Martin/Zimmerman: humble opinions and speculation thread

[Stoid]

Originally Posted by Rand Rover

Are you saying that this is how the Zimmerman/Martin incident went down? If so, do you have any evidence for the bolded part?

I'm saying we don't know, that's certainly a very strong possibility, given the conversation with the girlfriend, and if it did happen that way, then Martin being freaked is understandable.

[Stoid]

Originally Posted by JoelUpchurch

Stoid you just spun out a theoretical scenario and when I pointed out the correct reaction, you turn around and pull your gender card and say that isn't how you would react.

"The correct reaction"? You really believe there is an absolute correct and incorrect in this situation? Seriously? AND you think that YOU know what it is? And if there is a "correct" reaction, what does it mean if someone fails to react "correctly"?

First I call BS and say that isn't the way a typical woman reacts and frankly I don't think you would have actually reacted to that situation like you state.

You mean rolling into a ball? Probably not. I would probably have hustled as fast as I could, which isn't very fast.

I point out that an extra X chromosome doesn't make you an expert on how women would react.

nor am I saying I'm an expert, apart from saying that it's hardly outside the reasonable range of likely reactions. Unlike you, who seems to have decided there there is only one "correct" response and you know what it is. Presumably anything that doesn't fall within your definition of correct is then incorrect and...what? They had it comin'?

You have perverted ideas about how self-defense works. You do call 911 and you do your best to avoid a confrontation.

Self-defense in what sense? The real world how one-defends-oneself sense, or the legal sense? And what do you mean by "perverted"? Because I'll tell you this: it's hard to imagine a scenario in which the correct, unperverted response to anything Martin might have done, given the evidence we've heard about so far, is to blow a hole in his chest. I think that's pretty fucking perverse.

I've already stated in the previous thread that Zimmerman was an idiot to get out of his truck.

The relevance of which at this juncture escapes me.

[Stoid]

Originally Posted by JoelUpchurch

If you want to spin imaginary scenarios, then you should go to the 2nd amendment thread instead of trying to give Martin a sex-change operation.

I have to say I'm puzzled by your strong resistence to considering this question directly. Instead of debating the legitimacy of the scenario I posed, (which, seeing as I AM a woman, I do have a little bit more knowledge of the potential for a woman to react as I describe. The only thing that would prevent me personally from taking the pepper-spraying, ball-kicking get-the-fuck-away-from-me-Stalky-McStalkerson-RapeyMan route is my fundamental cowardice and absolute conviction that I am so completely inept at employing violence that any attempt to take charge physically will fail miserably and will almost certainly be turned against me.) accept it as a possibility. How do you think the law, or a jury, would look at GZ's culpability in driving a woman to attack him in that way? Would they have more sympathy for her doing so because they perceive women as inherently more vulnerable, or not? If they would, is that legitimate?

What is she were a gun-totin' sureshot, like my big (yet physically little) sis, and her response when she was approached, was to shoot Zimmerman, killing him? Would she get off on self-defense?

If the answer is yes, or likely, then turn back to Martin, to his reaction to the same behavior, and explain how Zimmerman gets to claim self-defense and have it stick?

I am looking for anyone to address this directly, which so far no one has done.

[Blank Slate]

Some thoughts while I'm reading the CNN transcript, which is maddening because they frequently break for commercials so there are apparent gaps in the proceedings. This exchange between the prosecutor De La Rionda and the investigator Gilbreath confuses me:

DLR: And during your reporting there was mention of two fork marks, those are actually the language, the words Mr. Zimmerman used to describe Mr. Martin, or the people he felt were breaking into those houses? Correct?

G: Yes sir

DLR: And I'm not going to repeat the word, for the purpose of the record but they should speak for themselves.

Big WTF. I assume this refers to the "fucking coons" or "fucking punks", whichever, but do they have to be that coy in court about recorded evidence? Aggravating not knowing which they are claiming.

[Blank Slate]

And then later on we have this:

Gilbreath: We have Mr. Zimmerman's statements, we have the shell casings and we had Mr.Martins body.

Shell Casings? Plural? That is the first I've heard of multiple casings or shots.

[Steophan]

Stoid, the point at which you can use the pepper spray is the point at which a reasonable person would feel threatened. Also, stop referring to a single incident as "stalking", it isn't.

I will contend that being approached by someone who asks what you're doing is not a reasonable point to feel threatened, without any other aggravating circumstances. It may be reasonable to feel suspicious or uncomfortable, in which case calling the police would be the right thing to do. So what if they're busy? That's what they're there for.

It may also be reasonable to feel pissed off by someone doing that. Frankly, tough. If someone else's legitimate behaviour pisses you off, you just have to deal with it.

[Stoid]

Originally Posted by Steophan

Stoid, the point at which you can use the pepper spray is the point at which a reasonable person would feel threatened. Also, stop referring to a single incident as "stalking", it isn't.

I am not arguing that it is legally stalking, I am arguing that that is how it would feel.

I will contend that being approached by someone who asks what you're doing is not a reasonable point to feel threatened,

You know, it does not bolster your argument or contention to deliberately leave out pertinent aspects of what happened.

If you honestly believe that Zimmerman's behavior was 100% acceptable and in no way aggravating, then characterize it honestly and accurately. Deliberately leaving things out makes it seem as though you are perfectly aware that his behavior was aggravating to the situation,easily perceived as threatening, and you are consciously trying to make it seem otherwise.

In other words, by dodging you confirm.

[JoelUpchurch]

Originally Posted by Stoid

I have to say I'm puzzled by your strong resistence to considering this question directly. Instead of debating the legitimacy of the scenario I posed, (which, seeing as I AM a woman, I do have a little bit more knowledge of the potential for a woman to react as I describe. The only thing that would prevent me personally from taking the pepper-spraying, ball-kicking get-the-fuck-away-from-me-Stalky-McStalkerson-RapeyMan route is my fundamental cowardice and absolute conviction that I am so completely inept at employing violence that any attempt to take charge physically will fail miserably and will almost certainly be turned against me.) accept it as a possibility. How do you think the law, or a jury, would look at GZ's culpability in driving a woman to attack him in that way? Would they have more sympathy for her doing so because they perceive women as inherently more vulnerable, or not? If they would, is that legitimate?

What is she were a gun-totin' sureshot, like my big (yet physically little) sis, and her response when she was approached, was to shoot Zimmerman, killing him? Would she get off on self-defense?

If the answer is yes, or likely, then turn back to Martin, to his reaction to the same behavior, and explain how Zimmerman gets to claim self-defense and have it stick?

I am looking for anyone to address this directly, which so far no one has done.

There is a simple problem. You wish to discuss things that have no relation to the topic of this thread. If you want to do that, then start a new thread on that topic.

[monstro]

Stoid, I am puzzled why are you aren't getting a simple answer to your question.

Why don't we do it this way?

Let's say Martin didn't punch Zimmerman, but that he whipped out a can of Mace and went to town on him. Let's say Zimmerman stumbles backwards, busts his head on the concrete and then Martin towers over him to continue spraying, all the while yelling, "Stop following me, you evil person you!"

Would Zimmerman have a right to stand his ground in this situation?

[JoelUpchurch]

Originally Posted by Stoid

I'm saying we don't know, that's certainly a very strong possibility, given the conversation with the girlfriend, and if it did happen that way, then Martin being freaked is understandable.

There is a basic problem that is hard to reconcile that Martin was frightened by Zimmerman but didn't call 911. The fact that he kept talking to his girlfriend and didn't go home simply reinforces that. A more likely scenario is that Martin was angered by Zimmerman and confronted him. "Why are you following me?", isn't the words of a man who is frighted. That are the words of someone who is pissed off. When Zimmerman replied “What are you doing here?”, it set Martin off and he punched Zimmerman and knocked him down. If Martin had turned around and walked away at this point instead of continuing to fight then the whole event would have been over with Zimmerman's bloody nose.

[Rand Rover]

Originally Posted by Stoid

I'm saying we don't know,that's certainly a very strong possibility, given the conversation with the girlfriend, and if it did happen that way, then Martin being freaked is understandable.

In other words, you have no evidence for your scenario, it just seems to make sense to you.

[Steophan]

Originally Posted by monstro

Stoid, I am puzzled why are you aren't getting a simple answer to your question.

Why don't we do it this way?

Let's say Martin didn't punch Zimmerman, but that he whipped out a can of Mace and went to town on him. Let's say Zimmerman stumbles backwards, busts his head on the concrete and then Martin towers over him to continue spraying, all the while yelling, "Stop following me, you evil person you!"

Would Zimmerman have a right to stand his ground in this situation?

If Martin is towering over him, and continuing to spray him, SYG doesn't come into play. Zimmerman could shoot him under normal self defence rules.

ETA That is, if the spraying gives rise to reasonable fear of serious injury or death. If not, it's not a valid analogy.

[monstro]

Are you really saying that Martin is at fault for his death for not calling 911?

His girlfriend reports that Martin himself didn't think the situation leading up to the altercation warranted running--that it was merely creepy behavior.

Three things could have made him not want to call the police, beyond gender and racial/cultural stuff: 1) He's in a strange neighborhood. How is he going to direct the police to his location? He's also a kid. Maybe he doesn't know that you can actually call 911 to report suspicious people...that 911 isn't simply for reporting crimes. I know for a fact that I wouldn't have known this at 17. 2) He's almost home. He figures the creepy dude won't be so brazen as to follow him to his house. 3) He's on the phone with his girl. She's tempering his fears and probably making him feel braver than he is. That's why he tells her he's going to "walk fast" instead of running.

When he bumps into Zimmerman (assuming this is what happened), he's caught off-guard. When you panic, your mind is reduced to single-track thinking. I think it's a fair assumption to make that both guys panicked. Martin's mode: "Keep scary dude off me!" Zimmerman's mode: "Kill scary dude before he can kill me!"

Stoid's point, which I totally agree with, is that neither one of these guys would have been "scary" if Zimmerman had not gotten out of his car. Blaming Martin for not calling 911 is like blaming a rape victim for not screaming loud enough. It's a weak attempt to say that both parties are to blame for creating the situation, when really we only have evidence that one party went out of his way to do something unwise (i.e., approaching a guy he had already flagged as scary, who he claims didn't know was armed).

If Zimmerman claims he didn't approach Martin, I would want to know how in the hell he got from his truck all the way over to the yard. The only thing that makes sense is that Zimmerman had lost sight of Martin and went snooping around in the darkness for him, and in doing so their eyes "bumped" into each other. They were close enough, if we are to believe the earwitness, for Zimmerman's voice to have been picked up by the phone. I would find that situation simply terrifying, if I had been Martin. 911 would have been the last thing from my mind.

[monstro]

Originally Posted by Steophan

If Martin is towering over him, and continuing to spray him, SYG doesn't come into play. Zimmerman could shoot him under normal self defence rules.

ETA That is, if the spraying gives rise to reasonable fear of serious injury or death. If not, it's not a valid analogy.

Just about any fighting move can illicit reasonable fear of serious injury or death. I'm having a hard time imagining what Martin could have done in a scuffle with Zimmerman that Zimmerman could not have claimed as warranting "reasonable fear of serious injury". Punching Zimmerman in the face as opposed to slamming his head would have been able to illicit the same fear. Any person ever finding themselves in the losing side of a fight could play this card.

Not only was the fight stacked against Martin, but it appears the law is stacked against him too. I really hope the prosecution has something golden they're sitting on that hasn't been leaked yet, because I don't know how they'll be able to disprove something that's so hard to disprove (the state of mind of an individual who has every reason in the world to fabricate and exaggerate the truth).

[you with the face]

Can we go back to the street sign claim? How many posters in here really believe that this is why Zimmerman go out of his car? And how do you square this belief with the location of where the shooting occurred?

This ridiculous assertion bears all the hallmarks of a story that tries too hard to hide any indication that Zimmerman acted improperly. He wasnt trying to follow Martin, no way, no sir. He was looking for a street sign. And he didn't reach for his gun. Hell no, it was his phone! And that wasn't Martin screaming for help, it was Zimmerman!

Notice how every critical element of the story all seem to be written in Zimmmans favor? He admits to nothing that could make him look bad, even though evidence suggests at a minimum that he did continue his pursuit of Martin.

[Steophan]

Originally Posted by monstro

Not only was the fight stacked against Martin, but it appears the law is stacked against him too. I really hope the prosecution has something golden they're sitting on that hasn't been leaked yet, because I don't know how they'll be able to disprove something that's so hard to disprove (the state of mind of an individual who has every reason in the world to fabricate and exaggerate the truth).

If (please note the if) Martin, as is claimed, started the fight, then no, nothing was stacked against him. He should not have started it. This also answers the question in your previous post - if he started the fight, he is responsible for his own death.

The law, by the way, should always be stacked in favour of the accused. That's not a bug, it's a feature. I will point out, though, that they do not have to prove what Zimmerman's state of mind was, they have to prove that a reasonable person in that situation would not fear death or great bodily harm.

As for the various accusations of victim blaming - Zimmerman claims he was the victim of an assault, but that hasn't stopped you lot saying he should never have followed Martin (which is, as has been mentioned many times before, perfectly legitimate behaviour), and that it's therefore his fault.

[Steophan]

Originally Posted by you with the face

Notice how every critical element of the story all seem to be written in Zimmmans favor? He admits to nothing that could make him look bad, even though evidence suggests at a minimum that he did continue his pursuit of Martin.

He followed Martin. That is not in doubt, that is not illegal, and frankly it's barely relevant. He had every right to follow him, and question him. What he did not have the right to do is to threaten or restrain Martin, or even to expect answers to his questions. There's no evidence that he did any of those things, though.

It's entirely possible that every element of the story points in Zimmerman's favour because he did nothing wrong.

[dngnb8]

What I find entertaining is how information is presented with skewed perspective to assist in convincing of ones position.

There are several things mentioned that have had 2 stories. Looks like people have latched on the side that matches their personal perception (I may even be guilty of this admittedly)

Perceptions based on info (whether that info is accurate)
A
1. Zim was Ricky Rescue with a trigger finger
2. Trayvon was just a sweet boy

B
1. Zim was a responsible neighbor watcher
2. Trayvon was a wannabe thug

These tidbits of info that has been in the news are the basis of peoples claims.

The funny thing is, in each sampling, they are good vs evil scenarios. What I havent seen is my Speculation

C
1. Zim was Ricky Rescue with a trigger finger
2. Trayvon was a wannabe thug

JMHO, but this is what I believe was the scenario. These confronting aggressive personalities caused the powder keg to go boom

[davidm]

Originally Posted by JoelUpchurch

There is a basic problem that is hard to reconcile that Martin was frightened by Zimmerman but didn't call 911. The fact that he kept talking to his girlfriend and didn't go home simply reinforces that. A more likely scenario is that Martin was angered by Zimmerman and confronted him. "Why are you following me?", isn't the words of a man who is frighted. That are the words of someone who is pissed off. When Zimmerman replied “What are you doing here?”, it set Martin off and he punched Zimmerman and knocked him down. If Martin had turned around and walked away at this point instead of continuing to fight then the whole event would have been over with Zimmerman's bloody nose.

You're puzzled that a young African American male would hesitate to call the police? You think it's remarkable that he would hesitate to call authorities and accuse a light skinned person of... something? Seriously?

Also, you say that Marin didn't go home (it was actually a relative's house, but that's neither here nor there). I was under the impression that he was trying to head "home" the whole time. His body was found near the house he was staying at.

[dngnb8]

Originally Posted by davidm

You're puzzled that a young African American male would hesitate to call the police? You think it's remarkable that he would hesitate to call authorities and accuse a light skinned person of... something? Seriously?

Ive seen Zimmerman, light skinned and hispanic looking are too very different things.

Zimmerman does not look Caucasian. Now, Martin may have thought it useless to call the cops regarding a black vs hispanic issue, but quit with the light skinned crap.

[Terr]

Originally Posted by monstro

Let's say Martin didn't punch Zimmerman, but that he whipped out a can of Mace and went to town on him. Let's say Zimmerman stumbles backwards, busts his head on the concrete and then Martin towers over him to continue spraying, all the while yelling, "Stop following me, you evil person you!"

Would Zimmerman have a right to stand his ground in this situation?

Zimmerman would not have the right to employ deadly force then. Mace is not life-threatening.

[you with the face]

Originally Posted by Steophan

He followed Martin. That is not in doubt, that is not illegal, and frankly it's barely relevant. He had every right to follow him, and question him. What he did not have the right to do is to threaten or restrain Martin, or even to expect answers to his questions. There's no evidence that he did any of those things, though.

It's entirely possible that every element of the story points in Zimmerman's favour because he did nothing wrong.

Do you believe the only reason he was out of his car was to check to see what street he was on? Yes or no.

[monstro]

Originally Posted by Steophan

He followed Martin. That is not in doubt, that is not illegal, and frankly it's barely relevant. He had every right to follow him, and question him. What he did not have the right to do is to threaten or restrain Martin, or even to expect answers to his questions. There's no evidence that he did any of those things, though.

It's entirely possible that every element of the story points in Zimmerman's favour because he did nothing wrong.

If he denies following Martin, what can we conclude about the rest of his story?

I suspect it's this point-of-weirdness--assuming his story is that he got out of the truck only to check a street sign--that explains why the prosecutor felt there was enough reason to bring charges. Everything else is just us chewing the fat and bllshitting, but I've said from the very beginning that the guy has to explain how the fight could start from his truck and end up where it did. From what we know, this could not have happened absent either some long and drawn out "They Live" type of street battle or Zimmerman following Martin for some distance.

[you with the face]

Originally Posted by Steophan

He followed Martin. That is not in doubt, that is not illegal, and frankly it's barely relevant. He had every right to follow him, and question him.

But this is irrelevant because Zimmerman is insisting that he didn't follow him.

[Steophan]

He says on the 911 all that he followed him. I believe he claims he didn't approach Martin.

[monstro]

Originally Posted by Terr

Zimmerman would not have the right to employ deadly force then. Mace is not life-threatening.

People who have died after being pepper-sprayed may disagree with you.

[Stoid]

Originally Posted by Steophan

It's entirely possible that every element of the story points in Zimmerman's favour because he did nothing wrong.

There's no question that George Zimmerman did a lot wrong. Whether what he did was illegal is a different question.

[monstro]

Originally Posted by Steophan

He says on the 911 all that he followed him. I believe he claims he didn't approach Martin.

His claim--according to his surrogates--is that he wasn't following Trayvon when he returned to his truck.

I haven't read his statement, so I don't know if this is his official claim. But according to his father, he had stopped following Martin before the fighting had begun.

[Steophan]

Originally Posted by you with the face

Do you believe the only reason he was out of his car was to check to see what street he was on? Yes or no.

Do you believe that if Zimmerman's story is true, he should currently be a free man, and should face absolutely no consequences for his actions? Yes or no?

The reason I ask is that I know you don't believe this, and this is why your participation in this thread is on giant game of Gotcha, and arguing with you is pointless, as you want Zimmerman punished no matter what.

Your question, as far as I can tell, is irrelevant to anything, so I'm not going to answer it.

[Terr]

Originally Posted by monstro

His claim--according to his surrogates--is that he wasn't following Trayvon when he returned to his truck.

I haven't read his statement, so I don't know if this is his official claim. But according to his father, he had stopped following Martin before the fighting had begun.

The State investigator, yesterday, during the bail hearing, under oath, said that there is no evidence to disprove Zimmerman's contention he was walking back to his vehicle when confronted by Martin.

[Stoid]

Originally Posted by dngnb8

What I find entertaining is how information is presented with skewed perspective to assist in convincing of ones position.

There are several things mentioned that have had 2 stories. Looks like people have latched on the side that matches their personal perception (I may even be guilty of this admittedly)

Perceptions based on info (whether that info is accurate)
A
1. Zim was Ricky Rescue with a trigger finger
2. Trayvon was just a sweet boy

B
1. Zim was a responsible neighbor watcher
2. Trayvon was a wannabe thug

These tidbits of info that has been in the news are the basis of peoples claims.

The funny thing is, in each sampling, they are good vs evil scenarios. What I havent seen is my Speculation

C
1. Zim was Ricky Rescue with a trigger finger
2. Trayvon was a wannabe thug

JMHO, but this is what I believe was the scenario. These confronting aggressive personalities caused the powder keg to go boom

I know that there is a lot of solid evidence for the portrayal of George Zimmerman as Ricky Rescue, can you share the copious matching evidence for Martin as a wannabe thug?

Also, I don't think that George Zimmerman's desire to be Ricky Rescue was evil at all.I think it was incredibly stupid and led to his committing an evil act. And unless you produce some differing evidence, what I think of Trayvon Martin is that he was a perfectly average,normal, decent 17-year-old boy.

[you with the face]

Originally Posted by Steophan

He says on the 911 all that he followed him. I believe he claims he didn't approach Martin.

Well we know he was following him some point. The question is, what did Zimmerman admit to doing so when his statement was taken? I don't think we've seen evidence that he admitted to following Martin. He maintains the only reason he was out of his vehicle at the time he encountered Martin was because he needed to check a street sign.

You still haven't said whether you believe this.

[you with the face]

Originally Posted by Steophan

Do you believe that if Zimmerman's story is true, he should currently be a free man, and should face absolutely no consequences for his actions? Yes or no?

Yes, I believe if he didn't actively pursue Martin as he claims, he didn't attempt to restrain or assault him in any way, and Martin launched a relentless, unprovoked attack against him that left him in fear for his life, I don't think he should be convicted of any crime.

But heres the thing: I don't believe any of this.

Now please answer my question to you: do you believe Zimmerman got out of his car to check a street sign, and that's how he ended up encountering Martin? Yes or no? This isn't a tricky question. Very straightforward.

[Stoid]

Originally Posted by Steophan

Your question, as far as I can tell, is irrelevant to anything, so I'm not going to answer it.

Okay, now THAT made me laugh out loud. You are glass, Steophan.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by dngnb8

Ive seen Zimmerman, light skinned and hispanic looking are too very different things.

Zimmerman does not look Caucasian. Now, Martin may have thought it useless to call the cops regarding a black vs hispanic issue, but quit with the light skinned crap.

Lighter than Martin. How about you quit trying to derail the conversation with arguments about degrees of skin tone? It's irrelevant to my argument as you yourself point out ("regarding a black vs hispanic issue").

Even if it was relevant, different photographs (and even different computer monitors) can render skin tone differently.
https://encrypted.google.com/search?...ed=0CAYQ_AUoAQ
I haven't seen Zimmerman in person, but I do know that there are caucasion hispanics and in at least some of those photographs Zimmerman appears to be as light skinned as I am.

In any case, my argument is about Martin's state of mind. We don't know if Martin saw Zimmerman as hispanic but he almost certainly noticed that the man was lighter skinned than him. That could easily have made him hesitant to call the police.

You seem to agree with my argument overall but then take issue with one point, and the way you take issue isn't even correct.

[Terr]

Originally Posted by you with the face

Yes, I believe if he didn't actively pursue Martin as he claims, he didn't attempt to restrain or assault him in any way, and Martin launched a relentless, unprovoked attack against him that left him in fear for his life, I don't think he should be convicted of any crime.

Good. Baby steps.

Now let's change the scenario - what if Zimmerman followed Martin, and even tried to restrain him. Then Martin launched that attack against Zimmerman, sitting on top of him and beating him, that left Zimmerman in reasonable fear for his life. Let's say those two statements above are true.

Do you think under current law he should be convicted?

[TriPolar]

Originally Posted by Steophan

If Martin is towering over him, and continuing to spray him, SYG doesn't come into play. Zimmerman could shoot him under normal self defence rules.

ETA That is, if the spraying gives rise to reasonable fear of serious injury or death. If not, it's not a valid analogy.

This is the part I'm trying to find an answer to. If ... ('If' means I'm introducing a hypothetical here, not saying I know what happened)... If Zimmerman was committing a crime, could he then claim self-defense? It defies common sense to me, but we're talking about Florida here, so common sense isn't really a factor. If Zimmerman assaulted Martin, or attempted a kidnapping, or whatever other crime idiots who attempt citizen's arrests or try to play cop commit, can he then shoot someone who is standing their own ground and claim self-defense? I hear lots of opinions that hedge on this question, but it seems to me this will be the heart of the state's case. They will attempt to discredit his own statements, and then use the circumstantial evidence to show that he was committing a crime. But if he has a little booboo on his head, and can use self defense as an excuse even if he was committing a crime, then it seems like a conviction will be hard to come by.

[monstro]

Originally Posted by Terr

Now let's change the scenario - what if Zimmerman followed Martin, and even tried to restrain him. Then Martin launched that attack against Zimmerman, sitting on top of him and beating him, that left Zimmerman in reasonable fear for his life. Let's say those two statements above are true.

Do you think under current law he should be convicted?

Yes, if he tried to restrain him, then SYG shouldn't be at play. Restraint implies physical contact, which is illegal.

[Terr]

Originally Posted by monstro

Yes, if he tried to restrain him, then SYG shouldn't be at play. Restraint implies physical contact, which is illegal.

And yet the law clearly says that in the scenario I described Zimmerman has the right to employ deadly force. Need I quote that part of the law again?

[monstro]

Originally Posted by Terr

And yet the law clearly says that in the scenario I described Zimmerman has the right to employ deadly force. Need I quote that part of the law again?

The part that I'm focused on is "even if he tried to restrain him". If he tried to restrain him, that is assault. If he did restrain Martin, that is assault and battery. Both are illegal.

Where in the law does it say that one can use SYG while in the commission of an illegal act? I'm not seeing this language at all.

[you with the face]

Originally Posted by Terr

Good. Baby steps.

Now let's change the scenario -

I'm not answering any more of these kinds of questions until someone answers mine. Steophan obviously wasnt the right man for that Herculean task. Maybe you are brave enough.

Do you believe Zimmerman got of his car, not to follow Martin, but to check a street sign?

[monstro]

Not only is there no evidence that Martin was a "thug", but there is no evidence that his actions were unreasonable. None of us know how Zimmerman came up on Martin, or what his demeanor was, or exactly what he said. Or if he was displaying his weapon or not. All of these are factors that we'd need to know to really evaluate whether Martin was in the wrong for striking Zimmerman.

We actually don't have evidence that Martin struck Zimmerman. Zimmerman could have fallen on the sidewalk while pursuing Martin and busted his head that way. We have a witness that says he saw the two wrestling, but that is no evidence that Martin actually hit him. But I'm willing to accept this as a fact anyway.

But it only means that Martin was standing his ground. Which is not illegal.

[Stoid]

Originally Posted by davidm

LI do know that there are caucasion hispanics.

"Hispanic" is a made-up word. There are actually three distinct races: Negroid Mongoloid and Caucasoid. spanish-speaking people from South America can be anything from a purely Caucasian to some degree of Caucasian and Asian, since native Americans are considered Asian(mongoloid), and South American people are blended Spanish ( Caucasian) and native American (Asian).

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by you with the face

Do you believe Zimmerman got of his car, not to follow Martin, but to check a street sign?

There isn't enough evidence available to be reasonably sure.

Regards,
Shodan

[JoelUpchurch]

Originally Posted by monstro

Are you really saying that Martin is at fault for his death for not calling 911?

His girlfriend reports that Martin himself didn't think the situation leading up to the altercation warranted running--that it was merely creepy behavior.

No I was pointing out to Stoid that Martin wasn't terrified by Zimmerman. One indication was the failure to call 911. The second indication was that he didn't run home.

Three things could have made him not want to call the police, beyond gender and racial/cultural stuff: 1) He's in a strange neighborhood. How is he going to direct the police to his location? He's also a kid. Maybe he doesn't know that you can actually call 911 to report suspicious people...that 911 isn't simply for reporting crimes. I know for a fact that I wouldn't have known this at 17.

Did you have a cell phone at 17? They didn't have 911 when I was 17, but I don't assume teenagers today are equally ignorant. Today teaching your kids about 911 is a basic for even small children.

http://kidshealth.org/parent/firstai...ncies/911.html

Part of understanding what is an emergency is knowing what is not. A fire, an intruder in the home, an unconscious family member — these are all things that would require a call to 911. A skinned knee, a stolen bicycle, or a lost pet wouldn't. Still, teach your child that if ever in doubt and there's no adult around to ask, make the call. It's much better to be safe than sorry.

2) He's almost home. He figures the creepy dude won't be so brazen as to follow him to his house. 3) He's on the phone with his girl. She's tempering his fears and probably making him feel braver than he is. That's why he tells her he's going to "walk fast" instead of running.

We also have to deal with the fact that Martin was 70 yards from Green's house and stopped.

There is no way that Zimmerman would catch up with Zimmerman unless Martin stopped. If he had kept walking, then he would have been home be before Zimmerman had come around the corner.

I will concede that Martin didn't want to appear like a wuss to DeeDee, but that isn't a point in his favor. It makes it more likely he would confront Zimmerman when he could have easily avoided him.

When he bumps into Zimmerman (assuming this is what happened), he's caught off-guard. When you panic, your mind is reduced to single-track thinking. I think it's a fair assumption to make that both guys panicked. Martin's mode: "Keep scary dude off me!" Zimmerman's mode: "Kill scary dude before he can kill me!"

That scenario isn't consistent with DeeDee's report that they talked to each other before the fight started.

[Terr]

Originally Posted by monstro

The part that I'm focused on is "even if he tried to restrain him". If he tried to restrain him, that is assault. If he did restrain Martin, that is assault and battery. Both are illegal.

Where in the law does it say that one can use SYG while in the commission of an illegal act? I'm not seeing this language at all.

Right here: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/...0776/0776.html

776.041

Unless you can dream up some scenario where Zimmerman was in the process of committing "forcible felony" when he encountered Martin, this section applies and in the scenario I gave above Zimmerman should walk.

[Stoid]

Originally Posted by JoelUpchurch

No I was pointing out to Stoid that Martin wasn't terrified by Zimmerman. One indication was the failure to call 911. The second indication was that he didn't run home.

Wait… Are you a guy? Are you trying to claim that the only normal fear response from a guy is to run away or call 911? Give me a break. When guys are afraid they act tough!

[Stoid]

Originally Posted by Terr

Right here: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/...0776/0776.html

776.041

Unless you can dream up some scenario where Zimmerman was in the process of committing "forcible felony" when he encountered Martin, this section applies and in the scenario I gave above Zimmerman should walk.

Sigh… What I believe, is that he provoked any violence against himself and that he did not exhaust all means of escape before resorting to deadly force therefore the self-defense defense is not available to him.

[Terr]

Originally Posted by you with the face

Do you believe Zimmerman got of his car, not to follow Martin, but to check a street sign?

Given this exchange:

911 dispatcher:
Alright, what address are you parked in front of?

Zimmerman:
Um, I don’t know. It’s a cut-through so I don’t know the address.

yes, it is possible.

[Terr]

Originally Posted by Stoid

Sigh… What I believe, is that he provoked any violence against himself and that he did not exhaust all means of escape before resorting to deadly force therefore the self-defense defense is not available to him.

When someone is sitting on top of you and beating you up, there is no reasonable way to escape.