Running from the guy with a gun is exactly what Martin was doing at the time.
Stand his ground against what?
Yes, the foreigners needed to get involved. And I think I'm one of the cryers....
I cannot help but notice that, sans public outcry, this would have been a closed case.
...
a man with a gun, who first followed him in his car, and then followed him on foot.
Based on the circumstances described, I'd say Zimmerman has no case for shooting Martin. Florida law is clear that an individual may resort to deadly force to counter deadly force. Getting punched in the nose by an unarmed teenager is not deadly force.
The gunshot wound is a pretty good indication. Generally when you get shot, you know that the person who shot you used a gun.
While lots of evidence shows what lead to it all, THE evidence that matters is quite obvious:
1. The ONLY eye witness, and African-American teenage boy out with his dog, says that he saw a "fight," Zimmerman was on the ground, and someone was shouting for help.
2. The police arriving on the scene said Zimmerman had a bloody nose, blood on the back of his head, a wet back and grass on his back.
3. In the phone call recounted by Martin's girlfriend, Martin made no reference to a gun.
4. She said she heard Martin first say "why are you following me?" and Zimmerman then saying "what are you doing here?" Apparently his earphone piece came off, indicating the matter became a violent physical assault at that point - for which we can only speculate who threw the first blow or even if both were fighting - as opposed to one fighting and the other trying to shield himself.
5. THE MOST CRITICAL is still not forensically known, if it can be. Who was calling for help? Immediately upon police arriving, Zimmerman told the police (in the report) that he was yelling for help but no one would help him. However, Martin's mother says it was Martin. Hopefully, a voice print can be made. It sounds like an older voice to me, but that is too subjective.
The ONLY time this became "criminal" is when it became violent. Whoever threw the first blow committed a criminal offense was in engaging in a criminal assault - invoking rather strong defensive-force rights in Florida.
Who was screaming for help would STRONGLY indicate who was under attack and being assaulted the few seconds before the shot fired.
There are times where it actually is legal to beat the crap out of someone, but there also is a point where you have to stop and there is a point where beating or kicking someone you already got down becomes a lethal assault even if you are not armed. Even if you throw the first blow and even if legally so, that does not give you the right to just continue to beat the guy to death or continue in a way to make it more greatly injurious.
6. Anyone with any experience in fighting or martial arts does understand if there is a fight, one on the ground and the other on top, if a gun enters that picture that gun belongs to whoever best can get control of it. That is the other forensic evidence we don't know. The distance of the shot.
IF it was within inches or a couple of feet, this had become a struggle over the gun - and whoever started and continued the physical fight itself at fault. If the range was 8 or 10 feet, then it was Zimmerman gunning Martin down for having beat him up, which he could not legally do.
Zimmerman didn't have to allow Martin to continue to beat him up or kick him - if that is what was happening - nor allow Martin to take and kill him with his own gun, which he legally had and apparently not displayed prior to Martin. Thus, "self defense." But if this was Zimmerman shooting Martin after Martin had stopped hitting/kicking Zimmerman - then it was either manslaughter or 2nd degree.
The forensics matters greatly and decisively - and we don't have that information yet. They MAY be able to do a voice print on yelling for help. They WILL be able to determine (or have determined as a reason they did not file charges) the distance of the shoot within the apparent range by the powder spread.
Being a criminal case, what most likely happened proves nothing and psychological analysis of both of them to then guesstimate what each did is equally worthless.
As a comment:
In terms of minority status, in central Florida being Latino is as much a minority facing bigotries as is an African-American. Bigots around here particularly don't like both. They'd call Martin a "n....r" and Zimmerman a "Mexican" or "wetback."
because the guy was following him....
Where was the threat? Following someone isn't exactly a threatening act.
Could it be that Martin was going to, "show that white boy a thing, or two"? "ain't no cracka' motha-****a gonna shadow my ass, ****".
True enough. If Martin then had stopped and Zimmerman pulled his gun and shot Martin, its murder. However, the law does not say just deadly for for deadly force, but also serious injury. There also is the prospect that there was a struggle over the gun. WHOEVER threw the first punch (made it a violent criminal activity) is the one who doesn't get away with getting control of the gun and shooting the other. The one who didn't start the physical fight could shoot to stop the other one taking the gun.
An example... an armed robber goes into a store, but the clerk grabs the gun and they struggle over it (that is NOT rare). IF the robber in that struggle shoots and kills the clerk, its murder. If the clerk gets the gun and shoots the robber, it's self defense. If, instead, a robber had a knife, the clerk pulls a gun, but then they struggle over the clerk's gun, its still the same. If the robber shoots the clerk its murder. If the clerk shoots the robber its self defense. Doesn't matter whose gun it was.
Once this became a violent assault started by one of them - and then a gun entered that picture - the fundamental question is who started the violent assault - UNLESS the assailant had clearly ceased his assault. However, to justify deadly force it has to be an assault reasonably believed to be going to cause very serious injury. If it became a struggle over the gun, the question is who started the physical fight.
It doesn't matter how anyone FEELS about that. That is how the law works and quite precisely.
So, you're saying that I can assualt anyone that I deem to be following me?
I think it's time for the handwringers to just admit that they don't have the first ****ing clue what actually went down and stop with all the bed wetting over this.
lol but he was following him WE KNOW THAT, so what the **** is your point?
Zimmerman was not the attacker, Trayvon was.That bloody nose was the kid standing his ground defending himself against an attacker.
The teenage girl, who requested that her name not be used, told ABC of her call with Martin:
“He said this man was watching him, so he put his hoodie on. He said he lost the man... asked Trayvon to run, and he said he was going to walk fast. I told him to run but he said he was not going to run.”
Martin, who was unarmed, did eventually run, but was cornered by the “strange man,” according to the girl. She told ABC:
“Trayvon said, ‘What, are you following me for,’ and the man said, ‘What are you doing here.’ Next thing I hear is somebody pushing, and somebody pushed Trayvon because the head set just fell.”
on the phone to a friend before the shooting, from this I dont know how anyone can defend zimmerman
Trayvon Martin was on phone with friend before death - BlogPost - The Washington Post
Your narrative is off and it isn't as simple as you are trying to make it out to be.Im not really sure why this case is so hard for people to understand. Wannabe copster decided he was going to play superneighborhoodwatchguy and followed an innocent kid. Called in the crime (of walking down the street-'those' people always get away with that!) and even AFTER the dispatcher told him they didnt need to follow him, he did. Kid got pissed and instead of going straight home or calling the cops himself, he decided to confront the guy. Fight ensued...kid was kicking the guys ass and the guy pulled a weapon he was not supposed to be carrying and shot the kid. End of story.
At the end of the day there are a few dozen things this guy can and should probably be charged with.
You are trying real hard to spin this.Martin was followed by Zimmerman.
Zimmerman followed Martin in his car..and then on foot.
Martin stood his ground..and was killed for it.
Trayvon was not "cornered" but attacked Zimmerman from behind. In no way is that being cornered.If I was being followed by someone and they cornored me damm right I would punch them in the face, wouldn't you?
Running from a guy is what he was doing. Trayvon had no idea he had a gun until after he attacked Zimmerman.Running from the guy with a gun is exactly what Martin was doing at the time.
As I understand it, he was acting as a neighborhood watchman...not Joe Citizen. Joe Citizen can be armed...neighborhood watchmen arent supposed to be armed. He had done his 'job'. He was told by the police to NOT follow him. He incited the incident.Zimmerman was not the attacker, Trayvon was.
All the above you cited is consistent with what Zimmerman has stated.
Your narrative is off and it isn't as simple as you are trying to make it out to be.
What do you mean "a weapon he was not supposed to be carrying"?
Zimmerman was not the attacker, Trayvon was....
Flip the script a little bit. If it was YOUR kid being tracked by a wannabe cop...a guy that had been TOLD by the dispatcher to stop following him...a guy that pressed the issue...even if your kid made a bad choice by confronting the total stranger that had been harassing him...wouldnt you be pissed? We may not know EXACTLY what happened but we know what we know. A good kid was minding his own business and was harassed and eventually killed by someone who was doing everything wrong.
It's starting to look more and more like Martin made the first move.
True enough. If Martin then had stopped and Zimmerman pulled his gun and shot Martin, its murder. However, the law does not say just deadly for for deadly force, but also serious injury. There also is the prospect that there was a struggle over the gun. WHOEVER threw the first punch (made it a violent criminal activity) is the one who doesn't get away with getting control of the gun and shooting the other. The one who didn't start the physical fight could shoot to stop the other one taking the gun.
An example... an armed robber goes into a store, but the clerk grabs the gun and they struggle over it (that is NOT rare). IF the robber in that struggle shoots and kills the clerk, its murder. If the clerk gets the gun and shoots the robber, it's self defense. If, instead, a robber had a knife, the clerk pulls a gun, but then they struggle over the clerk's gun, its still the same. If the robber shoots the clerk its murder. If the clerk shoots the robber its self defense. Doesn't matter whose gun it was.
Once this became a violent assault started by one of them - and then a gun entered that picture - the fundamental question is who started the violent assault - UNLESS the assailant had clearly ceased his assault. However, to justify deadly force it has to be an assault reasonably believed to be going to cause very serious injury. If it became a struggle over the gun, the question is who started the physical fight.
It doesn't matter how anyone FEELS about that. That is how the law works and quite precisely.
No it is not.
Getting out of his car to keep Trayvon under observation until the police arrive is not wrong.
No matter how anybody wants to spin it, it isn't wrong, and doesn't raise his action to the level of criminality.
Within the known evidence, your position is wrong.
On this you are most likely correct.
Just as Zimmerman should be fine.
As evidenced by the Police Chief's statement. Zimmerman said he was on his way back to his truck when Trayvon attacked him.
Under those circumstances, yes he was standing one's ground.
Was on suspension at the time of his death.
Trayvon Martin Shooting: Tensions rise in wake of Trayvon Martin shooting - Orlando SentinelOthers have alleged that isn't the full story.
But it really has no relevance to either's actions.
Yes, yes. But for Trayvon's action of attacking Zimmerman he most likely would have been fine also.
What matters is the action the rises to the level of criminality.
Zimmerman's action do not.
Trayvon's actions? A preemptive strike? Maybe not.
no, by following Martin in his car and on foot, Zimmermann made the first move.
Martin had every right to defend himself as soon as Zimmermann started questioning him. Martin had every right to fear Zimmerman and stand his ground.
But I have to say, the fact that you are against Martin, isn't surprising.
It's starting to look more and more like Martin made the first move.
You have ONE statement that Martin attacked Zimmerman.
From Zimmerman.....
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?