Zimmerman Protest At full force

[uncle money bags]

18 pages of non sense.
Until the discussion revolves around an agreed to set of circumstances; or facts if you will, then there cannot be a reasonable debate in the merits of who was right and who was wrong.

 

[aeropb]

moral of the story: don't attack the neighborhood watch guy

 

[Glock]

It stems from a lack, or even stubbornness to perceive the other side Money. I'll take a crack at it in my near slumber.

We'll never know for sure, but can assume that Martin perceived Zimmerman as a threat. He was a 17 year old kid being followed by an older male he didn't know.

That established, on the flip side, Zimmerman viewed Martin as a threat to his neighborhood and decided to follow (undisputed in the call transcript), he had zero obligation to retreat from his threat, with Florida law to back that up... Now I will concede that Zimmerman was more than likely looking for a solid address to pass to dispatch (why he would look for address markers in the back yards between houses, I'll never understand, but I digress)

Flipping back to Martin... Let's say that he doesn't want to lead a stranger back to his house, so he decided to hide from the person following him, so he pops back behind a bush. While he's hiding, Zimmerman exits the car, travels down the sidewalk (coincidentally the same path he lost sight of his suspect)... Fight or flight instinct kicks in, thinking he's trapped, Martin pops out of the bush and confronts his threat. I don't understand the argument that Martin was in the wrong on the exact same basis. Zimmerman was a perceived threat to him, and he acted to subdue that threat, standing his ground... Now all of a sudden he's a criminal "thug" that tried to victimize the person following him. Now, if he had killed/maimed Zimmerman, would he not be protected by the same set of laws that protected Zimmerman?

Is that how it went down? We'll never know, but it sure is logical in critical thought. I'm not arguing right or wrong. We'll never know who was right or wrong. I'm arguing that this is more than likely a terrible chain of events rather than a clean cut self defense act against a criminal.

Most won't agree, it's purely analytical/hypothetical, and that's cool by me. We disagree all the time. Some won't be able to see the other side at all, as an independent critical thought process will be too far from comfort. And I imagine a few will have to google a wiki entry on "independent critical thought process" to see what the hell we're talking about.

 

[yukonjack]

This isn't war. Civilians aren't allowed to launch preemptive physical assaults based on some precieved threat. We are allowed under the law to be on defense but not on offense. That's clearly what happened here. Martin launched a physical assault first. Had he not done that he wouldn't be dead. Again, go back and listen to the testimony of John Good.

If Martin hadn't attacked Zimmerman I think these two would have stood toe to toe and screamed at each other until the cops got there. It's quite obvious the neighbors were calling 911 before the fatal shot was fired.

 

[Glock]

This isn't war. Civilians aren't allowed to launch preemptive physical assaults based on some precieved threat. We are allowed under the law to be on defense but not on offense. That's clearly what happened here. Martin launched a physical assault first. Had he not done that he wouldn't be dead. Again, go back and listen to the testimony of John Good.

If Martin hadn't attacked Zimmerman I think these two would have stood toe to toe and screamed at each other until the cops got there. It's quite obvious the neighbors were calling 911 before the fatal shot was fired.

That's a great response worthy of oppositional praise. Much more elegant that the status quo "he's a thug" and "he deserved it". Well done. Again, it's not about guilty/innocent... It's about perspective.

So let's say it went from a screaming match, to Zimmerman pushing Martin away... Is that enough physical contact to warrant a self defense verdict?
Granted, Zimmerman being a CCP holder, still killed in a blunt force manner. Sworn statement by Martin than Zimmerman started the physicality of the confrontation. Would the flip side of the country be up in arms like the other half is now? Crying fowl that this person got away with murder?

 

[Hobbes]

This isn't war. Civilians aren't allowed to launch preemptive physical assaults based on some precieved threat. We are allowed under the law to be on defense but not on offense. That's clearly what happened here. Martin launched a physical assault first. Had he not done that he wouldn't be dead. Again, go back and listen to the testimony of John Good.

If Martin hadn't attacked Zimmerman I think these two would have stood toe to toe and screamed at each other until the cops got there. It's quite obvious the neighbors were calling 911 before the fatal shot was fired.

We don't know for sure what happened that night because we only have one side of the story but by Zimmerman's own account Martin had reason to fear for his life.

As I headed back to my vehicle the suspect emerged from the darkness and said "You got a problem"? I said No.
The suspect said "You do now".
As I looked and tried to find my phone to dial 911 the suspect punched me in the face.

http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/news/documents/2012/06/21/written_statement_0226.pdf



If a stranger was following me on a dark rainy night, first by car and then by foot, and I found myself engaged in a face to face confrontation I might interpret the actions of GZ as reaching for a weapon.
Zimmerman's account almost makes it sound as if Trayvon Martin was standing his ground by acting in self defense against an armed assailant.


What would forum members here have done in that moment?
Restrained yourself until the gun came out of the pocket?

But then again, this is Zimmerman's account of what happened that night. We don't know what really happened for sure.

 

[jmike314]

I hope I haven't offended you.

Nope...not yet. You'd have to throw bigger stones. We're good.

Glock & Hobbes bring up a key point:
Regardless of trial testimony, arguments, & evidence...what happened prior to the altercation is unknown. Did TM initiate the attack? Did GZ throw the first punch? We do not, nor will we ever, know for sure.

We do know an altercation took place and in the end I believe that GZ probably had a real fear for his life. Unfortunately TM lost his life as a result.

I don't think it fair to label this dead teen a thug for the reasons that have been stated here. Plenty of people have done things that should/could have landed them in hail or worse. I'll admit to that. It's odd that people are so adamant about the innocence of GZ with a huge lack of information on the events leading up to the fight.....GZ had trouble with the law in his past as well, didn't he? Why is it such a big stretch to think that maybe...just maybe...TM wasn't totally in the wrong? How can you say he was the aggressor without any doubt?

 

[ch1966]

Glock & Hobbes bring up a key point:
Regardless of trial testimony, arguments, & evidence...what happened prior to the altercation is unknown. Did TM initiate the attack? Did GZ throw the first punch? We do not, nor will we ever, know for sure.

Why would we disregard evidence, testimony and statements?
We do have two sides of the story.

"Dee Dee" said Martin was running.
Zimmerman said Martin was running.

"Dee Dee" said that Martin said he had lost Zimmerman.
Zimmerman said that he lost Martin.

"Dee Dee said that Martin saw Zimmerman again. She told Martin to run, but Martin said he wasn't going to run because he himself was right by his dad's house. According to Dee Dee, at this point Martin began walking.
Zimmerman said that after following and losing Martin he decided to return to his vehicle.

"Dee Dee" said that Martin initiated conversation with Zimmerman to which Zimmerman replied back.
Zimmerman said that Martin initiated conversation with Zimmerman to which he replied back.

"Dee Dee" said (direct quote from her statement) ": Dee Dee: Yeah..and I hear, I hear a sound like “bump.” You cou’ hear that Trayvon bump…somebody bumped Trayvon, ’cause I could hear the grass."
(Notice how she started to say that Trayvon bumped something and then changed it to somebody bumped Trayvon?"
Zimmerman said that he was sucker punched while getting his cell phone back out.

Notice how the statements match. Also note that Martin told "Dee Dee" that he was by his dad's house. Then he began walking.....

How can you say he was the aggressor without any doubt?

Physical evidence shows abrasions on Martin's knuckles and a bullet hole in his chest after the altercation. No other bruises, scratches, lacerations, etc.
The evidence backs up Zimmerman's account.
There is no evidence that backs up the wild theories that some have presented.

 

[AKguy1985]

S4F, you need to lay off the Nancy Grace for awhile. I know that despite her size, she's still kind of hot and would probably be a great roll in the sack. But you sound like you've been moonlighting as a producer for her. Take a break from the Nancy man!

This gave me a chuckle.

 

[jmike314]

Why would we disregard evidence, testimony and statements?
We do have two sides of the story.

Only 2 people were there when it happened. Only 1 was able to talk about it after. No one else saw it.
Everything else is a pieced together interpretation of what people said.
You use Dee Dee's testimony as if it were pure truth up until you reach a part that does not agree with your theory and then choose to use your own interpretation. So which one is it? Is her testimony truth or not?

Physical evidence shows abrasions on Martin's knuckles and a bullet hole in his chest after the altercation. No other bruises, scratches, lacerations, etc.

Maybe GZ missed. Hell, I don't know.
Everything bad said about TM is being taken as truth and justified by his "criminal history".
None of GZ's story is questioned yet he has his own "criminal history".

GZ was found not guilty...I get it. All that was needed was reasonable doubt.
If this was flipped, TM would have most likely been found not guilty for the same reason.
Neither side would have been found guilty as there is doubt all over the place.

And no matter what you heard, read, think, feel, assume...you don't know exactly what happened that night. If you did, then you should have been in Florida testifying.