be kept for the 48 hours they are allowed to hold someone while they investigated the case. They questioned him and let him go. Perhaps they answered all this and never released it. But then you have Zimmerman not being tox screened and them sending a narcotics detective instead of a homicide detective to do the investigation (according to http://abcnews.go.com/US/neighborhood-watch-
killing-911-tape-reveals-racial-slur/story?id=15966309).
I'm not saying crucify Zimmerman or that he needs to have a bounty on his head. But the questions and no answers or address to them is not a positive sign that this crime was investigated properly. And since it has been weeks after the fact when the federal investigators were brought in, the chance of determining it given the iffy police work up front is going to be a lot less possible. That still does not mean Zimmerman's accounting is accurate until they exhausted possibilities. Not just go with what seems most apparent. If Zimmerman were fabricating, he'd pick the best explanation given the scene if he had planned or taken anytime at all to make something up. Plus his recollection of events are going to be driven out his natural bias in the situation, any person's view point would be.
Also in a gated community with a rash of breakins, I would think there would be some home security and other security cameras installed to try to curtail it. Especially on the "clubhouse" Zimmerman references in his 911 call.

If it were a sane implementation of a self defense law. Martin would have had an obligation to continue to back away from the fight until given no other choice. He would have to have legal provocation, meaning that he must prove that he was in a position in which not using self-defense would most likely lead to death or serious injuries. So pushing or grabbing might not be enough unless he was going for for something vital like your neck instead of your arm or hand or back of your shirt.

In a lot of cases this means someone pretty much has to have a weapon ready to use or make moves to take physical action against you.

Until scene photos come out showing he was in trapped in a corner, he had possible escape routes or he could have knocked on doors or whatever to get attention draw to what was happening if he didn't have time to call police. Some witness woman said it happened in her backyard, and if what they showed on video was it there was no fence but I can't be sure. The houses they showed were really close together, if it was the neighborhood shouting would have been heard by at least 6 houses given how close they were barring planes flying overhead or other noise.

Based on their laws, if SYG applied to Martin (and it should barring they come up with some reason why) he would have had immunity under the law, and Zimmerman wouldn't have been covered if he was found to meet criteria under "Aggressor". However SYG is a rather crazy law, I'll post a blurb at the bottom of this to show there's indication that people abuse it and it's very hard to apply in any sane matter due to nearly all encounters resulting in the other person ending up dead.

But in a less "kill the other guy" type self-defense law you have emphasis placed on avoiding the fight and have to have a damn good reason for lethal force and not just "reasonable belief". If you get provoked your "culpability" is assessed to see if you tried to avoid the fight at all costs.

In this case, blame would have probably been split something like 10-20% Martin 80-90% Zimmerman. A court in a sane area would say that Martin had ample opportunity to call police, ask for help as a door, or yelled for help before Zimmerman caught up. Or perhaps that he could have kept running. Hard to say for sure. But for him to be totally blameless Zimmerman would have had to have shown physical action toward him or some such...the following wouldn't have been enough.

But under SYG, the following could have been enough to give Trayvon reasonable belief that Zimmerman meant imminent use of unlawful force against him. And if you look up unlawful force it's defined as "force to escape arrest, forced use by non-law enforcement, or and non-consenting touch"...it's extremely vague I couldn't find a good definition of it anywhere. I found about 6-8 of them and just took the things in common and different variations and tried to compact it down to that....seriously try googling it and finding a good clear, applicable definition and one that is from Florida...I couldn't.

So Trayvon basically has to reasonable believe that Zimmerman was going to grab him, push him, or otherwise place his hands on him. And I think someone being chased could reasonable expect that.

Here's the blurb from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law

Stand your ground laws are frequently criticized and called "shoot first" laws by critics. In Florida, the law has resulted in self-defense claims tripling, with all but one of those killed unarmed.[32][33] The law's critics argue that Florida's law makes it very difficult to prosecute cases against people who shoot others and then claim self-defense. The shooter can argue they felt threatened, and in most cases, the only witness who could have argued otherwise is the victim who was shot and killed. The Florida law has been used to excuse neighborhood brawls, bar fights, road rage, and even street gang violence.[33] Before passage of the law, Miami police chief John F. Timoney called the law unnecessary and dangerous in that "[w]hether it's trick-or-treaters or kids playing in the yard of someone who doesn't want them there or some drunk guy stumbling into the wrong house, you're encouraging people to possibly use deadly physical force where it shouldn't be used."[34][35]

The Trayvon Martin case brought a large degree of criticism to the law. While the shooter, George Zimmerman, claimed self-defense, evidence indicates that he first pursued Trayvon Martin, prior to the altercation that resulted in the shooting. Legal experts are split as to whether charges will be dropped under Florida's stand-your-ground law before the case even goes to trial, as the extant Florida law allows Zimmerman to argue that the charges should be dropped before trial even begins. Legal experts are also split as to whether Zimmerman's actions will be viewed as self-defense should the case go to trial.

Basically in Florida you can go crazed gunman on a place if you say they were threatening and leave no one alive. If they do the kind of investigation they did with Trayvon, they might not even check all the witnesses or for security footage of the area, and then you'll have immunity....and none of the victims families can sue you for wrongful death, etc. If Im reading the immunity clause of it correctly.



>> ^longde:

How can Martin not be 100% innocent? I don't get how you think he could be at all culpable.>>

I will concede that you've won this argument when you provide evidence of you beating other people who have followed you in a car.

>> ^marinara:

I will concede that you've won this argument when you provide evidence of you beating other people who have followed you in a car.


I did?