Trayvon Martin Shooting

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by wanna be drummer

Your problem here is...this doesn't make him the aggressor regardless.

In your opinion.

[The Esteemed Gentleman]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Clarification...

Alright, thanks for that.

Originally Posted by Donkey®

In addition, the "troubles" at school seem typical of what I see out of the black kids I am around. They do silly things or get caught up in silly incidents constantly...just because they are in the wrong place at the wrong time and they really are in an environment that makes it a lot easier to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

What environment is that? School? Or being caught at school with contraband? Maybe I am ignorant, but I'd think it'd be easy to lose the contraband and not get in trouble at school if the rules are followed. I managed to make it through all of school without breaking major rules. I still don't understand why it is so difficult for kids in other parts of the country (or even my state) to do the same.

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Again...I am more likely to believe that it didn't happen without any solid proof. A tweet just doesn't cut it because who knows exactly what story he heard and if it was even close to what the actual story was.

Well, that is not entirely unreasonable, but even you have to implicitly admit that there is a "story" we are unaware of. You say it is something that easily could not have happened; maybe that is true. It's also possible it was worse than the tweet indicates, but we'll probably never know one way or the other.

Originally Posted by Donkey®

What is a "burglary tool?" A screwdriver? A set of pliers? Was he charged with anything? Being suspended really doesn't mean much. If there was a crime, he should have been arrested and charged.

You tend to be fixated on the idea that if there is not a charged violation of the law, then there must be nothing wrong with the conduct. Just because the law cannot prove something does not mean a crime did not occur; it just means the authorities cannot prove it in court. Those are two very different things. The best example I can think of is A Few Good Men: everyone, even Kevin Bacon, knew that Jack Nicholson ordered the "Code Red," but it was unlikely that Tom Cruise could prove it at trial. (Of course for drama in the movie Nicholson admitted it on the stand, but that's an unrelated matter.) See what I mean though? You can use your intuitive logic to infer from circumstantial evidence that when a kid has a backpack full of jewelry and a screwdriver , he's either a jeweler's apprentice or he's trafficking stolen goods.

Originally Posted by Donkey®

I will love to hear the medical examiner's report though.

Well, medical evidence will be big in this trial for both sides. Putting on my lawyer hat here, if Zimmerman takes the stand and does well and is believable, an his story is backed up by medical records, EMT testimony, and police testimony regarding his injuries, and then the defense gets an expert to testify credibly that heads being hit into the ground can cause injury sufficient to put life and cognitive function at risk, I can easily see the jury finding enough reasonable doubt and reasonable fear justifying Zimmerman's use of deadly force. In fact I wouldn't be surprised at all if that is exactly the defense strategy, at least in part. I guess we'll see.

Originally Posted by Donkey®

They are. He never changed clothes. They would do that at the station. They take him in, process him, photograph him, then bag his clothes. That's procedure and seeing as though I don't see any major blunders by the police in this case, I have no reason to believe that they messed that up.

Duly noted. I mean, I figured they probably were, but I had no idea one way or the other.

Originally Posted by Donkey®

See, that's what I don't understand. Martin couldn't take all necessary steps to stop his attacker...up to and including killing him...but Zimmerman can? Self defense is self defense ....

That's where you're wrong. Generally, the rule is you can use only the force reasonably necessary to defend yourself. Say Zimmerman did follow, chase, or verbally confront Martin - and for the hell of it, let's say Zimmerman even tried to physically hit Martin. In that circumstance, Zimmerman was not using deadly force and Martin could not reasonably have been put in fear of his life. So punching Zimmerman in the face would almost certainly have been justified. Assuming Martin then got on top of him and started slamming his head - if true - that likely constitutes an unjustified escalation of a somewhat minor fight into a potentially deadly confrontation. So even if Zimmerman started a physical altercation, unless Zimmerman immediately used force that would reasonably put Martin in fear for his life, Martin was not justified in slamming Zimmerman's head into the ground. (But who knows? Maybe Zimmerman tried to physically detain Martin, and Martin thought he was being kipnapped; that would put a 17 year old in reasonable fear for his life I'd think, so maybe bashing Zimmerman's head would have been okay under Florida's law. Still, you could make the argument that Martin did feel that threatened, after he hit and knocked Zimmerman down, why didn't he just run away? Instead, he decided to stop and take things up a notch. Justified? Well, now it's not as clear as it was when I first thought this scenario up. Hmm. Anyway . . .)

Now, another general rule of self defense is that if the person justifiably seeking to use self defense escalates the force to an unjustifiable level, the initial aggressor may use appropriate self defense to defend against it - including deadly force. Thus, if I pushed on you on the basketball court in a simply scruff competitive guys sometimes get into, and you push me back or wrestle me to the ground, that's probably okay. But if I push you and you whip out a switch blade, that unjustifiably escalates the conflict and if you come at me with it and I end up killing you with it (or another weapon I had previously not introduced to the fight), then my use of deadly force would probably be okay because I am allowed to defend myself in that situation from your unjustified aggression, even though I originally pushed you and began the fight.

I hope that answers your question.

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by The Esteemed Gentleman

What environment is that? School? Or being caught at school with contraband? Maybe I am ignorant, but I'd think it'd be easy to lose the contraband and not get in trouble at school if the rules are followed. I managed to make it through all of school without breaking major rules. I still don't understand why it is so difficult for kids in other parts of the country (or even my state) to do the same.

Assuming it's "contraband". We're talking about every day tools and some jewelry...if the reports are to believed. Why are those things considered "contraband?" Why is jewelry considered "illegal?" They ASSUME the jewelry is stolen...why? Maybe he sells jewelry? I don't know. Unless there is something specific in the school code saying that tools and some jewelry is contraband, I don't see what he's done wrong.

Originally Posted by The Esteemed Gentleman

Well, that is not entirely unreasonable, but even you have to implicitly admit that there is a "story" we are unaware of. You say it is something that easily could not have happened; maybe that is true. It's also possible it was worse than the tweet indicates, but we'll probably never know one way or the other.

And if we don't know, we can't assume it happened automatically. There should be SOME kind of evidence of it's existence. A tweet isn't that evidence.

Originally Posted by The Esteemed Gentleman

You tend to be fixated on the idea that if there is not a charged violation of the law, then there must be nothing wrong with the conduct. Just because the law cannot prove something does not mean a crime did not occur; it just means the authorities cannot prove it in court. Those are two very different things. The best example I can think of is A Few Good Men: everyone, even Kevin Bacon, knew that Jack Nicholson ordered the "Code Red," but it was unlikely that Tom Cruise could prove it at trial. (Of course for drama in the movie Nicholson admitted it on the stand, but that's an unrelated matter.) See what I mean though? You can use your intuitive logic to infer from circumstantial evidence that when a kid has a backpack full of jewelry and a screwdriver , he's either a jeweler's apprentice or he's trafficking stolen goods.

Again, we have no idea. I don't see what he had in his possession as wrong...also I don't see him actually having those things meaning they were HIS. And again, these things are brought up to compare him with Zimmerman and claim one was bad, the other wasn't. It's irrelevant unless you break out Zimmerman's juvenile and school records. We already know his adult record and one person has shown violent tendencies...the other hasn't...even if you claim he was burglar...he's not prone to violence because of it.

Originally Posted by The Esteemed Gentleman

Duly noted. I mean, I figured they probably were, but I had no idea one way or the other.

Obviously I am speaking on assumption since that was same day, he was in cuffs and those are procedures...can't say if they followed procedure or not for certain.

Originally Posted by The Esteemed Gentleman

That's where you're wrong. Generally, the rule is you can use only the force reasonably necessary to defend yourself. Say Zimmerman did follow, chase, or verbally confront Martin - and for the hell of it, let's say Zimmerman even tried to physically hit Martin. In that circumstance, Zimmerman was not using deadly force and Martin could not reasonably have been put in fear of his life. So punching Zimmerman in the face would almost certainly have been justified. Assuming Martin then got on top of him and started slamming his head - if true - that likely constitutes an unjustified escalation of a somewhat minor fight into a potentially deadly confrontation. So even if Zimmerman started a physical altercation, unless Zimmerman immediately used force that would reasonably put Martin in fear for his life, Martin was not justified in slamming Zimmerman's head into the ground. (But who knows? Maybe Zimmerman tried to physically detain Martin, and Martin thought he was being kipnapped; that would put a 17 year old in reasonable fear for his life I'd think, so maybe bashing Zimmerman's head would have been okay under Florida's law. Still, you could make the argument that Martin did feel that threatened, after he hit and knocked Zimmerman down, why didn't he just run away? Instead, he decided to stop and take things up a notch. Justified? Well, now it's not as clear as it was when I first thought this scenario up. Hmm. Anyway . . .)

That's not really entirely true...especially in Florida. He only had to have a reasonable fear for his life and someone watching me, following me then grabbing me in the dark in the rain most certainly would fall into that for me. Serial killers kind of do that. So do rapists...

Originally Posted by The Esteemed Gentleman

Now, another general rule of self defense is that if the person justifiably seeking to use self defense escalates the force to an unjustifiable level, the initial aggressor may use appropriate self defense to defend against it - including deadly force. Thus, if I pushed on you on the basketball court in a simply scruff competitive guys sometimes get into, and you push me back or wrestle me to the ground, that's probably okay. But if I push you and you whip out a switch blade, that unjustifiably escalates the conflict and if you come at me with it and I end up killing you with it (or another weapon I had previously not introduced to the fight), then my use of deadly force would probably be okay because I am allowed to defend myself in that situation from your unjustified aggression, even though I originally pushed you and began the fight.

I hope that answers your question.

Again, it depends on having a reasonable fear for your life and Martin certainly could have had one.

[The Esteemed Gentleman]

So, Zimmerman has appeared in court. Along with his booking photo, this is how he looks right now:




One would think that if he had a broken nose, some physical evidence of it would remain. I've never had a broken nose so maybe I am wrong, but I would think the shape would be more rugged and crooked. I would think there'd be more bruising. For example, this is how Sen. John Kerry looked a few days after his broken nose (he got it playing hockey) earlier this year:



And this photo of Kerry was taken a few days (at least) after the injury. Compare that to Zimmerman's face the day Sanford police brought him into custody immediately after the shooting; needless to say, Zimmerman looked much better than Kerry. As Donkey and others have pointed out, Zimmerman didn't look like he had a broken nose. He certainly didn't look anything like Kerry. Of course, it has been a few months since Zimmerman's injuries allegedly occurred, so I guess judging his face on how he looks now is a bit unfair. But absent some sort of photographic evidence of his face taken close up (by family, police, etc) immediately following the incident (or at least medical evidence and testimony by qualified medical personnel), my objectivity hat makes me think Donkey's version of events might be more accurate than not.

Also of note, in an interview earlier today Martin's mother said she believed that the shooting of her son was an accident:

"I believe it was an accident," Fulton told Ann Curry in the initial interview. "I believe that it just got out of control and he couldn't turn the clock back."

Well, it didn't take very long for "accident" to turn into cold-blooded murder:

Trayvon Martin's mother Sybrina Fulton, who said on the "Today" show early Thursday that she believed Zimmerman's fatal shooting of her son was an "accident," has retracted those comments.

"George Zimmerman stalked my son and murdered him in cold blood," told MSNBC in a separate interview.

My guess is that even if Zimmerman was a total cop wannabe asshole in this whole endeavor, I'm inclined to believe Fulton's first assessment of what happened is more probable than her second assessment. But hey, MSNBC probably wanted red meat, so she threw them some. "The Today Show" is a bit less rabid in that regard. Know your audience I guess.

[wanna be drummer]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

In your opinion.

No.

[SonicBoom]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

He was walking towards him in an aggressive manner. Do that to a cop, they can shoot you. To call that a sucker punch is a little assumptive. If he's going to go after someone, he should probably be ready to put his hands up and defend himself...I know I would.

I was jsut about to comment on how green shirt guy NEVER, not once raised his hands. They were at his side the whole time. No clenched fists. NOTHING.

I will provide you a courtesy you refuse to provide me.

Start the video at 31 seconds and then pause/start the video rapidly and you will see the black kids look away for a instant as he is winding up to deck the guy?
Why look away? He checking to make sure there were no cops around before swinging.

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by The Esteemed Gentleman

So, Zimmerman has appeared in court. Along with his booking photo, this is how he looks right now:




One would think that if he had a broken nose, some physical evidence of it would remain. I've never had a broken nose so maybe I am wrong, but I would think the shape would be more rugged and crooked. I would think there'd be more bruising. For example, this is how Sen. John Kerry looked a few days after his broken nose (he got it playing hockey) earlier this year:



And this photo of Kerry was taken a few days (at least) after the injury. Compare that to Zimmerman's face the day Sanford police brought him into custody immediately after the shooting; needless to say, Zimmerman looked much better than Kerry. As Donkey and others have pointed out, Zimmerman didn't look like he had a broken nose. He certainly didn't look anything like Kerry. Of course, it has been a few months since Zimmerman's injuries allegedly occurred, so I guess judging his face on how he looks now is a bit unfair. But absent some sort of photographic evidence of his face taken close up (by family, police, etc) immediately following the incident (or at least medical evidence and testimony by qualified medical personnel), my objectivity hat makes me think Donkey's version of events might be more accurate than not.

Also of note, in an interview earlier today Martin's mother said she believed that the shooting of her son was an accident:



Well, it didn't take very long for "accident" to turn into cold-blooded murder:



My guess is that even if Zimmerman was a total cop wannabe asshole in this whole endeavor, I'm inclined to believe Fulton's first assessment of what happened is more probable than her second assessment. But hey, MSNBC probably wanted red meat, so she threw them some. "The Today Show" is a bit less rabid in that regard. Know your audience I guess.

I have had mine broken 3 or 4 times. It definitely bleeds and definitely leaves marks and obvious signs. That said, it's April...this happened in February. Probably would have healed by now. The video is the more viable evidence and again, no blood, no hospital visit...it doesn't lead me to believe it was this massive beating others claim.

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by wanna be drummer

No.

Um, yes it is.

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by SonicBoom

I was jsut about to comment on how green shirt guy NEVER, not once raised his hands. They were at his side the whole time. No clenched fists. NOTHING.

I will provide you a courtesy you refuse to provide me.

Start the video at 31 seconds and then pause/start the video rapidly and you will see the black kids look away for a instant as he is winding up to deck the guy?
Why look away? He checking to make sure there were no cops around before swinging.

I am not in his head so I am not going to assume to know what he was thinking.

Looking at it though, all he did was wind up.

[SonicBoom]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

I am not in his head so I am not going to assume to know what he was thinking.

Wow. So you claim to know what green shirt was thinking as he approached the black kid, but do know know wha black kid was thinking as he wound up.

Selective ignorance.

I've done bad things. When I saw him look away, it instantly reminded me that I've done the same scan just before doing something bad.

[wanna be drummer]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Um, yes it is.

No, this is a clear-cut case. I appreciate playing devil's advocate, but this is not one of those times where it would be sane to. He clearly got mugged. No other explanation needed. Grasping at "Well...maybe they just didn't want him to drive" is fucking stupid and you know it.

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by SonicBoom

Wow. So you claim to know what green shirt was thinking as he approached the black kid, but do know know wha black kid was thinking as he wound up.

Selective ignorance.

I've done bad things. When I saw him look away, it instantly reminded me that I've done the same scan just doing something bad.

I edited my post after you quoted...just to include what I did see...

And to address this nonsense...no, I am not assuming anything about white guy. I said his MOVEMENT (which is something I can see) is aggressive. Not that he was thinking anything aggressive. I don't think he looked away at all except in the motion to wind up. Again, you see something that's not there.

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by wanna be drummer

No, this is a clear-cut case. I appreciate playing devil's advocate, but this is not one of those times where it would be sane to. He clearly got mugged. No other explanation needed. Grasping at "Well...maybe they just didn't want him to drive" is fucking stupid and you know it.

He did get mugged. He did get robbed. Never said he didn't. Next fake argument?

[SonicBoom]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

I don't think he looked away at all except in the motion to wind up.

So you are saying he didn't look away, except for when he did.

This is no longer a discussion, this is utter bullshit.

[wanna be drummer]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

He did get mugged. He did get robbed. Never said he didn't. Next fake argument?

Let me try: I never said you didn't say he got mugged or he got robbed. Next fake argument? (this games easy, try a different one)

But you did say:

Originally Posted by Donkey®

From what I can tell it was his keys and if he was drunk, he most certainly shouldn't have been driving. I don't know that those people all didn't know each other and I don't know how each person got to that point where we see them in the video. He could have been taking the keys to keep him from driving...he could have been robbing him...I am not going to assume until all the facts are out. They might even be out...I haven't seen them yet.

I am looking only at the video and I see the guy take something from him...and the white guy goes after him. His aggression could have been justified and it may not have been. Depends on why he took his keys...and if it wasn't his keys...then he really has no defense. He committed a robbery then assaulted the man. Send him to jail.

You're wishy-washy, grey to the extreme. Most people can derive an absolute from this video. You cannot. That's the problem everyone here is having is it not?

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by SonicBoom

So you are saying he didn't look away, except for when he did.

This is no longer a discussion, this is utter bullshit.

I am not sure what you don't understand. I know what you're CLAIMING he was thinking and what you CLAIM he did...but from what I saw, it was no look away, then a punch. It was a windup and a punch...difference is very tangible.

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by wanna be drummer

Let me try: I never said you didn't say he got mugged or he got robbed. Next fake argument? (this games easy, try a different one)

But you did say:



You're wishy-washy, grey to the extreme. Most people can derive an absolute from this video. You cannot. That's the problem everyone here is having is it not?

Right...most people with a bias can drive an ABSOLUTE from the video...which is what you and others have.

So tell me,

Did these people meet on the street or at the club?

Was the guy who took his keys thinking "hey, this guy is too drunk to drive, let me stop him" or was he thinking "I needs me some ends to buy crack wif...let me take him fo his shit?"


I mean, you can read minds...let me know which it was.

[The Esteemed Gentleman]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Assuming it's "contraband". We're talking about every day tools and some jewelry...if the reports are to believed. Why are those things considered "contraband?" Why is jewelry considered "illegal?" They ASSUME the jewelry is stolen...why? Maybe he sells jewelry? I don't know. Unless there is something specific in the school code saying that tools and some jewelry is contraband, I don't see what he's done wrong.

Well, that's a fair enough point. None of that stuff by itself is illegal. But Martin went to school in Miami. I'm willing to bet (or at least wouldn't be surprised) that having something like a screwdriver in your back-pack is not allowed. A similar example is having a kitchen knife in your backpack. Both have legitimate useful functions, but not in a school environment. If Martin was in a shop class, they would provide him with tools. If he needed to cut food at lunch, plastic knives are provided. Considering his school was (I believe) likely considered inner-city and that a screw driver could be considered a dangerous item in that environment, it is entirely reasonable to consider it contraband.

The jewelry is a little less clear, but I don't know many people - kids or not - that go around with large quantities of jewelry in their back packs. Perhaps he was a jeweler, but as you've pointed out regarding other possible events and facts in this case, there is absolutely no evidence that he was, and simply because he had them in his back pack is not evidence that he was (much like the tweet on his page from his cousin is not evidence, in your view, that he was violent). So I think it is reasonable that if a 17 year old has a lot of jewelry in his possession and no realistic excuse exists for him to have it, it is highly possible his possession is unlawful. But at this point, we'll probably never know.

Originally Posted by Donkey®

And if we don't know, we can't assume it happened automatically. There should be SOME kind of evidence of it's existence. A tweet isn't that evidence.

I addressed this above.

Originally Posted by Donkey®

It's irrelevant unless you break out Zimmerman's juvenile and school records. We already know his adult record and one person has shown violent tendencies...the other hasn't...even if you claim he was burglar...he's not prone to violence because of it.

Well first, I don't think you need Zimmerman's juvenile record to compare simply because you have Martin's. The two really have nothing to do with each other. We have Martin's record, which I think makes him look like a trouble maker; and we have Zimmerman's record, which makes him look like a trouble maker as well. Both seem prone to poor decision making, both with this situation and prior situations. I'm not sure there is much disputing that.

Originally Posted by Donkey®

That's not really entirely true...especially in Florida.

It's the rule we have to follow for the bar exam; it's generally true, but the Florida law does complicate it slightly. I looked up and read the Florida law and posted about it earlier in this thread. The law may complicate the general rule, but it doesn't change it entirely.

Originally Posted by Donkey®

He only had to have a reasonable fear for his life and someone watching me, following me then grabbing me in the dark in the rain most certainly would fall into that for me. Serial killers kind of do that. So do rapists... Again, it depends on having a reasonable fear for your life and Martin certainly could have had one.

I acknowledged as much in my post, and clearly hypothesized that same argument. But if it is true that Martin decked Zimmerman so badly that Zimmerman fell to his ass, and then Martin got on top of him and started beating his head in, at what point is that force not justified? Florida's law says this:

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—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. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony . . .

776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

This leaves a lot of nuance, in my opinion, but it doesn't really change the general rule of self-defense though; it only changes the duty to retreat. Assuming Martin did fear for his life because Zimmerman started a fight or tried to apprehend him, and assuming Martin did deck Zimmerman and knocked Zimmerman to the ground with a broken nose, does that not reasonably end the threat to Martin's subjective fear of death or great bodily harm? He has knocked Zimmerman down to the ground and broken his nose (again, assuming Zimmerman is in the wrong initially). Zimmerman is on his ass, bleeding away. At that point, does a reasonable threat to life exist justifying continuing the fight? I'm not so sure, even under Florida's law, that one does exist at that point. The fight is over at that point. Approaching your aggressor at that point and trying to finish him off like it's Mortal Combat probably isn't covered under the law, even as written, because I am not sure an objective person could reasonably or subjectively believe finishing off a person after you've just clocked them on their ass "is necessary to . . . prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."

But as you say, we weren't there and Zimmerman really is the only true witness to the entire event. So who knows what really happened. For all we know Zimmerman could have tried to make a "citizens arrest" (which would have been clearly out of line) which, in my opinion, would and could have put Martin in reasonable fear for his life. Or maybe Zimmerman just blew him away, no warning or fight. We'll likely never know for sure.

[The Esteemed Gentleman]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

I have had mine broken 3 or 4 times.

So that explains why you're so damn butch sexy, huh?

[The Great Catpiss]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

What I don't get...and not really using you as this example...but you said the same thing...is that people are so easy to claim it was Martin that initiated the attack. I don't see that at all from the evidence presented.

It's a pure assumption. I run it as the most probable scenario that I can imagine based on the little information I have and my understanding of people.

• I think it would add to his anger level, bringing him to the point of pulling the trigger.
• Also, I don't think he has a history of attacking people. I think he irritated Martin to the point where Martin did something to stop it.

Originally Posted by Donkey®

it's not a stretch to think that he tried to detain Martin and Martin defended himself.

That's a good possibility. Martin defending himself would be the attack on Zimmerman that got him to the boiling point.

Then again... reading the 911 transcript, it seemed like Zimmerman was pretty irate from the beginning. Maybe he just had a shitty day and finally snapped.