The Zimmerman Trial

reply to post by IvanAstikov


I posted a few pages back that Trayvons hands would have likely been conditioned. He fought rather often, according to the release of his own text messages.

I would imagine that street fighting goes a lot further to train someone for a confrontation than fighting in a gym.

He also had a fistful of an Arizona can.

Originally posted by WonderBoi
For those of you unaware, the George Zimmerman murder trial has gotten underway. Here's a Timeline of Events to get you up to speed.

Unarmed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin was shot and killed by neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman in an incident that sparked national debate and outrage. Now, Zimmerman is on trial for murder and faces a maximum of life in prison if convicted

How do you think the trial will end? Do you think George Zimmerman will be convicted or acquitted? Do you think there will be riots and civil unrest from the verdict?

If Zimmerman was the one screaming, he shot martin in selfdefence
If martin was the one screaming, zimmerman had the upper hand of the fight and ha no need to shoot him.
So its pretty obvious that it was selfdefence.

Zimmerman called the police, and he was the one watching the area against burglars - hes the one out helping people in his spare time, he have no motive to just go kill somebody.
And what do we know about Martin? young dude lurking arround in the rain, and he could have avoided the confrontation, but somehow chose not to do that.

Of course there will we some kind of violent response if zimmerman isnt not found guilty, because alot of people make this a fight of races, and dont see beyond that - pretty silly.
Just wacthed Al sharpton, and he did not seem to be objective at all - people like him will set the black community on fire if Zimmerman goes free.

WonderBoi what a great post this has turned out to be, thank you.

Originally posted by Libertygal
reply to post by IvanAstikov

 

I posted a few pages back that Trayvons hands would have likely been conditioned. He fought rather often, according to the release of his own text messages.

I would imagine that street fighting goes a lot further to train someone for a confrontation than fighting in a gym.

He also had a fistful of an Arizona can.

I've seen one mention of a streetfight Trayvon was involved in, and in it he talks about going 3 rounds, which suggests there were some kind of rules involved. If he'd had 50 such streetfights, that'd be no indication that he'd be likely to attack a complete stranger for the flimsiest of reasons. If Trayvon Martin was a regular streetfighter AND a complete thug(the 2 aren't synonymous), I'm sure given 30 seconds with a barely resistant opponent, he'd have left Zimmerman's face completely unrecognisable and he wouldn't have been carrying out no fancy last second escape with his gun.

But, you carry on believing Zimmerman was tough enough to take a 30-40 second savage beating, but not quite tough enough to roll Trayvon off and bang the crap out of him.

reply to post by IvanAstikov


But, you carry on believing Zimmerman was tough enough to take a 30-40 second savage beating, but not quite tough enough to roll Trayvon off and bang the crap out of him.

If Martin was a streetfighter it sounds more likely that he survirved 30-40 secs, than zimmerman made him scream for help like a little girl dosnt it?

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by JuniorDisco

 

Haha.. my spelling is great, if I make a mistake it's because I'm on a cell phone. Go ahead if you want to pick problems out with my posts, I am cranking them out as fast as I can with three people responding at a time. I think I do just fine. If we were writing seriously i'd blow you away because writing is what I do.

For a job? Really? I hear you can actually make like dozens of dollars a month from blogging now, so good on you.

When you pose whatever question is is for me directly I will answer it. Likely tmrw because I'm going to bed, but I assure you, reply and ask your question and I will answer straight up first thing when I'm back. I'll even I'M you and let you know.

I asked you on another thread why you thought that people had insinuated that Martin's parents had given up the possibility of a criminal trial in exchange for money. You replied that you had not done that, which isnot what I asked.

I'm trying to show you that from the start, for certain people, the benefit of the doubt has been with Zimmerman. Not in a court of law - where I suppose it's proper - but in every facet of their reading of events. Every attempt has been made to make a 17 year old idiot look like a seasoned gangster. To make his parents look like profiteers and to criticise his activities on the night.

When George's past and actions have been brought up they are suddenly innocent or inadmissible (in the debate - not in court) because they didn't result in convictions, or he was fat, or because he simply said something which disputed them. This isn't a balanced way of looking at he case, and its roots lie - despite your simplistic protestations to the contrary - in the historical fabric of race relations in the US.

Originally posted by XTexan


Which means we have 2 people doing nothing illegal.

During the walk back to his car Zimmerman and Martin met somehow and a confrontation took place.

The question is "Who took the first swing?".

So if Martin wasn't doing anything illegal why was he being tracked by an armed stalker?

reply to post by WonderBoi


Dude .. you can be beaten to death. You can be beaten so badly that you live but have been crippled or have damage that can't be undone. You can have your head slammed ONCE and have it change your life. If anyone did to me what Martin did to Zimmerman, I'd shoot without hesitation. I wouldn't just take a beating if I didn't have to. That's stupid.

Originally posted by Libertygal
If Zimmermans' past is under the micrscope, then so should be Martin's

Exactly. If one persons past matters, then they both matter. If one persons attitude matters, than they both matter. It's either all or nothing. Martin could be a victim or a perp. Zimmerman could be a victim or a perp. To claim to want Zimmermans attitude and past to matter but not Martins ... that's absurd.

Originally posted by Minus
reply to post by IvanAstikov

 

But, you carry on believing Zimmerman was tough enough to take a 30-40 second savage beating, but not quite tough enough to roll Trayvon off and bang the crap out of him.

If Martin was a streetfighter it sounds more likely that he survirved 30-40 secs, than zimmerman made him scream for help like a little girl dosnt it?

But, we don't know he was a seasoned streetfighter. We've heard he had one fight with some guy over something and it went 3 rounds. That is not exactly depicting a pattern of behaviour.

reply to post by IvanAstikov


But, we don't know he was a seasoned streetfighter. We've heard he had one fight with some guy over something and it went 3 rounds. That is not exactly depicting a pattern of behaviour.

True, its not a pattern - but it shows that he was not afraid of a violent solution to conflict

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
But, we don't know he was a seasoned streetfighter. We've heard he had one fight with some guy over something and it went 3 rounds. That is not exactly depicting a pattern of behaviour.

But we don't know Zimmermans was any good at fighting. We've heard that he went to classes. That is not exactly depicting someone in shape and winning tournaments.

That's using your 'reasoning' back.

However, Martin was showing off with bravado about his abilities and his 'thuggery'.
So who has the 'get in a fight' attitude? Answer ... Martin.

Originally posted by JuniorDisco

Originally posted by XTexan


Which means we have 2 people doing nothing illegal.

During the walk back to his car Zimmerman and Martin met somehow and a confrontation took place.

The question is "Who took the first swing?".

So if Martin wasn't doing anything illegal why was he being tracked by an armed stalker?

In the walkthrough, Zimmerman zaid, "He was in the grassy area, in front of the houses, looking into them. He was acting suspiciously. Then he ran off."

I stated in a post right by this one that you replied to, he was "prowling". "Peeping." But let's just go with prowling.


www.leg.state.fl.us.../0856/Sections/0856.021.html

Loitering or prowling; penalty.—

It is unlawful for any person to loiter or prowl in a place, at a time or in a
manner not usual for law-abiding individuals, under circumstances that warrant a
justifiable and reasonable alarm or immediate concern for the safety of persons or
property in the vicinity.

That was enough for a reasonable person to articulate that a crime was, or may be about to be afoot.

This would be the basis for the police officer stop, once the officer arrived to the scene. What is otherwise known as a Terry Stop.

Instead, Trayvon departed the scene, came back, and an altercation took place.

He had already created a reasonable and articulable suspicion for a Terry Stop. This was articulated to the police by George when he called 911.

Originally posted by Minus
reply to post by IvanAstikov

 

But, we don't know he was a seasoned streetfighter. We've heard he had one fight with some guy over something and it went 3 rounds. That is not exactly depicting a pattern of behaviour.

True, its not a pattern - but it shows that he was not afraid of a violent solution to conflict

"If Zimmerman was trained in mixed martial arts it sounds more likely that he survirved 30-40 secs, than Trayvon made him scream for help like a little girl dosnt it?"

I suppose that makes no sense whatsoever., now the roles have been reversed?

Originally posted by Libertygal


Looking IN peoples' houses, there is a difference.

That is known as prowling.

Peeping.

Any sensible person knows by watching someone, especially someone raised around law enforcement in the family, what the term "a crime is afoot" means.

Actually, looking in people's houses isn't illegal either. And you only have George's word that he was doing anything except just walking along.

Still, probably best he's dead. Can't have people looking at houses. Especially, you know, those kind of people.

reply to post by IvanAstikov


I suppose that makes no sense whatsoever., now the roles have been reversed?

What make sense is following.
If Zimmerman was the one screaming, he shot martin in selfdefence
If martin was the one screaming, zimmerman clearly had the upper hand of the fight and had no need to shoot him - as he could make a civil arrest, and he knew the police was on their way.

reply to post by JuniorDisco


Still, probably best he's dead. Can't have people looking at houses. Especially, you know, those kind of people

I think its tragic and heartbreaking that a 17 year old "child" is dead in this case, but i still argue for selfdefence - it is possible to have both views u know.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
But, we don't know he was a seasoned streetfighter. We've heard he had one fight with some guy over something and it went 3 rounds. That is not exactly depicting a pattern of behaviour.

But we don't know Zimmermans was any good at fighting. We've heard that he went to classes. That is not exactly depicting someone in shape and winning tournaments.

He doesn't need to be able to win tournaments for his training to be useful for street self-defence. As long as he has taken part in any full contact sparring and been able to hold his own, he doesn't need to be Anderson Silva to beat the typical street punk. Now, if the street punk has also done a bit of training, that might make for a more competitive fight, but he should at least be able to let his opponent know he's been in a fight, without having to put a bullet in his chest to leave a mark on him. It's not like Trayvon's first punch rang George's bell so hard he fell to the ground immediately and had no possibilty whatsoever to fight back. Trayvon allegedly let him stroll for 30ft before he even jumped on George, so it's not like he didn't have time for his head to clear.

Some interesting stuff. Zimmerman obviously isn't guilty of Murder 2. But for those who are thinking about Manslaughter for him .... (and for those who aren't thinking it but are interested as well )

If accused of Manslaughter in Florida you need to know this

1 - Manslaughter by Act: Committing an act that was neither excusable, nor justified that resulted in the death of another person.

2 - Manslaughter by Procurement: Persuading, inducing, or encouraging another person to commit an act that resulted in the death of another person

3 - Manslaughter by Culpable Negligence: Engaging in “Culpably Negligent” conduct that resulted in the death of another person.

Excusable Homicide - The killing of a human being is excusable, and therefore lawful, under any one of the following three circumstances:

When the killing is committed by accident and misfortune in doing any lawful act by lawful means with usual ordinary caution and without any unlawful intent, or

When the killing occurs by accident and misfortune in the heat of passion, upon any sudden and sufficient provocation, or

When the killing is committed by accident and misfortune resulting from a sudden combat, if a dangerous weapon is not used and the killing is not done in a cruel or unusual manner.

Justifiable Homicide - The killing of a human being is justifiable homicide and lawful if done while resisting an attempt by someone to kill you or to commit a felony against you.

After all the testimony so far ... what I see is this ...

- Zimmerman was negligent because he didn't identify himself as Neighborhood Watch to Martin when Martin approached him. I don't know if there was time to do so, but it seems to me that there could have been. So that falls under negligent manslaughter.

- Zimmerman was stupid for getting out of his car to observe Martin. I don't know if that falls under 'negligent'. It could be that he was negligent in performing his Neighborhood Watch duties properly. So this could fall under negligent manslaughter.

- However, he ended up killing Martin in self defense from a 'sudden combat' situation and while resisting an attempt by Martin to commit a felony against him. So this falls under justifiable homicide.

I"m glad I"m not on the jury. WOW. They have their work cut out for them.

reply to post by IvanAstikov

You missed the point .. or I didn't say it clearly. You are saying that we don't know how well Martin was of a street fighter. But the same goes for Zimmerman. We don't know how well he did in his classes.

My husband has a black belt and is an international champion. When I'd go to his classes and tournaments to watch him, there would be people who had taken classes for years and looked horrid. There were others who had taken classes for a short while and looked fantastic. So you really can't say that because Zimmerman was taking classes he automatically was an awesome fighter. It doesn't work that way.

What we DO know is that Martin was on top of Zimmerman and was beating the snot out of him. If Zimmerman was such a good fighter as you say, this wouldn't have happened. Obviously Zimmerman isn't at the level of fighter that you are trying to say. And obviously Martin has much more street fighting experience or ability than you are wanting people to think.

that's just the way it is. Martin was on top and beating the snot out of Zimmerman.
Zimmerman wasn't a good fighter. The end.

Originally posted by Minus
reply to post by JuniorDisco

 

Still, probably best he's dead. Can't have people looking at houses. Especially, you know, those kind of people

I think its tragic and heartbreaking that a 17 year old "child" is dead in this case, but i still argue for selfdefence - it is possible to have both views u know.

edit on 2-7-2013 by Minus because: im loving it

Absolutely. But Libertygal is trying to suggest that Zimmerman should be allowed to shoot Martin because Martin was committing some kind of crime, or about to.

She ignores the fact that this evidence comes from the guy who did the killing - and is thus immediately suspect - and that given other aspects of what he says it seems unlikely that he actually watched for long enough to ascertain that Martin was actually 'casing' the places.

In any case, it's almost certain that Zimmerman's suspicion arose because of Martin's ethnicity and attire. He made a wrong assumption based on what 'those kinds of people' do.

She brings up statute law (which she doesn't quote in full) in a situation between two civilians where it doesn't apply and where the only evidence of lawbreaking is provided by the killer! It's simple bias.