# Are you Team Trayvon or Team Zimmerman? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [March 26, 2012, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-team-trayvon-or-team-zimmerman/616881 "2012-03-26T21:27:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 40
**Author:** ![BottledBlondJeanie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/0ea827/32.png) [@BottledBlondJeanie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BottledBlondJeanie)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2012, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-team-trayvon-or-team-zimmerman/616881/781 "2012-03-30T20:19:07Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > I am seeing this as an invitation to a hijack, and another futile exercise in arguments over guns. I like guns, sort of, want to take a .22 to the arroyo and plink beer cans, let’s go. I loathe handguns, but am heartily sick of the argument. Bigger fish to fry, or at least some hope of frying. If that is what “deliberately ignoring” means to you, so be it. > > Born and raised Texan, now live in a place where its considered abnormal to carry a gun. I find that rather soothing. So what did you mean by your comment? You can vomit up a paragraph and mention hijacking, but can’t explain your own hijack? OK, I get what you are, you’re simply a petty, wanna be lawyer but too-stupid-to-get-into law school person who resents guns. Fine. I understand anti-gun; had your pot shot been based in rational thought, maybe it would have meant something to someone vehemently pro gun who can’t see both sides. As it stands, you apparently can’t or are too embarrassed to explain. That’s all right lil cowpoke, but you sure aren’t doing your _cause célèbre_ any justice. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2012, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-team-trayvon-or-team-zimmerman/616881/782 "2012-03-30T20:20:27Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Until the physical confrontation was initiated, there had been **no crime committed at all**. > > Do you know who initiated the physical confrontation? Who followed who? Who has the history of anger and violence and so is the more likely candidate? Who had already decided this “asshole” wouldn’t get away? All the guy had to do was observe, report, and stay in his car. He had to get out of the csr, and I don’t give a damn what he says now, you get out of the car to start something. And NO CRIME HAD BEEN COMMITED. I think he precipitated ALL of it. I think he is a cowardly lyinhg asshole. ---
**Author:** ![Typo\_Negative](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/typo_negative/32/484_2.png) [@Typo\_Negative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Typo_Negative)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2012, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-team-trayvon-or-team-zimmerman/616881/783 "2012-03-30T20:26:11Z")
Sadly, the option is not ‘what is was most likely to have happened’, but only ‘what can be proven in a court of law’. ---
**Author:** ![sugaree](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cc9497/32.png) [@sugaree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sugaree)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2012, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-team-trayvon-or-team-zimmerman/616881/784 "2012-03-30T20:27:26Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > So for you it’s a toss-up, I take it? Yes. It’s just a username. Shall we rank the posters in this thread for their propensity to violence, judging by their chosen usernames? ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2012, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-team-trayvon-or-team-zimmerman/616881/785 "2012-03-30T20:27:27Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > Who followed who? Whom. Can you cite the law that was broken by Zimmerman when he followed Martin? ---
**Author:** ![Typo\_Negative](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/typo_negative/32/484_2.png) [@Typo\_Negative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Typo_Negative)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2012, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-team-trayvon-or-team-zimmerman/616881/786 "2012-03-30T20:30:37Z")
> [@sugaree](#): > > Yes. It’s just a username. Shall we rank the posters in this thread for their propensity to violence, judging by their chosen usernames? I don’t think mine shows a propensity to _violence_… ---
**Author:** ![EddyTeddyFreddy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eddyteddyfreddy/32/18796_2.png) [@EddyTeddyFreddy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EddyTeddyFreddy)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2012, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-team-trayvon-or-team-zimmerman/616881/787 "2012-03-30T20:43:31Z")
Already brought this up in the [IMHO thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14919725&postcount=2568), but I’ll post a revised version here. The default assumption in all the discussions of this mess that I’ve seen so far has been that Martin was on top of Zimmerman when the fatal shot was fired. But Booman at Booman Tribune, after extensively quoting the statements of witnesses to the altercation and summarizing other evidence, offers [this analysis:](http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2012/3/30/133335/283) > [@](#): > > There are some very minor disparities between these two accounts, but together they paint a consistent picture. There was some yelling. Then there was a very heartbreaking kind of pleading sound. Then a gun shot. There weren’t any sounds indicating a fight. One witness described more of a scuffle with one man on top of the other. None of the witnesses thought that Zimmerman appeared to be injured, but they all agreed that he appeared to be worried, holding a hand to his head in kind of a “what just happened?” fashion. > > To go with this, we also have Trayvon Martin’s girlfriend’s account. She was on the phone up until about a minute before the police arrived on the scene, and she felt like she heard a pushing match that caused Trayvon’s earpiece to fall out and the call to cut off. Independent records confirm the timing of the call. The last spoken words she heard were Trayvon asking Zimmerman why he was following him and Zimmerman replying by asking Trayvon what he was doing in the neighborhood. > > Considering how tight the timeline is here, it appears that this is what happened. Trayvon interrupted his conversation with his girlfriend to confront Zimmerman. Zimmerman was verbally aggressive in return. They approached each other and started pushing. Loud words were exchanged. The fight went to the ground. Zimmerman wound up on top. Martin cried out for help. Then Zimmerman pulled his gun on him, causing Martin to make a frightened desperate plea. And then he was executed. Could this be what really happened? I’m not saying yes, definitely; but it does appear to fit what’s known at this point. And yes, I have considered the point that Martin was found lying face down, his hands underneath him; but I can think of at least one explanation for that if Booman is correct: that Zimmerman flipped the body over as or after he got up from the ground. Consider this witness’s statement: > [@](#): > > “Zimmerman was standing over the body with – basically straddling the body with his hands on Trayvon’s back,” Cutcher said. "And it didn’t seem to me that he was trying to help him in any way. I didn’t hear any struggle prior to the gunshot. > > “And I feel like it was Trayvon Martin that was crying out, because the minute that the gunshot went off, the whining stopped.” Oh, and before you go there; I’m not claiming this is an unbiased opinion; merely that it’s one hypothesis. ---
**Author:** ![saoirse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/5daacb/32.png) [@saoirse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/saoirse)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2012, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-team-trayvon-or-team-zimmerman/616881/788 "2012-03-30T20:47:24Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > No, I have an idea what it means. > > Please ask my question: Do you seriously have no idea at all what “no-limit nigga” might mean? > > The latter. Now please answer my questions. I seem to recall that in 1984, gangs of armed vigilantes roamed the streets of Rio de Janeiro murdering teenagers they found out walking around. Perhaps your username explains more about your position than I thought. ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2012, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-team-trayvon-or-team-zimmerman/616881/789 "2012-03-30T21:01:37Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > No, I have an idea what it means. > > Please ask my question: Do you seriously have no idea at all what “no-limit nigga” might mean? When I see or hear young people using phrases or handles like that, I generally assume it’s a reference to a hip-hop song or artist I’ve never heard of, which is a vast category. That may be the case here; I have no idea. If that isn’t it, and I just saw someone with that handle, I’d guess they were probably black (or possibly non-black and into hip-hop culture). The “no limit” part? Could suggest they think very highly of themselves. Maybe they see no limits for their future. Maybe they have poor impulse control. Maybe it’s a skinny teenage kid who wants to sound all scary and bad-ass. It’s an ambiguous handle; you are free, of course, to jump to the worst possible interpretation if you feel it connotes evidence of Martin’s “hot-headedness,” but it’s pretty weak sauce. It is, right? Just between you and me? Not your strongest argument? ---
**Author:** ![BottledBlondJeanie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/0ea827/32.png) [@BottledBlondJeanie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BottledBlondJeanie)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2012, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-team-trayvon-or-team-zimmerman/616881/790 "2012-03-30T21:04:22Z")
> [@EddyTeddyFreddy](#): > > The default assumption in all the discussions of this mess that I’ve seen so far has been that Martin was on top of Zimmerman when the fatal shot was fired. No. At least one witness puts the man in red on the bottom. The man wearing red was Zimmerman. But, why not actually wait to see the statements? They will be released… Because it’s too much fun to speculate, spew venom, claim there is a default position anywhere in this thing, and to quote articles that say “and then he was executed” saying that they offer a rational theory. What is rational is to have some basic facts–maybe some of the facts the police had from the beginning… ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2012, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-team-trayvon-or-team-zimmerman/616881/791 "2012-03-30T21:07:29Z")
> [@BottledBlondJeanie](#): > > But Stoid, here is the relevant statute at least per Zimmerman’s “statement” thus far: > > > [@](#): > > > > 776.012 Use of force in defense of person… > > At the very least, bring up both statutes. But it’s not relevant to my reply to Shodan. Or rather, it’s relevant, just redundant and unnecessary. Section 776.012 is just the formal wording of what Shodan described in the post I was responding to and what we all know very well by now: Zimmerman is claiming he had to resort to lethal force to save himself. His specific point appeared to be that the problem of Zimmerman _provoking_ the aggression would be cancelled out by the _severity_ of Martin’s aggression (and indeed it might be, but only after the serious examination I outlined in that post - or at least, that’s what the law says in Section 776.041) 776.012 isn’t _exempt_ from the requirements of 776.041, you know: “The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter.” The sections. Meaning all of the ones that preceded section 776.041, beginning with Section 776.012. Including the text of 776.012 doesn’t do anything except clutter up the screen. But you asked for it, so here goes! I’ll do better than simply bring up both, I’ll bring up _all_, the way they read _before_ the 2005 “stand your ground” changes and the way they read now, in their entirety. (Florida has a fantastic website that lets you look up the current law, and the former law. So I pulled both versions, before and after the SYG bill was passed.) The parts that are the same before and after are black. The entirely new sections that were created by the SYG bill are in blue, and the amendments to already-existing sections are red. Stuff that has no bearing on this case because they are entirely devoted to law enforcement or civil penalties are in tiny type. (Walls of text? Check! Colors and sizes? Check! See what you make me do? Tsk tsk… If I’m not overwhelming with walls of text, I’m being disingenuous by leaving stuff out…can’t win for losing, I tell ya…) ) > [@](#): > > **CRIMES > CHAPTER 776 > JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE** > **776.012 Use of force in defense of person. > 776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm. > 776.031 Use of force in defense of others. > 776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force. > 776.041 Use of force by aggressor.** > 776.05 Law enforcement officers; use of force in making an arrest. > 776.051 Use of force in resisting arrest or making an arrest or in the execution of a legal duty; prohibition. > 776.06 Deadly force. > 776.07 Use of force to prevent escape. > 776.08 Forcible felony. > 776.085 Defense to civil action for damages; party convicted of forcible or attempted forcible felony. > > **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; or > \*\*(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013. > \*\* > > **776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.** > (1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if: >  The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and > The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred. > > (2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if: > INDENT The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or > (b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or > (c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or > (d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.[/INDENT] > > (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. > > (4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.(5) As used in this section, the term: > INDENT “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night. > (b) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest. > (c) “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.[/INDENT] > > **776.031 Use of force in defense of others.** > A person is justified in the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate the other’s trespass on, or other tortious or criminal interference with, either real property other than a dwelling or personal property, lawfully in his or her possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his or her immediate family or household or of a person whose property he or she has a legal duty to protect. However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. **A person does not have a duty to retreat if the person is in a place where he or she has a right to be.** > > **776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—** > (1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant. > > (2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful. > > (3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1). > > **776.041 Use of force by aggressor.** > The justification described in the preceding sections \*\*[SIZE=“1”](Hint: preceding sections = everything before this) \*[/SIZE]\*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: > > INDENT 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.[/INDENT] > > \*\*776.05 Law enforcement officers; use of force in making an arrest.—\*\*A law enforcement officer, or any person whom the officer has summoned or directed to assist him or her, need not retreat or desist from efforts to make a lawful arrest because of resistance or threatened resistance to the arrest. The officer is justified in the use of any force: > (1) Which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary to defend himself or herself or another from bodily harm while making the arrest; > (2) When necessarily committed in retaking felons who have escaped; or > (3) When necessarily committed in arresting felons fleeing from justice. However, this subsection shall not constitute a defense in any civil action for damages brought for the wrongful use of deadly force unless the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent the arrest from being defeated by such flight and, when feasible, some warning had been given, and: > INDENT The officer reasonably believes that the fleeing felon poses a threat of death or serious physical harm to the officer or others; or > (b) The officer reasonably believes that the fleeing felon has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm to another person. > [/INDENT] > **776.051 Use of force in resisting arrest or making an arrest or in the execution of a legal duty; prohibition**.(1) A person is not justified in the use of force to resist an arrest by a law enforcement officer, or to resist a law enforcement officer who is engaged in the execution of a legal duty, if the law enforcement officer was acting in good faith and he or she is known, or reasonably appears, to be a law enforcement officer. > (2) A law enforcement officer, or any person whom the officer has summoned or directed to assist him or her, is not justified in the use of force if the arrest or execution of a legal duty is unlawful and known by him or her to be unlawful. > > **776.06 Deadly force.—** > (1) The term “deadly force” means force that is likely to cause death or great bodily harm and includes, but is not limited to: > INDENT The firing of a firearm in the direction of the person to be arrested, even though no intent exists to kill or inflict great bodily harm; and > (b) The firing of a firearm at a vehicle in which the person to be arrested is riding.[/INDENT] > INDENT(a) The term “deadly force” does not include the discharge of a firearm by a law enforcement officer or correctional officer during and within the scope of his or her official duties which is loaded with a less-lethal munition. As used in this subsection, the term “less-lethal munition” means a projectile that is designed to stun, temporarily incapacitate, or cause temporary discomfort to a person without penetrating the person’s body.[/INDENT] > INDENT A law enforcement officer or a correctional officer is not liable in any civil or criminal action arising out of the use of any less-lethal munition in good faith during and within the scope of his or her official duties.[/INDENT] > > **776.07 Use of force to prevent escape.—** > (1) A law enforcement officer or other person who has an arrested person in his or her custody is justified in the use of any force which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary to prevent the escape of the arrested person from custody. > (2) A correctional officer or other law enforcement officer is justified in the use of force, including deadly force, which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary to prevent the escape from a penal institution of a person whom the officer reasonably believes to be lawfully detained in such institution under sentence for an offense or awaiting trial or commitment for an offense. > > **776.08 Forcible felony.** —“Forcible felony” means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual. > > **776.085 Defense to civil action for damages; party convicted of forcible or attempted forcible felony.—** > (1) It shall be a defense to any action for damages for personal injury or wrongful death, or for injury to property, that such action arose from injury sustained by a participant during the commission or attempted commission of a forcible felony. The defense authorized by this section shall be established by evidence that the participant has been convicted of such forcible felony or attempted forcible felony, or by proof of the commission of such crime or attempted crime by a preponderance of the evidence. > (2) For the purposes of this section, the term “forcible felony” shall have the same meaning as in s. 776.08. > (3) Any civil action in which the defense recognized by this section is raised shall be stayed by the court on the motion of the civil defendant during the pendency of any criminal action which forms the basis for the defense, unless the court finds that a conviction in the criminal action would not form a valid defense under this section. > (4) In any civil action where a party prevails based on the defense created by this section: > (a) The losing party, if convicted of and incarcerated for the crime or attempted crime, shall, as determined by the court, lose any privileges provided by the correctional facility, including, but not limited to: > 1. Canteen purchases; > 2. Telephone access; > 3. Outdoor exercise; > 4. Use of the library; and > 5. Visitation. > (b) The court shall award a reasonable attorney’s fee to be paid to the prevailing party in equal amounts by the losing party and the losing party’s attorney; however, the losing party’s attorney is not personally responsible if he or she has acted in good faith, based on the representations of his or her client. If the losing party is incarcerated for the crime or attempted crime and has insufficient assets to cover payment of the costs of the action and the award of fees pursuant to this paragraph, the party shall, as determined by the court, be required to pay by deduction from any payments the prisoner receives while incarcerated. > (c) If the losing party is incarcerated for the crime or attempted crime, the court shall issue a written order containing its findings and ruling pursuant to paragraphs (a) and (b) and shall direct that a certified copy be forwarded to the appropriate correctional institution or facility. The chapter is actually very tidily designed in structure, if hideously conceived in substance… the first three sections break out all the circumstances that permit lethal force. The fourth section adds all the insane bonus goodies about being immune to arrest, for god’s sake, and then section five comes along as a very important afterthought/caution against taking it into your head that having been given SO much fucking leeway to whip out your gun and start blasting, you can “goose” things a little by poking people with sticks to get them to behave in ways that fit into sections 1-3, whether by design or by paranoid delusion. The rest is directed to circumstances specific to law enforcement, and finally to the details of litigation arising out of it all. So now can you clarify for me why you feel that my failure to include section 776.012 had to be either gross ignorance of what vitally important truth or a deliberate attempt to avoid which damning reality? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2012, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-team-trayvon-or-team-zimmerman/616881/792 "2012-03-30T21:14:25Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > In his prior domestic violence situation, the women filed on HIM. He did nto file until the next day. And that, in your view, definitely establishes his claims as false? I don’t believe that was what the court found - IIRC, they were both ordered to stay away from each other. > [@](#): > > He has at least one incident of being in a physical dispute with the police that turned into shoving match. Again, I don’t think that has been established, at least not legally, and possibly not even factually. I have read at least one account that says that incident was expunged. I’m not sure what that entails, but it is a good ways from being cut-and-dried that Zimmerman was a walking time bomb. > [@](#): > > Who followed who, after deciding “these assholes always get away” and then arbitrarily decided Martin was high on drugs (amazing psychic powers there)? Who followed after being advised by the 911 dispatcher to NOT follow? Who got out of his car? It doesn’t take a genius to understand “we don’t need yout to do that” is a polite way of saying “don’t do it”. It also doesn’t take a genius to understand that the recommendations of a 911 operator carry no legal weight, and therefore do not go any way at all towards showing that someone was the aggressor in a situation. > [@](#): > > And given Zimmerman’s documented past “anger issues”, it is reasonable to at least suspect he was the belligerant one. Certainly you can suspect that. You can also suspect that it was Martin who was the aggressor, given his history of equally petty drug and vandalism offenses. > [@](#): > > AND UNTIL ZIMMERMAN WENT ALL RAMBO, THERE HAD BEEN NO CRIME COMMITTED AT ALL. That has not been established. According to Zimmerman’s story, he did not use his gun until Martin attacked him. If that is true, the first criminal action was committed by Martin. Martin, in other words, would have been the instigator. > [@](#): > > The message being sent is, any psycho out there can arm up , kill some random guy and then claim “stand your ground”. > > Follow me for no reason at night and I don’t know you? That is a threat. After this, the message to ME is “kill the bastard if he follows me”. Do you believe, that if Martin had killed Zimmerman instead of vice versa, that Martin would have been justified in doing so? And I asked a similar question in other threads - if it is so easy to get away with murder in Florida, why doesn’t every murderer there claim self-defense? > [@](#): > > The one with the anger management issues was armed, had been advised to back off, and initiated this entire epiosode. Damn right he is guilty. The fact that he was armed does not establish his guilt, the fact that he was advised to back off does not establish his guilt, and his following Martin does not establish his guilt. > [@](#): > > And once again, NO CRIME HAD YET BEEN COMMITTED. Before the shooting? Correct, we do not know of any crimes that had been committed. Not by Martin, not by Zimmerman. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![SmellMyWort](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ea5d25/32.png) [@SmellMyWort](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmellMyWort)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2012, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-team-trayvon-or-team-zimmerman/616881/793 "2012-03-30T21:23:09Z")
I guess I’d consider myself Team Higher Standard for Getting Away with Killing People. ---
**Author:** ![LilShieste](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9f8e36/32.png) [@LilShieste](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LilShieste)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2012, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-team-trayvon-or-team-zimmerman/616881/794 "2012-03-30T21:26:53Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > To show you the starting posts: > > **Jack Batty** : He [Martin] had a right to do what he was doing: walking down a sidewalk. > > **Terr** : And Zimmerman had a right to do what he was doing. All the way to the point of physical confrontation - whoever initiated it. 😕 Yes, I saw the starting posts - I even quoted one of them. I’m talking about what immediately followed. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2012, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-team-trayvon-or-team-zimmerman/616881/795 "2012-03-30T21:30:56Z")
> [@LilShieste](#): > > 😕 Yes, I saw the starting posts - I even quoted one of them. I’m talking about what immediately followed. To recap: 1. Martin had the right to walk there. 2. Zimmerman had the right to follow him. 3. There was no crime committed, by either Martin or Zimmerman, until the physical confrontation started. ---
**Author:** ![BottledBlondJeanie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/0ea827/32.png) [@BottledBlondJeanie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BottledBlondJeanie)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2012, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-team-trayvon-or-team-zimmerman/616881/796 "2012-03-30T21:47:47Z")
**Stoid** , your colors make my brain hurt. Are you conflating the statutory mention of “provoke” and the term “initiating” as used by **Shodan**? Did you not read what Shodan wrote then? This is the quote from **Shodan** that immediately preceded your quote of the “Use of force by Aggressor” section: > [@](#): > > I don’t know that initiating the confrontation has much to do with SYG. If Zimmerman’s account of being cold-cocked and having his head slammed against the ground is true, he wouldn’t have much opportunity to retreat, and SYG doesn’t really come into the picture. Note the term “initiating” and the term “cold-cocked.” **Shodan** was still assuming the account that the first actual force used was by Martin per Zimmerman’s statement.He even says that clearly. So, your explanation is based on that statement i.e., assume Zimmerman’s story is true re force. Zimmerman could have jumped around called Martin an “idiot” and that is not “provocation” as contemplated by the statute. I honestly don’t know how “fighting words” are construed in Florida so I won’t give the example of Zimmerman telling Martin “your momma” jokes. Are you calling the fact that Zimmerman followed Martin “provocation”? It’s not for the purposes of that statute. It is stupid, possible even negligent, but not provocation per a statutory criminal force argument. If, you simply couldn’t read the words used by Shodan and are now claiming you meant Zimmerman hit or threatened to hit or threatened to shoot Martin first. Please clarify. ---
**Author:** ![steronz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steronz/32/11765_2.png) [@steronz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steronz)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2012, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-team-trayvon-or-team-zimmerman/616881/797 "2012-03-30T22:03:53Z")
No Limit Records is pretty big, although I haven’t exactly followed hip hop since the late 90s. Those young people and their music, I tell ya. Menacing stuff. ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2012, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-team-trayvon-or-team-zimmerman/616881/798 "2012-03-30T22:09:04Z")
“Provocation” in most states, including Florida, would include such things as brandishing a weapon, no? (Board lawyers, please correct me if I’m wrong.) Carry law in FL does not allow open carry in public except as associated with transport directly to and from legal venues for shooting (range, hunting, etc.). I’ve not seen any suggestions that Zimmerman was in the middle of any such activity, but I have seen statements to the effect that he was wearing his weapon at his hip. I would think that deliberate display of a handgun, whether holstered or not, during a heated verbal altercation counts as brandishing. I know that I would find it provocative. Threatening. An obvious attempt to intimidate. I’m not claiming that Zimmerman definitely displayed his 9mm to Trayvon Martin, much less that he unholstered it, but this certainly fits with the picture of a self-appointed neighborhood watch “captain” and rejected LEO wannabe with resentment toward “these assholes” he’s on watch against. ---
**Author:** ![sugaree](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cc9497/32.png) [@sugaree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sugaree)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2012, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-team-trayvon-or-team-zimmerman/616881/799 "2012-03-30T22:19:17Z")
Has anyone seen this map? [![](https://bcclist.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-path.jpg) ](https://bcclist.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-path.jpg) Assuming it’s accurate as to the relative positions of Trayvon’s house, Trayvon’s body, and Zimmerman’s parked truck, Zimmerman’s story makes no sense. Martin’s body was less than 70’ from his home, which makes his body (the site of the confrontation between the two) more than 70’ feet away from Zimmerman’s vehicle. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2012, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-team-trayvon-or-team-zimmerman/616881/800 "2012-03-30T22:24:08Z")
> [@BottledBlondJeanie](#): > > So what did you mean by your comment? You can vomit up a paragraph and mention hijacking, but can’t explain your own hijack? > > OK, I get what you are, you’re simply a petty, wanna be lawyer but too-stupid-to-get-into law school person who resents guns. Fine. I understand anti-gun; had your pot shot been based in rational thought, maybe it would have meant something to someone vehemently pro gun who can’t see both sides. As it stands, you apparently can’t or are too embarrassed to explain. That’s all right lil cowpoke, but you sure aren’t doing your _cause célèbre_ any justice. **Jeanie** , I don’t know you from Adam, and you’re awful damn personal for a stranger. But simply what it is, what I said. You want someone to argue gun laws with, there’s a bunch of 'em here, you just start yourself a thread and you can dance with them till the cows come home. Not me. It just ain’t worth it. And those other people will offer a viewpoint roughly similar to mine own, so similar that the distinction isn’t worth the effort. Now, you want to talk bar-b-q or tell Aggie jokes, I’m your guy. Outside of that, why don’t we just each pretend the other doesn’t exist? Suits me just fine, how about you? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-team-trayvon-or-team-zimmerman/616881.md?page=39) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-team-trayvon-or-team-zimmerman/616881.md?page=41)