Is self defense even plausible?

[CRUE CAB]

The other day a guy followed me through the parking lot, then approached me and asked me a question.

Was he instigating a confrontation? Should I have punched him? Beaten his head against the pavement? Shot him? (I was armed, as usual.)

At the time, all I knew was he was following me, then approached me, and he was a stranger. I didn't know what he wanted.


As it turns out he wanted to know if I'd like to give to the Shriner's Childrens' Hospital.


Yeah, I should have punched him, fer sure....

Pimp hand that punk fo sho'.

 

[year2late]

wtf are you blabbering about? does it matter? martin instigated the confrontation by punching zimmerman in the face.

So, if Zimmerman had stayed in his car and not tracked Trayvon down by foot, he would have independently come up to him and assaulted him? Not feeling it.

There is a legal distinction that the Jury will discuss and likely find that self defense was reasonable - but there is also a common sense distinction that says "let the f-ing police do their jobs. If you follow "suspects" to observe , observe from a safe distance. Going TOWARD the "suspect" is the opposite of common sense.

 

[j-mac]

Of course it's relevant. It's all about Z's credibility. If he's lying about one aspect, he's probably lying about more.

However, the State has not proven him to be lying about anything. In fact the witnesses they have put forth have done more to bolster Z's accounts, than disprove them.

 

[CRUE CAB]

So, if Zimmerman had stayed in his car and not tracked Trayvon down by foot, he would have independently come up to him and assaulted him? Not feeling it.

There is a legal distinction that the Jury will discuss and likely find that self defense was reasonable - but there is also a common sense distinction that says "let the f-ing police do their jobs. If you follow "suspects" to observe , observe from a safe distance. Going TOWARD the "suspect" is the opposite of common sense.

Not when you are John Wayne, sheeeesh. Come on, get with the program.

 

[Tettsuo]

The other day a guy followed me through the parking lot, then approached me and asked me a question.

Was he instigating a confrontation? Should I have punched him? Beaten his head against the pavement? Shot him? (I was armed, as usual.)

At the time, all I knew was he was following me, then approached me, and he was a stranger. I didn't know what he wanted.


As it turns out he wanted to know if I'd like to give to the Shriner's Childrens' Hospital.

Yeah, I should have punched him, fer sure....

Agreed! It's the only way to be certain.

 

[sbrettt]

The other day a guy followed me through the parking lot, then approached me and asked me a question.

Was he instigating a confrontation? Should I have punched him? Beaten his head against the pavement? Shot him? (I was armed, as usual.)

At the time, all I knew was he was following me, then approached me, and he was a stranger. I didn't know what he wanted.


As it turns out he wanted to know if I'd like to give to the Shriner's Childrens' Hospital.


Yeah, I should have punched him, fer sure....

I think if he followed you around like a stalker you probably would say or do something. Besides Z had such minor injuries and look how much bigger he was he probably could just toss TM away.

 

[SMTA]

I think if he followed you around like a stalker you probably would say or do something. Besides Z had such minor injuries and look how much bigger he was he probably could just toss TM away.

You missed this logic also.....

 

[Goshin]

I think if he followed you around like a stalker you probably would say or do something. Besides Z had such minor injuries and look how much bigger he was he probably could just toss TM away.

Yeah, look... I've tried to address this a couple times, particularly for people who've never been in a scrap much and don't understand... TM was not a little guy, and he was young and apparently in pretty good shape; Z was shorter and badly overweight, probably not in good condition... size alone isn't much of an advantage in a fight, especially if you get sucker punched and end up on the bottom before you can do anything.

Lotta tall skinny guys (like TM) are stronger than they look, and strength isn't everything in a fight by a long shot. The streetwise brawlers say "he who gets in the first good shot usually wins the fight"... and available evidence indicates that was Martin.


but I don't know why I'm bothering, since you're not interested in anything that contradicts your established position, so never mind.

 

[sbrettt]

Yeah, look... I've tried to address this a couple times, particularly for people who've never been in a scrap much and don't understand... TM was not a little guy, and he was young and apparently in pretty good shape; Z was shorter and badly overweight, probably not in good condition... size alone isn't much of an advantage in a fight, especially if you get sucker punched and end up on the bottom before you can do anything.

Lotta tall skinny guys (like TM) are stronger than they look, and strength isn't everything in a fight by a long shot. The streetwise brawlers say "he who gets in the first good shot usually wins the fight"... and available evidence indicates that was Martin.


but I don't know why I'm bothering, since you're not interested in anything that contradicts your established position, so never mind.

Yeah yeah, it's not the size of the dog in the fight but the size of the fight in the dog.
Still though, without the gun involved wouldn't this just be some guy who lost a fight?

 

[Oceandan]

Yeah yeah, it's not the size of the dog in the fight but the size of the fight in the dog.
Still though, without the gun involved wouldn't this just be some guy who lost a fight?

Are you seriously saying TM would have just stopped??

 

[sbrettt]

Are you seriously saying TM would have just stopped??

What are you basing TM being a murderer on?

 

[ARealConservative]

What are you basing TM being a murderer on?

Zimmerman gave his version of events. that version amounts to evidence. I am using the evidence at hand to claim Martin engaged in felony assault and his actions directly lead to his death.

what evidence exists that a fight happened? you don't even have evidence of Zimmerman making a fist, let alone fighting.

 

[Oceandan]

What are you basing TM being a murderer on?

You saying the guy who punched the soccer referee in the head a SINGLE time was characterized as a murder prior to landing the SINGLE blow?

I could give countless anecdotal instances. Legally none of those nor your hallucinations are valid or relevant in this case.

If you feel GZ could not have, as a reasonable person would, feared great bodily harm or death, then again let's have someone break your nose, and give you an "MMA style ground and pound" til you yell out for help. You can tell us when you reach the point you fear great bodily harm or death. We won't even allow them to contact your head with the cement harder than to produce punctate wounds each strike.

 

[Thoreau72]

Zimmerman gave his version of events. that version amounts to evidence. I am using the evidence at hand to claim Martin engaged in felony assault and his actions directly lead to his death.

what evidence exists that a fight happened? you don't even have evidence of Zimmerman making a fist, let alone fighting.

I understand what you're saying regarding Zimmerman's version of events.

Please notice that he has chosen NOT to tell the jury his version of events. He could make his play to the media and friends, but not to the jury, even though his life is in their hands.

If I sat on the jury, I would consider THAT as evidence of something too. Read between the lines.

 

[Goshin]

Yeah yeah, it's not the size of the dog in the fight but the size of the fight in the dog.
Still though, without the gun involved wouldn't this just be some guy who lost a fight?

There's no point in speculating along those lines. What are you going to do, make carry illegal? Then you have honest citizens disarmed against thugs that are gonna carry guns anyway.

Nor do we have any knowledge of what might have happened. Having your head slammed against the pavement can result in fatal injury. Indeed we have a case in the news locally where a teen punched a man, KOed him, the guy went down and hit his head on the pavement ONCE and died right there.

 

[ARealConservative]

Please notice that he has chosen NOT to tell the jury his version of events.

please notice his version was replayed for the jury. also notice he did not lawyer up, choosing instead to work with local law enforcement.

 

[Thoreau72]

please notice his version was replayed for the jury. also notice he did not lawyer up, choosing instead to work with local law enforcement.

Yes, I just had this conversation last night with some lawyer friends. Your point is valid.

But equally valid and very relevant is that Z's actions before the shooting precipitated this incident. Martin was minding his own business, and Z pursued him. He initiated the contact. That he cooperated with police is not that relevant IMO, especially considering he was a policeman wannabe and had formal training in LE classes. Especially considering he was part of the Neighborhood Watch program.

That he was carrying a gun when he shouldn't have been, followed Martin when he should NOT have, show his mindset. So do his words as played to the jury.

First degree, second degree, manslaughter--who cares? If he had not been the agressor, Martin would still be alive.

 

[Oceandan]

That he was carrying a gun when he shouldn't have been, followed Martin when he should NOT have, show his mindset. So do his words as played to the jury.

First degree, second degree, manslaughter--who cares? If he had not been the agressor, Martin would still be alive.

First, you're the same poster who claimed you didn't need a trial, judge, jury or law enforcement. YOU!!! could adjudicate the case just by LOOKING at GZ.

But we'll look beyond same.

"that he was carrying a gun when he shouldn't have been" - fact less personal hang up, he was a LEGAL CWP holder.
"followed Martin when he should NOT have" - as O'Mara pointed out in closing and I've said here on at least three occasions, SHOW a SINGLE piece of EVIDENCE, GZ "followed" TM **after** the NEN operator said "we don't need you to do that" and GZ replied "ok"
I believe the jury will hear GZ's words, as ALL of us watching the actual TRIAL have done. If you are going to claim there was ill will, hatred or malice in GZ's words, we aren't from the same planet.

"if he had not been the agressor, Martin would still be alive" Again, a personal hangup not the law. In fact one can be the initial aggressor, in fact one can START the fight, and still use self defense with lethal force. Sorry it's the LAW.

 

[Thoreau72]

First, you're the same poster who claimed you didn't need a trial, judge, jury or law enforcement. YOU!!! could adjudicate the case just by LOOKING at GZ.

But we'll look beyond same.

"that he was carrying a gun when he shouldn't have been" - fact less personal hang up, he was a LEGAL CWP holder.
"followed Martin when he should NOT have" - as O'Mara pointed out in closing and I've said here on at least three occasions, SHOW a SINGLE piece of EVIDENCE, GZ "followed" TM **after** the NEN operator said "we don't need you to do that" and GZ replied "ok"
I believe the jury will hear GZ's words, as ALL of us watching the actual TRIAL have done. If you are going to claim there was ill will, hatred or malice in GZ's words, we aren't from the same planet.

"if he had not been the agressor, Martin would still be alive" Again, a personal hangup not the law. In fact one can be the initial aggressor, in fact one can START the fight, and still use self defense with lethal force. Sorry it's the LAW.

I think it was in the Dickens' novel Oliver Twist where one of the characters observed, "the law, sir, is an ass".

It seems to me there are more cases of the law being absurd than there are of the law being rational or coherent or just.

 

[Zyphlin]

Lets be real, if you follow and confront someone who is un armed,

First issue with your post, assumption that there was knowledge the individual was unarmed.

then say you defended yourself when you instigated the confrontation,

Depends what "confrontation" point you mean in terms of instigation. Instigating the meeting? Instigating the physical altercation?

and when clearly nothing would have happened had Z just called the police and left it alone.

It wouldn't have happened if Trayvon hadn't walked through peoples yards and instead stuck to the streets. It wouldn't have happened if Zimmerman stayed in his car. It wouldn't have happened if Martin didn't follow Zimmerman back to his car. It wouldn't have happened had they not confront each other at that point. It wouldn't have happened had Martin not attacked Zimmerman. It wouldn't have happened had Zimmerman not actually discharged his weapon.

There's a lot of things that would've made "nothing happen". Nothing of which changes the fact that Self Defense absolutely can be claimed.

Even in situations where an individual themselves acts in "Self defense", the other side may STILL be able to claim self defense if the initial victim becomes the AGGRESSOR. This is a basic tennant of the law taught to anyone getting even remedial self defense training.

 

[ARealConservative]

Yes, I just had this conversation last night with some lawyer friends. Your point is valid.

But equally valid and very relevant is that Z's actions before the shooting precipitated this incident. Martin was minding his own business, and Z pursued him.

I don't know minding your own business is accurate. we don't really know what Martin was doing because he can't talk.

 

[Thoreau72]

I don't know minding your own business is accurate. we don't really know what Martin was doing because he can't talk.

True enough. But considering nobody had called in to complain about him, and that what evidence there is suggests he had gone to the store to buy candy and soda, there is nothing suggesting that he was NOT minding his own business.