Trayvon Martin and "Stand Your Ground" in FL

[carlfense]

Honest question because I don't know: Everyone is talking about how Zimmerman was a "wannabe cop" and how many other times he's called 911 to report something suspicious. How many times did he actually confront any of those other "suspicious" people he was calling about?

Don't know the answer to that . . . but I think that it was pretty conclusively shown that Zimmerman was a "wannabe cop."

[Ziggy]

He left his vehicle because the dispatcher asked him which direction Martin went, and Zimmerman was parked in a spot where he could no longer follow by vehicle. Martin at any time could have called the police himself, could have ran home, could have called his dad. Martin did none of these things, he instead keep talking to his friend on his cell, and called Zimmerman a "cracker". Why would a kid scared for his life turn and challenge a larger and older man instead of going home, calling someone to help him or getting his father involved in some way? Where is the evidence that Zimmerman instigated the altercation that lead to Martin being shot. There is none, Zimmerman showed no bruising on his knuckles to indicate he even punched Martin. Zimmerman was also the only one to sustain any injuries prior to the gun shot. Following someone is not a crime, its not aggressive, its not a justification to get into a physical altercation with someone over.

 

Are you joking? The dispatcher asked him NOT TO FOLLOW MARTIN.

http://www.documentc...-zimmerman.html

 

Dispatcher

Are you following him?

 

Zimmerman

Yeah.

 

Dispatcher

Ok, we don't need you to do that.

 

Zimmerman

Ok.

 

You are assuming Martin started the altercation. Threw the first punch. You don't know this, you can't know this.

 

The dispatcher is not a law enforcement officer, they only give recommendations. So just because they say that Zimmerman needs to follow the suspect, he is within his legal rights to continue to do so until a police officer has relieved him. My assumption that Martin threw the first punch is based on post investigation facts that say Martin had abrasions on his knuckles consistent with punching someone, while Zimmerman had none of the same. Your assumption is based off of your preconceived notion that Zimmerman was guilty long before the trial ever started.

 

Secondly, after the Boston bombing, 9/11, Columbine, Sandy Hook, etc etc, we are told to be on the look out for suspicious behavior and to report it to the authorities to possibly stop these horrible events from happening again. I agree with this notion, and Zimmerman took it farther than I would have(though completely within his legal rights), but as long as we have people who break the law, and we continue to not have cops around every corner, its up to citizens to help police stay informed. We cant have it both ways, either people help stop crimes from being committed, or people give up their rights to complain when bad things happen that can be avoided.

[Junior]

And you are assuming the same for Zimmerman.

 

I'm not assuming anything other than his following Martin was based on race. The rest is in the reading of the facts and the skeptical reading of Zimmerman's account. Sorry, but I don't necessarily take his story at face value. We have good reason not to.

[knapplc]

Here's a pic of the location, with Martin's path in red.

 

 

 

Zimmerman saw this kid walking, and found his walking to be suspicious enough to call police. He doesn't explain what Martin was doing that was so suspicious, he just took it upon himself to call.

 

Zimmerman wasn't even on duty at the time. He was in his personal vehicle and was wearing his gun - perfectly legally - when he saw Martin.

 

Zimmerman told police in his initial call, “Something’s wrong with him. Yup, he’s coming to check me out. He’s got something in his hands. I don’t know what his deal is.”

 

What's wrong with him? Walking on the sidewalk with candy in your hands is wrong? Whatever it was, Zimmerman felt he needed to pursue Martin in his vehicle, beginning their interaction which resulted in Martin's death.

 

Had Zimmerman been five minutes later, Martin would be alive today.

[Junior]

My assumption that Martin threw the first punch is based on post investigation facts that say Martin had abrasions on his knuckles consistent with punching someone, while Zimmerman had none of the same.

 

Zimmerman said that Martin grabbed his gun... yet there is no DNA evidence to support this. So why am I supposed to believe the rest of his story?

[Mavric]

All of the available information and evidence pointed toward Martin being the aggressor in the fight, and slamming Zimmerman's head into a concrete walk way. If those accounts are accurate, Martin is no longer a unarmed kid, he is a man using concrete as a weapon to physically harm another human with the possibility of killing Zimmerman. If the fight got broken up before Zimmerman shot Martin, it is conceivable that Martin could have been charged with attempted murder/manslaughter.

 

You mean aside from the fact that the only person with a gun pursued and confronted the only person without a gun? That evidence is kinda crucial, and paints a very different picture of the situation. It's really hard not to paint Zimmerman as the aggressor here with the available information.

 

He left his vehicle because the dispatcher asked him which direction Martin went, and Zimmerman was parked in a spot where he could no longer follow by vehicle. Martin at any time could have called the police himself, 1 could have ran home, could have called his dad. Martin did none of these things, 2 he instead keep talking to his friend on his cell, and called Zimmerman a "cracker". 3 Why would a kid scared for his life turn and challenge a larger and older man instead of going home, calling someone to help him or getting his father involved in some way? 4 Where is the evidence that Zimmerman instigated the altercation that lead to Martin being shot. There is none, Zimmerman showed no bruising on his knuckles to indicate he even punched Martin. Zimmerman was also the only one to sustain any injuries prior to the gun shot. 5 Following someone is not a crime, its not aggressive, its not a justification to get into a physical altercation with someone over.

 

First bold: He was going home.

 

Second bold: It is not a crime to talk on your cell phone, nor is it a crime to describe someone as a "cracker" to your friend on the phone. Neither talking on your phone nor telling the person you're talking to that someone you see is a "crazy-ass cracker" warrants being stopped by someone you have no knowledge of or contact with.

 

Third bold: I can think of a dozen reasons why he would do that, ranging from he's a nut-job trying to show off how tough he is to he's scared for his life because that larger, older man is threatening him with a gun. Neither I nor you know why he did that, or if Zimmerman gave him no chance to flee.

 

Fourth bold: You mean aside from the fact that he was in his car, then left his car and pursued and contacted Martin?

 

Third bold: Agree, but while it may not be a crime, it's also not prudent. Had Zimmerman stayed in his car, Martin would have gone home and lived. Zimmerman made the decision to leave his car while armed and pursue a teenager walking home, make contact with him, and then shooting him dead.

 

The instigator in all of this is Zimmerman, not Martin. Martin was on a sidewalk, walking home from the convenience store. Nothing he did, nothing that he's alleged to have done, is illegal.

But there is not evidence that what you state about the third or fourth bold is correct. It's fine if you want to speculate that's what happened but it's nowhere near a fact.

[Mavric]

Honest question because I don't know: Everyone is talking about how Zimmerman was a "wannabe cop" and how many other times he's called 911 to report something suspicious. How many times did he actually confront any of those other "suspicious" people he was calling about?

Don't know the answer to that . . . but I think that it was pretty conclusively shown that Zimmerman was a "wannabe cop."

Yes, but if this is the first time he's "pursued" someone, that would seem out of place.

[knapplc]

All of the available information and evidence pointed toward Martin being the aggressor in the fight, and slamming Zimmerman's head into a concrete walk way. If those accounts are accurate, Martin is no longer a unarmed kid, he is a man using concrete as a weapon to physically harm another human with the possibility of killing Zimmerman. If the fight got broken up before Zimmerman shot Martin, it is conceivable that Martin could have been charged with attempted murder/manslaughter.

 

You mean aside from the fact that the only person with a gun pursued and confronted the only person without a gun? That evidence is kinda crucial, and paints a very different picture of the situation. It's really hard not to paint Zimmerman as the aggressor here with the available information.

 

He left his vehicle because the dispatcher asked him which direction Martin went, and Zimmerman was parked in a spot where he could no longer follow by vehicle. Martin at any time could have called the police himself, 1 could have ran home, could have called his dad. Martin did none of these things, 2 he instead keep talking to his friend on his cell, and called Zimmerman a "cracker". 3 Why would a kid scared for his life turn and challenge a larger and older man instead of going home, calling someone to help him or getting his father involved in some way? 4 Where is the evidence that Zimmerman instigated the altercation that lead to Martin being shot. There is none, Zimmerman showed no bruising on his knuckles to indicate he even punched Martin. Zimmerman was also the only one to sustain any injuries prior to the gun shot. 5 Following someone is not a crime, its not aggressive, its not a justification to get into a physical altercation with someone over.

 

First bold: He was going home.

 

Second bold: It is not a crime to talk on your cell phone, nor is it a crime to describe someone as a "cracker" to your friend on the phone. Neither talking on your phone nor telling the person you're talking to that someone you see is a "crazy-ass cracker" warrants being stopped by someone you have no knowledge of or contact with.

 

Third bold: I can think of a dozen reasons why he would do that, ranging from he's a nut-job trying to show off how tough he is to he's scared for his life because that larger, older man is threatening him with a gun. Neither I nor you know why he did that, or if Zimmerman gave him no chance to flee.

 

Fourth bold: You mean aside from the fact that he was in his car, then left his car and pursued and contacted Martin?

 

Third bold: Agree, but while it may not be a crime, it's also not prudent. Had Zimmerman stayed in his car, Martin would have gone home and lived. Zimmerman made the decision to leave his car while armed and pursue a teenager walking home, make contact with him, and then shooting him dead.

 

The instigator in all of this is Zimmerman, not Martin. Martin was on a sidewalk, walking home from the convenience store. Nothing he did, nothing that he's alleged to have done, is illegal.

But there is not evidence that what you state about the third or fourth bold is correct. It's fine if you want to speculate that's what happened but it's nowhere near a fact.

 

Right about the third, which is why I said "Neither I nor you know why he did that" to point out that Ziggy's premise was errant. I wasn't making a statement of fact, I was showing that his statement is not fact.

 

RE: The fourth bold - we have Zimmerman's testimony, both during the police investigation and during the trial, where he states he left his vehicle to pursue Martin. I don't see how that's incorrect.

[Ziggy]

All of the available information and evidence pointed toward Martin being the aggressor in the fight, and slamming Zimmerman's head into a concrete walk way. If those accounts are accurate, Martin is no longer a unarmed kid, he is a man using concrete as a weapon to physically harm another human with the possibility of killing Zimmerman. If the fight got broken up before Zimmerman shot Martin, it is conceivable that Martin could have been charged with attempted murder/manslaughter.

 

You mean aside from the fact that the only person with a gun pursued and confronted the only person without a gun? That evidence is kinda crucial, and paints a very different picture of the situation. It's really hard not to paint Zimmerman as the aggressor here with the available information.

 

He left his vehicle because the dispatcher asked him which direction Martin went, and Zimmerman was parked in a spot where he could no longer follow by vehicle. Martin at any time could have called the police himself, 1 could have ran home, could have called his dad. Martin did none of these things, 2 he instead keep talking to his friend on his cell, and called Zimmerman a "cracker". 3 Why would a kid scared for his life turn and challenge a larger and older man instead of going home, calling someone to help him or getting his father involved in some way? 4 Where is the evidence that Zimmerman instigated the altercation that lead to Martin being shot. There is none, Zimmerman showed no bruising on his knuckles to indicate he even punched Martin. Zimmerman was also the only one to sustain any injuries prior to the gun shot. 5 Following someone is not a crime, its not aggressive, its not a justification to get into a physical altercation with someone over.

 

First bold: He was going home.

 

Second bold: It is not a crime to talk on your cell phone, nor is it a crime to describe someone as a "cracker" to your friend on the phone. Neither talking on your phone nor telling the person you're talking to that someone you see is a "crazy-ass cracker" warrants being stopped by someone you have no knowledge of or contact with.

 

Third bold: I can think of a dozen reasons why he would do that, ranging from he's a nut-job trying to show off how tough he is to he's scared for his life because that larger, older man is threatening him with a gun. Neither I nor you know why he did that, or if Zimmerman gave him no chance to flee.

 

Fourth bold: You mean aside from the fact that he was in his car, then left his car and pursued and contacted Martin?

 

Third bold: Agree, but while it may not be a crime, it's also not prudent. Had Zimmerman stayed in his car, Martin would have gone home and lived. Zimmerman made the decision to leave his car while armed and pursue a teenager walking home, make contact with him, and then shooting him dead.

 

The instigator in all of this is Zimmerman, not Martin. Martin was on a sidewalk, walking home from the convenience store. Nothing he did, nothing that he's alleged to have done, is illegal.

 

You got your numbers messed up, need edited for other readers.

 

1. ok

2. I never said it was a crime, I said he could have hung up with his friend and called 911 or his father if he felt he was in danger from Zimmerman.

3. You have no evidence to back the second statement up, we only know Zimmerman was a legal conceal carry permit owner, not if he had it out, conceal, waving it around, pointing it etc. Zimmerman maintained he concealed it until Martin make a move toward it at which point he pulled it and fired killing Martin.

4. All well within his rights.

5. So because he got out of his car, Martin is dead, not because Martin got into an altercation with Zimmerman. Martin was out of Zimmerman's field of vision before Zimmerman got out of his car. Martin could have very easily made it home without every getting into that fight. Both parties are equally at fault for the altercation happening.

 

6. Following someone is not an excuse to get into a fight with someone, nor is it alright to slam a persons head into concrete. By all accounts he was the person on top pummeling Zimmerman, which is illegal, he used concrete as a weapon, which is attempted murder, or assault with a deadly weapon.

[carlfense]

My assumption that Martin threw the first punch is based on post investigation facts that say Martin had abrasions on his knuckles consistent with punching someone, while Zimmerman had none of the same.

 

Zimmerman said that Martin grabbed his gun... yet there is no DNA evidence to support this. So why am I supposed to believe the rest of his story?

Well . . . touch DNA testing is pretty imperfect. I think the fact that Zimmerman had no blood on him (or on the gun) when he claimed that he shot Martin while Martin was on top of him is more damning.

[carlfense]

Both parties are equally at fault for the altercation happening.

no.

[Mavric]

My assumption that Martin threw the first punch is based on post investigation facts that say Martin had abrasions on his knuckles consistent with punching someone, while Zimmerman had none of the same.

 

Zimmerman said that Martin grabbed his gun... yet there is no DNA evidence to support this. So why am I supposed to believe the rest of his story?

"Grabbed his gun" or reached for his gun? There is a big difference.

 

Zimmerman then described how Trayvon got on top of him and kept punching him as he yelled for help and when he felt him go for his gun, he took it out and shot him.

 

Full Article

[carlfense]

By all accounts he was the person on top pummeling Zimmerman, which is illegal, he used concrete as a weapon, which is attempted murder, or assault with a deadly weapon.

No. That's not "using a weapon."

[Ziggy]

My assumption that Martin threw the first punch is based on post investigation facts that say Martin had abrasions on his knuckles consistent with punching someone, while Zimmerman had none of the same.

 

Zimmerman said that Martin grabbed his gun... yet there is no DNA evidence to support this. So why am I supposed to believe the rest of his story?

 

He grabbed at his gun, he had the gun holstered. DNA is the the end all of evidence, and the police say the only DNA they could recover was Zimmerman's. Incomplete or unreadable DNA is deemed inadmissible.

[Junior]

My assumption that Martin threw the first punch is based on post investigation facts that say Martin had abrasions on his knuckles consistent with punching someone, while Zimmerman had none of the same.

 

Zimmerman said that Martin grabbed his gun... yet there is no DNA evidence to support this. So why am I supposed to believe the rest of his story?

Well . . . touch DNA testing is pretty imperfect. I think the fact that Zimmerman had no blood on him (or on the gun) when he claimed that he shot Martin while Martin was on top of him is more damning.

 

Agreed.