Trayvon Martin acted in self-defense

[captainawesome]

Martin? Certainly not on this board.

All over this board.

The racists should be glad this forum is anonymous.

 

[captainawesome]

I'm not against Trayvon - I'm for truth.

Then don't make racist remarks.

 

[Wehrwolfen]

Yes, Martin did attack Zimmerman. He did what any reasonable person would do when being followed by someone who is armed.




Betcha never thought of it along those lines.

Did Martin know Zimmerman was armed? Why would a 17 year old attack the man rather go right home if he thought he was being followed? Did martin strike Zimmerman in the face breaking his nose knocking him down? Did Martin slam Zimmerman's head against the concrete repeatedly before he was shot? The preponderance of the evidence shows Martin did that. Was that "Creepy Ass Cracka", Zimmerman in fear of his life? Ask yourselves how you'd feel pinned under an assailant being beaten and slammed into that concrete walk. You decide.

 

[Josie]

Then don't make racist remarks.

Excuse me? Where have I made any racist remarks?

 

[Fishstyx]

Too bad Martin was unarmed. The correct person would have been able to SYG.

So you advocate the use of deadly force to be used by someone who is being followed?

 

[mak2]

You watching the prosecutions rebuttal? Funny he is addressing that question right now.

So you advocate the use of deadly force to be used by someone who is being followed?

 

[Wehrwolfen]

Why do you have to get personal? I was very well trained as a Marine and yes, I understand self defense. Unless you can intelligently discuss the subject and not attack me personally I am done with you. And capitalize Marine.

As a rough and tough Marine, can we assume you've been in a few fights in your day? In your understanding of self defense in hand to hand fighting, what do you do to preserve your life when you find yourself in fear of losing your life? Ever been in a bar room fight, or fall out on the grass? Let us know.

 

[Zyphlin]

The notion of "enough" evidence is subject. The notion of the AMOUNT of the evidence and the TYPE of evidence is not. In terms of the alledged physical action by Zimmerman that led to the "get off me" comments Ms. Jeantel heard which was the basis for this particular conversation regarding self defense, there is was ZERO forensic evidence presented and ZERO eye witness testimony. The ONLY evidence was Jeantel's statement of what she heard.

In terms of the alledged physical action by Martin against Zimmerman that is the basis for the "Self Defense" claim there is eye witness testimony from Johnathon Good, there was forensic evidence, and testimony of people claiming they heard Zimmerman's screams during the encounter.

So in terms of claiming that Martin was engaging in "Self Defense" from Zimmerman physically assulting him, there is significantly less and significantly different type of evidence supporting that then there is in terms of the claims of Zimmerman's self defense against Martin. As such, while it's completely reasonable to believe Ms. Jeantel's testimony and to believe that Martin was using Self Defense, it's ALSO reasonable to believe that Martin was not engaging in self defense while still believing Zimmerman was because the level of evidence supporting the action that "justified" the self defense in both is substantially different.

It's reasonable to suggest that both had the right to self defense. It's also entirely reasonable to suggest that Martin didn't and Zimmerman did. There's enough variations in the evidence and context of both situations that it is logically consistent for someone to feel one way about Martin's case and another way about Zimmerman's case.

 

[mak2]

I think I have explained this before on this forum but I will try it one more time. Several years ago Mike Tyson had a road rage incident at a stop sign. He got out of his vehicle and aggressively approached the car behind him in a very aggressive manner and the guy knew it was Mike coming to punch him in the face. I made the comment then I would have been out of ammo by the time he got half way to my car. I think that would be undeniable self defense and no jury in the world would convict someone for popping iron Mike even if he is unarmed, because he could kill with a single punch. If you are an 80 year old and in a wheel chair and some kid attacks you, sure fire away. TM and Z seem to be a much more evenly matched fight. M was unarmed, I would have to be getting really beat the hell out of me to consider escalating it to a gun fight.

Since you brought it up. One of our PFC's started a fight with a car service department which was having a party at a bar somewhere near Laguana. We were way outnumbered and got the hell kicked out of us. I remember the next day or two standing at attention while the CO was chewing our asses, the left side of my face had swollen up so much a big fluid sac over my left eye and forehead ruptured and sprayed down on my uniform shirt, which actually kinda cracked my CO up. I had a cut over my other eye from a punch that should have had stitches. We pretty much beat the hell outta each other, our hands were cut up and so sore I could not type for a long time, my ribs hurt so bad it was difficult to breath. I was not in the worse shape on either side. At no point did anyone on either side grab a pool cue, a kinfe or a gun. It makes it an entire different event that usually results in prision time and ends your career. A fist fight usually you have to pay for what you broke, get yelled at, adn usually make great freineds for the rest of your life. I dont think Martin could really hold Z down and bang his head on the concrete more than once if that, I think Martin and Z would have both been a lot more busted up if Z;s story is really true. But Z screwed up long before this point. He never should have got out of his vehicle whether it is legal or not. QUOTE=Wehrwolfen;1062044593]As a rough and tough Marine, can we assume you've been in a few fights in your day? In your understanding of self defense in hand to hand fighting, what do you do to preserve your life when you find yourself in fear of losing your life? Ever been in a bar room fight, or fall out on the grass? Let us know.[/QUOTE]

 

[ThePlayDrive]

The notion of "enough" evidence is subject. The notion of the AMOUNT of the evidence and the TYPE of evidence is not. In terms of the alledged physical action by Zimmerman that led to the "get off me" comments Ms. Jeantel heard which was the basis for this particular conversation regarding self defense, there is was ZERO forensic evidence presented and ZERO eye witness testimony. The ONLY evidence was Jeantel's statement of what she heard.

In terms of the alledged physical action by Martin against Zimmerman that is the basis for the "Self Defense" claim there is eye witness testimony from Johnathon Good, there was forensic evidence, and testimony of people claiming they heard Zimmerman's screams during the encounter.

So in terms of claiming that Martin was engaging in "Self Defense" from Zimmerman physically assulting him, there is significantly less and significantly different type of evidence supporting that then there is in terms of the claims of Zimmerman's self defense against Martin. As such, while it's completely reasonable to believe Ms. Jeantel's testimony and to believe that Martin was using Self Defense, it's ALSO reasonable to believe that Martin was not engaging in self defense while still believing Zimmerman was because the level of evidence supporting the action that "justified" the self defense in both is substantially different.

It's reasonable to suggest that both had the right to self defense. It's also entirely reasonable to suggest that Martin didn't and Zimmerman did. There's enough variations in the evidence and context of both situations that it is logically consistent for someone to feel one way about Martin's case and another way about Zimmerman's case.

In conclusion, everything is reasonable. Compelling.

 

[What if...?]

It is interesing how you use the words: Decked him, Jumped on him, and Banged his head into the contrete. Which are still specualtion. But use the words Acted in self-defense in describing Zimmerman shooting a bullet into Martin's chest. Not a little bias are we?

There's a false belief that the end is the only thing that is relevant.

There is NO supporting evidence of Zs claim of how it started.

And there are at least three ways it COULD have:

The way Z says.

M interpreted Z "going for his phone" as going for a weapon, which arguably justifies a non-lethal response from M. Still can end with Z having a legitimate self defense claim, depending when M became aware of the ACTUAL gun, which would tend to reinforce his original belief. Complex scenario. From the evidence Z is justified.

Z went for the gun when M appeared. Justifies a LETHAL response from M, unless Z withdraws in good faith. Which isn't easy for Z to do once he's in the situation. Who would surrender their weapon to M at that point? But failing to do so isn't withdrawing. We don't even have Z surrendering, only calling for help. Which from Ms standpoint COULD be calling for someone to help kill M.

So there's at least one way it ends as it appears to witnesses and Z DOESN'T have a valid self defense claim.

And one where M intitiating the physical altercation where at that point he legally defending himself.

What everybody saw at the end doesn't prove Z acted in self defense.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

There's a false belief that the end is the only thing that is relevant.

There is NO supporting evidence of Zs claim of how it started.

And there are at least three ways it COULD have:

The way Z says.

M interpreted Z "going for his phone" as going for a weapon, which arguably justifies a non-lethal response from M. Still can end with Z having a legitimate self defense claim, depending when M became aware of the ACTUAL gun, which would tend to reinforce his original belief. Complex scenario. From the evidence Z is justified.

Z went for the gun when M appeared. Justifies a LETHAL response from M, unless Z withdraws in good faith. Which isn't easy for Z to do once he's in the situation. Who would surrender their weapon to M at that point? But failing to do so isn't withdrawing. We don't even have Z surrendering, only calling for help. Which from Ms standpoint COULD be calling for someone to help kill M.

So there's at least one way it ends as it appears to witnesses and Z DOESN'T have a valid self defense claim.

And one where M intitiating the physical altercation where at that point he legally defending himself.

What everybody saw at the end doesn't prove Z acted in self defense.

Ah yes, but then we get into reasonable doubt.

 

[Wehrwolfen]

I think I have explained this before on this forum but I will try it one more time. Several years ago Mike Tyson had a road rage incident at a stop sign. He got out of his vehicle and aggressively approached the car behind him in a very aggressive manner and the guy knew it was Mike coming to punch him in the face. I made the comment then I would have been out of ammo by the time he got half way to my car. I think that would be undeniable self defense and no jury in the world would convict someone for popping iron Mike even if he is unarmed, because he could kill with a single punch. If you are an 80 year old and in a wheel chair and some kid attacks you, sure fire away. TM and Z seem to be a much more evenly matched fight. M was unarmed, I would have to be getting really beat the hell out of me to consider escalating it to a gun fight.

Since you brought it up. One of our PFC's started a fight with a car service department which was having a party at a bar somewhere near Laguana. We were way outnumbered and got the hell kicked out of us. I remember the next day or two standing at attention while the CO was chewing our asses, the left side of my face had swollen up so much a big fluid sac over my left eye and forehead ruptured and sprayed down on my uniform shirt, which actually kinda cracked my CO up. I had a cut over my other eye from a punch that should have had stitches. We pretty much beat the hell outta each other, our hands were cut up and so sore I could not type for a long time, my ribs hurt so bad it was difficult to breath. I was not in the worse shape on either side. At no point did anyone on either side grab a pool cue, a kinfe or a gun. It makes it an entire different event that usually results in prision time and ends your career. A fist fight usually you have to pay for what you broke, get yelled at, adn usually make great freineds for the rest of your life. I dont think Martin could really hold Z down and bang his head on the concrete more than once if that, I think Martin and Z would have both been a lot more busted up if Z;s story is really true. But Z screwed up long before this point. He never should have got out of his vehicle whether it is legal or not. QUOTE=Wehrwolfen;1062044593]As a rough and tough Marine, can we assume you've been in a few fights in your day? In your understanding of self defense in hand to hand fighting, what do you do to preserve your life when you find yourself in fear of losing your life? Ever been in a bar room fight, or fall out on the grass? Let us know.

[/QUOTE]

Do you know for a fact that TM would have stopped after he subdued GZ?
I remember a time in Montana where a fight broke out just out side a Stockman's bar. Two guys were fighting one man was knocked down and the other mounted him in a similar MMA style and proceeded to punch the guy in the face. Before it was broken up the guy landed at least 6 to 8blows to the face. The loser (guy on the bottom) had to be taken to the hospital and later transferred to the USAF hospital in a coma. If he's still alive today he's a vegetable. P.S. the guy on top didn't do time, although he started it. Another time and a different place. And yes, I've been in a few dust-ups in my day. Sometimes they do escalate to more violence than one expects. It depends on a lot of things. Was Zimmerman justified? We weren't there. We didn't have our bell rung and don't know what really happened. We do know that eye-witness(es) saw Zimmerman under Martin being punched MMA style. We do know that GZ suffered lacerations to the back of the head indicating his head was slammed at least twice on the concrete we also know from photos' that GZ suffered a broken nose. Like you I've had my bell rung before and lived through it. That may not be the case any longer today. By the racist remark(s) stated by TM's girlfriend there was hate in TM's heart.

 

[mak2]

Neither one of us were there. so we will never Really know. Neither M nor Z appear to have gotten their ass beat or did much ass beating before the shooting. I contend Z screwed up long before that. he should have never let it get to that point.


Do you know for a fact that TM would have stopped after he subdued GZ?
I remember a time in Montana where a fight broke out just out side a Stockman's bar. Two guys were fighting one man was knocked down and the other mounted him in a similar MMA style and proceeded to punch the guy in the face. Before it was broken up the guy landed at least 6 to 8blows to the face. The loser (guy on the bottom) had to be taken to the hospital and later transferred to the USAF hospital in a coma. If he's still alive today he's a vegetable. P.S. the guy on top didn't do time, although he started it. Another time and a different place. And yes, I've been in a few dust-ups in my day. Sometimes they do escalate. It depends on a lot of things.[/QUOTE]

 

[Wehrwolfen]

Neither one of us were there. so we will never Really know. Neither M nor Z appear to have gotten their ass beat or did much ass beating before the shooting. I contend Z screwed up long before that. he should have never let it get to that point.



Do you know for a fact that TM would have stopped after he subdued GZ?
I remember a time in Montana where a fight broke out just out side a Stockman's bar. Two guys were fighting one man was knocked down and the other mounted him in a similar MMA style and proceeded to punch the guy in the face. Before it was broken up the guy landed at least 6 to 8blows to the face. The loser (guy on the bottom) had to be taken to the hospital and later transferred to the USAF hospital in a coma. If he's still alive today he's a vegetable. P.S. the guy on top didn't do time, although he started it. Another time and a different place. And yes, I've been in a few dust-ups in my day. Sometimes they do escalate. It depends on a lot of things.

[/QUOTE]

According to the trainer's testimony Zimmerman had little to no experience in fighting and in the process of being stunned he really thought his life was in the balance. Hence the adrenalin force to get hold of the gun and fire. I do know that in Nam I did some physical things I never thought possible. Personally I am not a small guy. In Nam I was 6'1" and weighed 165lbs. I have picked up a wounded guy weighing over 250lbs and carried him over a 1/4 mile to the aid station for dust-off. Didn't drop him once. That's what I mean about what adrenalin can do. Would you or I have done the same as GZ? I can only claim that I don't know what I would have done in the same circumstances. If I were involved today in the same circumstances, I would say yes. I would shoot TM. I wouldn't the option to fight him off.

 

[Caine]

Neither one of us were there. so we will never Really know. Neither M nor Z appear to have gotten their ass beat or did much ass beating before the shooting. I contend Z screwed up long before that. he should have never let it get to that point.



Do you know for a fact that TM would have stopped after he subdued GZ?

Would you consider someone laying on the ground bloody screaming for HELP! to be subdued?

 

[What if...?]

Let's be completely absurd. The OP suggests TM acted in self defense.

Judging by the outcome, I'd offer, it wasn't a good choice.

If you get shot defending yourself from the shooter, that's manslaughter.

 

[What if...?]

Talk with police officers or those that deal in self defense and they'll typically always cache any advice regarding defending yourself in a very simple understandable statement; when you act in "self defense" you act up to the point where you are safe and then you need to stop OR you open yourself up to becoming the aggressor.

If a guy punches someone at a bar, and that second someone throws the first one down, mounts him, and starts pummeling his head into a bloody mess until he's pulled off the guy there's a good chance that if SOMEONE is getting an assault charge it would be the second guy even though the first started it, because the aggression went beyond the level of "defending" oneself into the point where he became the aggressor.

It is ENTIRELY possible to make an argument for Zimmerman defending himeslf...although, the mere notion of someone "following you" without any additional supporting information would make that a difficult argument to make. However, that would still not preclude George Zimmerman from ALSO defending himself at the point that Trayvon moved from "Defender" to "Aggressor".

Manslaughter is the charge I think the Prosecution could've made stick if they FOCUSED on it. But they focused on trying to prove murder, and in my eyes failed and while doing so didn't really put together an extremely compelling case for manslaughter either.

Last paragraph sums up my opinion of the prosecutions tactics perfectly.

 

[Caine]

If you get shot defending yourself from the shooter, that's manslaughter.

Prosecution would have to prove the shooter started a confrontation worthy of defending yourself from......

Resorting to physical violence in response to a creepy ass cracker following you is not necessary.

 

[CycloneWanderer]

If you get shot defending yourself from the shooter, that's manslaughter.

Unless the "shooter" was in fear of grave bodily harm or death and had exhausted every reasonable alternative to escape. For example, being pinned to the ground getting beaten up would put someone in grave bodily harm or death. Say that person had very little physical ability and was incapable of fighting back. Say that person's only reasonable alternatives were to scream for his life or shoot. After exhausting his option to scream for help for a period of time ineffectively, him shooting the person hurting him would be legal self-defense.

Well now, that seems awfully familiar . . .

I can cite the Florida statutes proving this if you would prefer.

 

[What if...?]

Actually, it's not inconceivable, at least in my mind, that both Martin and Zimmerman acted in self-defense. It's possible that Martin felt threatened by Zimmerman following him and he confronted Z and punched him - that could have been a self-defensive move. After being hit, Z had every right to defend himself as well and it appears likely, from the evidence presented, that M moved from self-defense to aggression by taking Z to the ground and beating on him, resulting in M's death at the hands of Z, defending himself against what he felt was a potentially fatal attack.

Which leads to an acquittal on all counts.

Still need to include the going for the phone part, which came BETWEEN M speaking and the initial blow.

Adds to M being justified in striking Z preemptively and raises tthe possiblity that M SAW Zs gun right where he says he was reaching or that Z DID reach for it and lied about it because he knew it makes his self defense claim "imperfect".

 

[What if...?]

What was he defending himself against? Zimmerman was doing nothing to him. No punching, kicking, scratching.... nothing.

Which would be expected if Z was trying to draw his gun and M was trying to prevent it.

Tying up one of each mans hands and making striking a secondary activity for both.

 

[Caine]

Still need to include the going for the phone part, which came BETWEEN M speaking and the initial blow.

Adds to M being justified in striking Z preemptively and raises tthe possiblity that M SAW Zs gun right where he says he was reaching or that Z DID reach for it and lied about it because he knew it makes his self defense claim "imperfect".

Maybe... but does it justify M mounting Z and continuing to beat him while he screamed for help?
Does it justify M telling Z, "Your gonna die tonight." ?

Someone else's POSSIBLE assumptions cannot "imperfect" your self defense claim.

 

[What if...?]

#1: TM didn't know GZ had a gun.
#2: Attacking someone who may be following you, regardless of whether they have a weapon or not, when there is a near certain chance you can get to safety is less than reasonable.

You simply do not know WHEN M became aware of the gun.

 

[What if...?]

Here is a fact for you to ponder. GZ called the NEN police number to report his concerns about TM's "suspicious" activity and was instructed, by the police dispatcher, to observe and report TM's later activities.



How is one to report "if this guy does anything else" without keeping him in sight? Hmm...

Transcript of George Zimmerman 911 Call - by Oliver Closoff - Newsvine

Before he lost sight of M. Before he exited his vehicle.

And the earlier "instruction" was cancelled by "we don't need you to do that".

You'll notice Z says NOTHING to the NEN operator about walking through to RVC to get an address nor ever provides said address. That came later.