Trayvon Martin, One year later

[_Xenu_]

Well it doesn't. No amount of walking behind someone cancels your right to not be assaulted.

If someone stalks me, I will assume my safety and life are in danger, and will be considering violent ways to defend myself.  Ink pen (Cross) in the throat or eye are my first choices.  If I am carrying, I will chamber a round at this point instead.

Agreed.

[Nonsensei]

Well it doesn't. No amount of walking behind someone cancels your right to not be assaulted.

If someone stalks me, I will assume my safety and life are in danger, and will be considering violent ways to defend myself.  Ink pen (Cross) in the throat or eye are my first choices.  If I am carrying, I will chamber a round at this point instead.

Thats up to you. As the aggressor who initiated violence you get to go to prison.

[SvZurich]

As the single white female who was stalked, I'll walk.

[Nonsensei]

As the single white female who was stalked, I'll walk.

No you won't.

Prove he was stalking you as opposed to just following you. For that matter prove he was following you instead of just going the same way you were going. Good luck.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Thump, in your circumstances, I too would have shot if carrying.  I am sorry you went through that dear.  That bastard deserves to be punished severely.

Oh, he went to jail for aggravated assault ... after a visit to the emergency room. We were each a mess, to be sure.

[Johan]

That's not necessarily the case.  Lethal force is an acceptable defense if you have a reason to fear for your life.  That is not limited to this or that weapon, and men can be and have been killed with bare hands.

I think that defense is null and void when you create the circumstances that put you in such a position.  It falls under the maxim: "The stupid shall be punished."

Stalking a kid ain't the way to calm the kid and make a friend.  From Trayvon's view, some scary dude is stalking him, time to fight or flight.  Dude has a gun?  Stakes just went up.

I understand that.  My point was that even in a fistfight, the use of a gun might be justified.

I've got part of my left ear missing.  It was bit off in a fight about 25 years ago.  The guy thought I was fucking his wife (I wasn't), and he wanted to kill me.  If I'd had a gun, I would have been justified in killing him, I think -- at one point he'd stunned me, and I came to with him spearing my sternum with copper conduit -- good thing bone is dense, eh?   After coming to, I managed to grapple him to the ground and in the close-quarters combat he bit off some of my ear:

[ Image ]

Anyway, had I had a gun that night I probably would have used it, because after being speared like that, I certainly felt my life was on the line.  Granted that the conduit itself wasn't deadly, but the intent he showed in attacking me in that manner was clearly maniacal.

I'm not saying that either party is guilty or innocent.  I'm saying that I can envision circumstances to justify both possible outcomes of the trial.

I think this story right here is a terrific illustration of why I feel Zimmerman trying to use the stand your ground law as his justification for the shooting is bullshit.

1. The person in question sought you out with intent to harm you.
2. You did nothing to provoke that harm.
3. During the scuffle, you were knocked out and regained consciousness to find the assailant trying to pierce your chest with a piece of metal (which I assume left evidence of same on your chest).
4. Your assailant also bit off part of your ear.
5. Though you didn't indicate it, I think its safe to assume you sought medical attention for your wounds after the incident.

You weren't the aggressor and you had reasonable cause to believe your life was in danger. This is the exact type of situation the Florida stand your ground law was written for.


Now let's look at what we know about the Martin/Zimmerman incident.

1. Zimmerman pursued Martin
2. Martin knew he was being pursued but didn't know who was pursuing him nor for what reason or intent.
3. Zimmerman was bleeding at the scene but refused medical attention.

Now let's look at portions of the Florida statute in question. I've bolded the relavent statement.

776.041?Use of force by aggressor. —The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1)?Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2)?Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a)?Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b)?In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

A jury will have to decide whether what can be known about Zimmerman's actions is sufficient to rule that he provoked the use of force. But I think its at least reasonable to assume that jury might rule that way given the evidence currently available which is why I've quoted this section of the statute.

If that ends up being the case, then the question is a fairly simple one. Did Zimmerman feel the injuries he was receiving, which he did not feel the need to seek immediate medical attention for, were putting him in emanate danger of losing his life? Its possible for a jury to go either way on that question I suppose. But it does seem like a pretty hard sell when you compare it to situations such as what Thumpalumpacus described above.

[SvZurich]

As the single white female who was stalked, I'll walk.

No you won't.

Prove he was stalking you as opposed to just following you. For that matter prove he was following you instead of just going the same way you were going. Good luck.

We'll have to just agree to disagree on this, dear.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I agree in principle, Johan.  I'm withholding my opinion on Zimmerman for the simple reason that I wasn't there and have only an incomplete possession of the facts of the matter.

The biggest issue I had, initially, with the case was that police investigation struck me as perfunctory.  Someone was dead at the hands of another person.  That circumstance alone demands a deeper investigation than what was done, to my mind.  I have to also say that I'm perhaps biased against Zimmerman for the fact that I'm a member of an interracial family and my nephew has been unreasonably accosted on occasion (by the police, not a neighborhood watchman), and so I'm working to keep that out of my opinion as well.

My hope is that a decent jury will hear the evidence and render justice.  I'll definitely follow the case once it opens.

[Hakurei Reimu]

Nobody knows who struck first (though the fact that Zimmerman is wounded is pretty fucking telling).

Equally telling is that Zimmerman's injuries were not enough to send him to the hospital, and as such, be considered a danger to his life as such to be considered sufficient justification for lethal force.

Furthermore, where are the wounds on Martin? Given that he was completely untrained in any form of unarmed combat, it is likely that he sustained injury to his hands when striking Zimmerman. Where's the autopsy report detailing these injuries?

Some people think that not knowing what happened isnt sufficient reason for a case dismissed. This just touches once again on a recurring theme in this thread of Zimmerman being guilty until proven innocent.

If you acknowledge that you don't know what happened but still feel he is guilty, fine. But don't try to pretend your position has any association with the law. Some of the mental contortions ive seen being executed to legally justify a guilty verdict for Zimmerman in this thread are distressing.

Except nobody's doing that. I started with a presumption of Zimmerman's innocence until I heard the details of the case, whereupon I changed my opinion of him to be more on the guilty side. See how that works?

The presumption of innocence only extends so far. When you act so out of line with any form of good sense, you can only be considered reckless, and as such the entire blame for what transpires afterward falls upon you.

FFS we have people insisting that assault victims should be legally bound to fight fair with their attackers or risk becoming the guilty party!

Zimmerman can in no way be considered a "victim" in any kind of assault, because he followed the guy who supposedly assaulted him, which is exactly the opposite of what a real victim would do.

Let me say that again: We know what Zimmerman was doing. Not only do we have his testimony, but a dispatcher cautioned him to avoid a confrontation, an instruction he clearly disregarded when following Martin, given that he and his vehicle were so well-separated.

This is the asymmetry you guys don't seem to understand. If things were reversed and Martin shot Zimmerman, we would have good reason to believe that Martin was the one being stalked, and as such it would constitute legitimate self-defense.

[Nonsensei]

Equally telling is that Zimmerman's injuries were not enough to send him to the hospital, and as such, be considered a danger to his life as such to be considered sufficient justification for lethal force.

Nope. Chivalry in a street fight is stupid. Someone jumps me and I got a gun, too fucking bad for them. Attempting to require me to show regard for the well being of my attacker is ass backwards thinking. He is the aggressor, he deserves whatever he gets.

Also pretty lame to suggest that Zimmerman wasnt hurt enough to defend himself with a gun. Thats the whole point. To end the assault before you get hurt badly enough to go to a hospital. This isnt fucking Final Fantasy 7 where you can only unlock the ultimate attack when your limit gauge fills.

Furthermore, where are the wounds on Martin? Given that he was completely untrained in any form of unarmed combat, it is likely that he sustained injury to his hands when striking Zimmerman. Where's the autopsy report detailing these injuries?

All this says to me is that Martin knew how to dish out a beatdown. You don't need professional training to know how to hurt someone without getting hurt yourself in the process.

Except nobody's doing that. I started with a presumption of Zimmerman's innocence until I heard the details of the case, whereupon I changed my opinion of him to be more on the guilty side. See how that works?

You changed your opinion of his guilt without having any direct knowledge of what happened during the altercation. Like I said before, go ahead and have your opinion but don't pretend it has any association with a rational evaluation of the available facts.

The presumption of innocence only extends so far. When you act so out of line with any form of good sense, you can only be considered reckless, and as such the entire blame for what transpires afterward falls upon you.

His recklessness is debatable. If following someone is reckless then it is far easier to be reckless (and therefore criminally responsible for anything that happens as a result) than any of us ever realized. You say if Zimmerman hadn't followed him, this wouldn't have happened. I say if Martin hadn't jumped him this wouldn't have happened. I could even say if Martin hadn't entered his neighborhood that night none of this would have happened.

But im sure you would start sputtering about how Martin had the right to go wherever he wants.

SO DID ZIMMERMAN.

Zimmerman can in no way be considered a "victim" in any kind of assault, because he followed the guy who supposedly assaulted him, which is exactly the opposite of what a real victim would do.

NO. Being followed by someone is not justification enough for assaulting them. Not EVER.

Let me say that again: We know what Zimmerman was doing. Not only do we have his testimony, but a dispatcher cautioned him to avoid a confrontation, an instruction he clearly disregarded when following Martin, given that he and his vehicle were so well-separated.

This is the asymmetry you guys don't seem to understand. If things were reversed and Martin shot Zimmerman, we would have good reason to believe that Martin was the one being stalked, and as such it would constitute legitimate self-defense.

I know no such thing. I would think that Zimmerman was following Martin so that he could tell the police where to find him when they finally arrived. You and people like you seem to want to assign a more malicious purpose to Zimmerman's actions and I cannot accept that spin without further evidence supporting it.

[Colanth]

Equally telling is that Zimmerman's injuries were not enough to send him to the hospital, and as such, be considered a danger to his life as such to be considered sufficient justification for lethal force.

Nope. Chivalry in a street fight is stupid. Someone jumps me and I got a gun, too fucking bad for them.

Until your sentencing, then too bad for you - depraved indifference manslaughter is a felony.  "Jumps me" and "uses lethal force" may be the same in the street, but they aren't in the court room.

[Johan]

Also pretty lame to suggest that Zimmerman wasnt hurt enough to defend himself with a gun. Thats the whole point. To end the assault before you get hurt badly enough to go to a hospital. This isnt fucking Final Fantasy 7 where you can only unlock the ultimate attack when your limit gauge fills.

Nope its not fucking Fantasy 7, its fucking real life where there are fucking real laws.

And the very first sentence of Florida's stand your ground law reads as follows: A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force.

It then goes on to lay out various situations where use of deadly force is justified. In pretty much all of them, there is a requirement for a person to reasonably believe they are in eminent danger of death or great bodily harm.

So you can flex your bad ass internet muscles and talk about how you wouldn't hesitate to use a gun against an unarmed attacker all you like, but that doesn't change what the law is.

Take a look at the photos of Zimmermans bloody nose from the night of the shooting and decide for yourself if you would reasonably believe you were about to die if you sustained such an injury. More importantly, ask yourself if a jury of your peers would reasonably believe it. Because that is what this case will likely come down to.

[Hakurei Reimu]

Nope. Chivalry in a street fight is stupid. Someone jumps me and I got a gun, too fucking bad for them.

Also pretty lame to suggest that Zimmerman wasnt hurt enough to defend himself with a gun. Thats the whole point. To end the assault before you get hurt badly enough to go to a hospital. This isnt fucking Final Fantasy 7 where you can only unlock the ultimate attack when your limit gauge fills.

Johan already shat all over this. It is not "chivalry" to respond only with reasonable, proportional force against an attacker — it's the law.

All this says to me is that Martin knew how to dish out a beatdown. You don't need professional training to know how to hurt someone without getting hurt yourself in the process.

Oh, now we're proposing mythical fighting skills this kid never demonstrated. But this is also consistent with the theory that Martin never touched him and Zimmerman got a bloody nose by some other means.

Now, maybe if you can prove that Martin's fist went anywhere near Zimmerman's nose, you may have a point that Zimmerman was acting in any kind of self-defense, even if with excessive (and thus unlawful) force. Until then, you can take your idea that super-boxer Martin struck out at Zimmerman and shove it up your ass.

You changed your opinion of his guilt without having any direct knowledge of what happened during the altercation. Like I said before, go ahead and have your opinion but don't pretend it has any association with a rational evaluation of the available facts.

Well, I guess we can just let Zimmerman go without a jury trial then, because they won't have any direct knowledge of what happened during the altercation either, and thus shouldn't change their presumption of innocence.

Oh, wait! That's not how justice works.

His recklessness is debatable. If following someone is reckless then it is far easier to be reckless (and therefore criminally responsible for anything that happens as a result) than any of us ever realized. You say if Zimmerman hadn't followed him, this wouldn't have happened. I say if Martin hadn't jumped him this wouldn't have happened. I could even say if Martin hadn't entered his neighborhood that night none of this would have happened.

But im sure you would start sputtering about how Martin had the right to go wherever he wants.

SO DID ZIMMERMAN.

I'm sorry, but the freedoms denumerated in the US constitution are not unlimited and unfettered. You are not allowed to respond to non-deadly force with deadly force, even with Florida's stand your ground law. You are allowed to go wherever you want on public lands, except when doing such can be reasonably construed as 'stalking'. Zimmerman admitted to stalking.

Zimmerman can in no way be considered a "victim" in any kind of assault, because he followed the guy who supposedly assaulted him, which is exactly the opposite of what a real victim would do.

NO. Being followed by someone is not justification enough for assaulting them. Not EVER.

As long as we're speaking in absolutes, here's mine: NO. Being hit by someone in the nose is not justification enough for shooting them dead. Not EVER.

Now go fuck yourself.

I know no such thing. I would think that Zimmerman was following Martin so that he could tell the police where to find him when they finally arrived. You and people like you seem to want to assign a more malicious purpose to Zimmerman's actions and I cannot accept that spin without further evidence supporting it.

Really? Just intending to tell the police where Martin went? Then how was Martin able to get close enough to hit him in the face? If, indeed, it was Martin that hit him in the face.

[Nonsensei]

Johan already shat all over this. It is not "chivalry" to respond only with reasonable, proportional force against an attacker — it's the law.

And you're supposed to be able to evaluate that while getting your face pounded in? What a fucking joke.

Oh, now we're proposing mythical fighting skills this kid never demonstrated. But this is also consistent with the theory that Martin never touched him and Zimmerman got a bloody nose by some other means.

I find it absolutely hilarious that you think being able to hurt someone without getting hurt yourself somehow translates into "mythical" fighting skills and then turn around and introduce some unfocused, unsupported, utterly theoretical and totally undetailed alternative hypothesis about how Zimmerman became wounded.

Now, maybe if you can prove that Martin's fist went anywhere near Zimmerman's nose, you may have a point that Zimmerman was acting in any kind of self-defense, even if with excessive (and thus unlawful) force. Until then, you can take your idea that super-boxer Martin struck out at Zimmerman and shove it up your ass.

Ive got proof. Zimmermans face and skull was all fucked up. Sit on that and spin.

Well, I guess we can just let Zimmerman go without a jury trial then, because they won't have any direct knowledge of what happened during the altercation either, and thus shouldn't change their presumption of innocence.

Oh, wait! That's not how justice works.

Yeah actually it FUCKING IS HOW JUSTICE WORKS. If you don't have sufficient evidence to bring charges against someone YOU DONT BRING CHARGES AGAINST THEM.

I'm sorry, but the freedoms denumerated in the US constitution are not unlimited and unfettered. You are not allowed to respond to non-deadly force with deadly force, even with Florida's stand your ground law. You are allowed to go wherever you want on public lands, except when doing such can be reasonably construed as 'stalking'. Zimmerman admitted to stalking.

No im pretty sure following someone on a public street is always legal. 100% of the time. Under all circumstances. Trying to call it staking is nothing more than a transparent, pathetic attempt to make it something more than it was.

As long as we're speaking in absolutes, here's mine: NO. Being hit by someone in the nose is not justification enough for shooting them dead. Not EVER.

Now go fuck yourself.

LOL wow. Cool story kid. How about having your skull pounded into the pavement? How much damage is acceptable before you can pull out your gun? Should zimmerman have calmly waited until he lost some teeth? Got a skull fracture? Please fucking tell me where that line is. I would love to fucking know the answer to that and as someone who knows fucking everything you should be able to supply me with it.

Really? Just intending to tell the police where Martin went? Then how was Martin able to get close enough to hit him in the face? If, indeed, it was Martin that hit him in the face.

Its called being JUMPED. You attack someone when they aren't expecting it and you have an advantage that allows you to hurt them before they can respond.

[Seabear]

Same exact scenario and chain of events, but now imagine Zimmerman is a woman. Does that change your opinion? Why or why not?


How about the same exact scenario, but now Trayvon is a 35yo white guy? Again, does that change your opinion?