# Did Trayvon Martin have the right to stand his own ground? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 18, 2012, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-trayvon-martin-have-the-right-to-stand-his-own-ground/622287 "2012-05-18T03:13:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 35
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2012, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-trayvon-martin-have-the-right-to-stand-his-own-ground/622287/681 "2012-06-16T23:12:28Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > I said basically the same thing in my first post in this thread, which I assumed you’d read, since you quoted it. I stated that I would believe him until shown to be false, and what would count as showing it to be false. I’ve made the same point in all the other threads about this subject, and you’ve engaged with me in several of them, so forgive me if I assumed that you’d read the posts you responded to… I think it’s insane, stupid, and dangerous to say the default position is to believe anything. You presented it as though it’s an enlightened thing to say; but sadly, it’s just a retarded one. The default position should be to withhold judgement until you have evidence. Not to accept any and everything as truth based on someone’s says so. Especially when that someone has already been outed as being less than honest in court. Belief doesn’t work that way for most intelligent people, and if you’re honest with yourself, you’d say it doesn’t work that way for you either. Otherwise, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2012, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-trayvon-martin-have-the-right-to-stand-his-own-ground/622287/682 "2012-06-16T23:18:54Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > I think it’s insane, stupid, and dangerous to say the default position is to believe anything. You presented it as though it’s an enlightened thing to say; but sadly, it’s just a retarded one. The default position should be to withhold judgement until you have evidence. Not to accept any and everything as truth based on someone’s says so. Especially when that someone has already been outed as being less than honest in court. Please, read the posts you respond to. I’ve already answered this, and you responded to that one as well. > [@Steophan](#): > > Context is important. We’re talking about someone being accused of a crime here, and the default is to presume innocence. The default is also to assume they’re telling the truth, due to the consequences of lying in this situation, consequences which don’t exist when you’re a random person talking to me, or an email spammer for that matter. > > Sure, if Zimmerman is guilty, he has an incentive to lie about what happened. But, if he’s innocent, he has an equally strong incentive to tell the truth. By assuming he’s lying, you’ve already prejudged his guilt. _That_ is what I refuse to do, and what I believe it is wrong for other people to do. > > You’ve said in another post that Zimmerman is a consistent liar. You’re right about that, to an extent - but more importantly, he’s someone who has been caught out in lying on several occasions. This gives me some confidence that he’s not a very good liar, and that, in my opinion, means that it’s unlikely that he will be found not guilty based on any lies he’s told. > > Remember, anyone who’s a _known_ liar is a _bad_ liar. > [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Belief doesn’t work that way for most intelligent people, and if you’re honest with yourself, you’d say it doesn’t work that way for you either. Otherwise, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. As for this, I would have good reason to disbelieve you about the bridge, as if something is too good to be true, it probably is. If you made a statement about a bridge that came up in a legal context, in a situation where you were expected to tell the truth or face legal sanction, I’d believe you unless there was good reason to do otherwise. This is not a complex concept, and I don’t believe that you are unfamiliar with the idea of context. I think you are repeatedly coming up with straw men (well actually, the same straw man several times), as you are unable to disagree with my actual point. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2012, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-trayvon-martin-have-the-right-to-stand-his-own-ground/622287/683 "2012-06-16T23:40:29Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > As for this, I would have good reason to disbelieve you about the bridge, as if something is too good to be true, it probably is. Believe it or not, this is exactly what makes me skeptical of so much of Zimmerman’s story (that I know about). A killer claims he did absolutely nothing–nothing, Your Honor–that could halfway be construed as wrongdoing. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2012, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-trayvon-martin-have-the-right-to-stand-his-own-ground/622287/684 "2012-06-16T23:43:26Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > I think it’s insane, stupid, and dangerous to say the default position is to believe anything. The correct term is innocent until proven guilty. > [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > You presented it as though it’s an enlightened thing to say; but sadly, it’s just a retarded one. The default position should be to withhold judgement until you have evidence. We’ve presented evidence not enlightenment. You’re opinion on how the law should work belongs in another forum. Innocent unless proven otherwise is the law of the land. This is to protect people from being convicted by opinion and not fact. We’ve gone over the evidence. Not what he’s said - the evidence. The fact that it lines up with what he says is only relevant in relation to the evidence and not to what he said happened. In a court of law, absent proof that what he says is a lie, he is presumed innocent. > [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Not to accept any and everything as truth based on someone’s says so. Especially when that someone has already been outed as being less than honest in court. > > Belief doesn’t work that way for most intelligent people, and if you’re honest with yourself, you’d say it doesn’t work that way for you either. Otherwise, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. Belief has nothing to do with it. The only thing that matters is evidence. That’s it. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2012, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-trayvon-martin-have-the-right-to-stand-his-own-ground/622287/685 "2012-06-16T23:46:48Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Believe it or not, this is exactly what makes me skeptical of so much of Zimmerman’s story (that I know about). A killer claims he did absolutely nothing–nothing, Your Honor–that could halfway be construed as wrongdoing. Is that what he said? Without looking at the transcripts I’m willing to bet he was charged with 2nd degree murder and asked by the judge whether he wanted to plead guilty or not guilty. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2012, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-trayvon-martin-have-the-right-to-stand-his-own-ground/622287/686 "2012-06-16T23:53:21Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Believe it or not, this is exactly what makes me skeptical of so much of Zimmerman’s story (that I know about). A killer claims he did absolutely nothing–nothing, Your Honor–that could halfway be construed as wrongdoing. What is intrinsically too good to be true about the idea that Zimmerman was attacked, unprovoked, by Martin? Unprovoked attacks happen, and there are people in this thread who are stating that they would, and consider it their perfect right, to launch an unprovoked attack on someone acting as Zimmerman claims he did. There’s nothing inherently unbelievable about Zimmerman’s story. An example of a claim that Zimmerman could have made, that would fit the evidence we have, that I would consider intrinsically implausible would be something along the lines of Martin grabbing Zimmerman’s gun and shooting himself. Again, though, your language shows that you’ve prejudged his guilt, and that’s something that you should not, in my opinion, be doing. ---
**Author:** ![voltaire](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voltaire/32/313_2.png) [@voltaire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/voltaire)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2012, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-trayvon-martin-have-the-right-to-stand-his-own-ground/622287/687 "2012-06-17T02:04:02Z")
You guys make me laugh trying to portray yourselves as dispassionate and impartial weighers of the evidence when you go so far as to cite TM’s girlfriend’s testimony where it suits your narrative, and ignore it where it doesn’t. To wit: > [@Magiver](#): > > The people commenting on Zimmerman’s potential innocence have based it on the evidence to date and have repeatedly stressed that point. We’ve treated evidence as evidence. It’s fairly certain, given the physical and eye witness evidence, that Martin struck Zimmerman repeatedly in a sustained attack. Prior to that it’s evident that Zimmerman called the police while observing Martin’s travel over the length of about 300 feet from his car. It’s evident that upon passing his truck and running that Zimmerman got out and tried to follow him which was a very short distance. It’s evident from his 911 phone call that Zimmerman lost sight of Martin. It’s evident from the time between Zimmerman’s 911 phone call that Martin had ample time to go home which indicates he doubled back or waited for Zimmerman. \*\*It’s evident from Martin’s girlfriend’s phone call that Martin engaged Zimmerman first in conversation. the only speculation is who struck the first blow. \*\* It’s evident that Zimmerman shot Martin at point blank range after an extended attack. The injuries sustained by Zimmerman match his account of what happened. It’s evident that GZ has a history of calling the police on black people for no good reason. It’s evident that he was angry about those “assholes always getting away.” It’s evident that he followed and approached TM for no good reason. It’s evident that, upon being approached, TM asked GZ why he was following him, and GZ answered a reasonable question with an unresponsive and unreasonable question. _(Probably since “Because you’re black.” would have seemed a bit awkward.)_ It’s evident that at this time a scuffle ensued and the last thing that was heard before the phone cutoff was TM saying “Get off me! Get off me!” In short, it’s evident that TM was standing his ground, and only lost the fight because the man who assaulted him had a gun and used it to get out of the confrontation he initiated for no valid reason. See, both sides can play the “It’s evident” game, and one side doesn’t even have the benefit of having the dead victim’s full version of the story. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2012, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-trayvon-martin-have-the-right-to-stand-his-own-ground/622287/688 "2012-06-17T02:14:09Z")
> [@voltaire](#): > > See, both sides can play the “It’s evident” game, and one side doesn’t even have the benefit of having the dead victim’s full version of the story. Yeah, this is what both sides have been doing since the beginning. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2012, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-trayvon-martin-have-the-right-to-stand-his-own-ground/622287/689 "2012-06-17T03:03:10Z")
> [@voltaire](#): > > You guys make me laugh trying to portray yourselves as dispassionate and impartial weighers of the evidence when you go so far as to cite TM’s girlfriend’s testimony where it suits your narrative, and ignore it where it doesn’t. To wit: > > It’s evident that GZ has a history of calling the police on black people for no good reason. No it’s not evident at all. The neighborhood had experienced a number of burglaries. > [@voltaire](#): > > It’s evident that he was angry about those “assholes always getting away.” Yes, it’s evident that the burglaries had not been solved and thus the “assholes always got away”. > [@voltaire](#): > > It’s evident that he followed and approached TM for no good reason. No, it’s not evident that he followed him for no good reason. Martin was hanging around the clubhouse which would have been closed at that time of day. The neighborhood had experienced a number of burglaries. There is also no evidence that he closely followed him. He was in his car watching him prior to Martin running. That was 300 feet maximum. by the time he got out of the car (still on the phone to the police) he had lost him. As it stands now the “following” would have been over a total distance of a couple hundred feet. There would have been a distance between the two of them created by the time lapse of Zimmerman leaving the car. At this point Zimmerman lost sight of Martin. The evidence after that picks up with Martin verbally confronting Zimmerman, not the other way around. > [@voltaire](#): > > It’s evident that, upon being approached, TM asked GZ why he was following him, and GZ answered a reasonable question with an unresponsive and unreasonable question. The answer was pretty self explanatory. Martin should have been aware of the burglaries in the neighborhood. Had he said something threatening it would altered the dynamic but we know he didn’t. > [@voltaire](#): > > _(Probably since “Because you’re black.” would have seemed a bit awkward.)_ Which he didn’t say so it’s pointless to mention it beyond your prejudice suggesting it. > [@voltaire](#): > > It’s evident that at this time a scuffle ensued and the last thing that was heard before the phone cutoff was TM saying “Get off me! Get off me!” Which is likely Zimmerman given his injuries and the likelihood that Martin was the one on top. If an eye witness says Zimmerman touched Martin that would alter the dynamic of the situation. > [@voltaire](#): > > In short, it’s evident that TM was standing his ground, and only lost the fight because the man who assaulted him had a gun and used it to get out of the confrontation he initiated for no valid reason. No, the evidence is that Martin assaulted him. And given the gap in time between Zimmerman getting out of his car and the altercation there is every reason to speculate Martin sought out the confrontation. Up to this point, Zimmerman was trying to direct the police to Martin. Whether Martin sought it out or not there is little speculation that he continued his attack on Zimmerman until he was shot. > [@voltaire](#): > > See, both sides can play the “It’s evident” game, and one side doesn’t even have the benefit of having the dead victim’s full version of the story. If some new evidence comes along that shows Zimmerman committed a crime then great. The difference between those arguing both sides is that nobody defending Zimmerman gives a rats ass if that happens. You’re free to speculate but it should be based on the information available and not “how you feel”. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2012, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-trayvon-martin-have-the-right-to-stand-his-own-ground/622287/690 "2012-06-17T03:29:55Z")
> [@voltaire](#): > > …TM asked GZ why he was following him, and GZ answered a reasonable question with an unresponsive and unreasonable question. _(Probably since “Because you’re black.” would have seemed a bit awkward.)_ It’s evident that at this time a scuffle ensued and the last thing that was heard before the phone cutoff was TM saying “Get off me! Get off me!” > > In short, it’s evident that TM was standing his ground, and only lost the fight because the man who assaulted him had a gun and used it to get out of the confrontation he initiated for no valid reason. > > See, both sides can play the “It’s evident” game, and one side doesn’t even have the benefit of having the dead victim’s full version of the story. From a legal perspective, I was with you until you jumped from “unreasonable question” to “a scuffle ensued.” That summary leaves out what I would call the key question: _how_ did the scuffle ensue? As your summary progressed to the unreasonable question, neither person acted had acted unlawfully. So – how did the scuffle ensue? Did GZ threaten or strike TM? Or did TM threaten or strike GZ? If GZ threatened or struck TM first, then he stopped acting lawfully, and the death of TM is at least manslaughter. If TM threatened or struck GZ first, then GZ is almost certainly covered by Florida’s SYG law and avoids criminal liability. ---
**Author:** ![voltaire](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voltaire/32/313_2.png) [@voltaire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/voltaire)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2012, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-trayvon-martin-have-the-right-to-stand-his-own-ground/622287/691 "2012-06-17T03:56:06Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > You’re free to speculate but it should be based on the information available and not “how you feel”. Were you able to maintain a straight face when you wrote that following everything above it? I have to go to bed now. Maybe later I’ll respond in detail to correct the multiple issues with your post. Then again, it kind of speaks for itself for anyone familiar with the details, so maybe not. ---
**Author:** ![voltaire](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voltaire/32/313_2.png) [@voltaire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/voltaire)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2012, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-trayvon-martin-have-the-right-to-stand-his-own-ground/622287/692 "2012-06-17T04:11:45Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > From a legal perspective, I was with you until you jumped from “unreasonable question” to “a scuffle ensued.” That summary leaves out what I would call the key question: _how_ did the scuffle ensue? As your summary progressed to the unreasonable question, neither person acted had acted unlawfully. > > So – how did the scuffle ensue? Did GZ threaten or strike TM? Or did TM threaten or strike GZ? > > If GZ threatened or struck TM first, then he stopped acting lawfully, and the death of TM is at least manslaughter. If TM threatened or struck GZ first, then GZ is almost certainly covered by Florida’s SYG law and avoids criminal liability. Okay one quick response to this (since it’s much more deserving) and I’m out, for now. Continuing the “It’s evident” game: It’s evident that TM’s female friend heard the scuffle begin after the two exchanged questions. The only thing she heard immediately after that was Trayvon saying “Get off me! Get off me!” This is evidence that GZ unlawfully attempted to physically detain TM, which is assault. At this point, TM would be justified in punching GZ and standing his ground. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2012, 4:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-trayvon-martin-have-the-right-to-stand-his-own-ground/622287/693 "2012-06-17T04:39:10Z")
> [@voltaire](#): > > It’s evident that GZ has a history of calling the police on black people **for no good reason**. Not true. According to the Miami Herald, police had been called to the 260-unit Retreat at Twin Lakes complex 402 times from Jan. 1, 2011 to Feb. 26, 2012. That’s 402 calls in 422 days. That’s about 1 call per day from an obviously troubled neighborhood. Police records show that 50 suspicious person reports had been made to the police in the past year and there were eight burglaries, nine thefts and one other shooting in the last year. The Miami Herald also reported that Zimmerman had called police 46 times since 2004 to report disturbances, break-ins, windows left open, if he saw someone or something suspicious, and even aided in an arrest. Those all seem like very good reasons for forming a neighborhood watch AND for calling the police as often as necessary. ---
**Author:** ![al27052](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/41988e/32.png) [@al27052](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/al27052)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2012, 4:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-trayvon-martin-have-the-right-to-stand-his-own-ground/622287/694 "2012-06-17T04:44:25Z")
> [@Telemark](#): > > You’re saying anyone who takes a line of political reasoning that you dislike is effectively a racist. I’m not going to bother arguing with you. It’s every person’s decision as to what point “supporting the status quo” goes from political opinion to oppression. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2012, 5:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-trayvon-martin-have-the-right-to-stand-his-own-ground/622287/695 "2012-06-17T05:05:57Z")
> [@voltaire](#): > > It’s evident that, upon being approached, TM asked GZ why he was following him, and GZ **answered** a reasonable question with an unresponsive and unreasonable question. How could Zimmerman’s response be “unresponsive”? I believe it was reported that both Martin and Zimmerman asked each other, “What are you doing here”. How did you determine that Martin’s question was “reasonable” and Zimmerman’s question to be “unreasonable” when they asked the same basic question? ---
**Author:** ![Veneriable\_Slacks](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/838e76/32.png) [@Veneriable\_Slacks](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Veneriable_Slacks)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2012, 5:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-trayvon-martin-have-the-right-to-stand-his-own-ground/622287/696 "2012-06-17T05:38:12Z")
If neither has a history of past violence, which is likely, then it seems to me GZ initiated violence by following TM. TM SYG’ed and unjustifiably escalated the violence. GZ went way overboard by escalating fisticuffs to firearms. TM 1/10 guilty, GZ 9/10 guilty. No, I am not a lawyer, obviously. Do we know if either has a past history of violent behavior? This case reminds me of the USS Vincennes/Iran Air flight 655 incident. The Vincennes went out looking for trouble, then shoot down a commercial airliner. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2012, 7:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-trayvon-martin-have-the-right-to-stand-his-own-ground/622287/697 "2012-06-17T07:15:37Z")
Following someone is not a violent, threatening, or aggressive act. Any past history of violence is irrelevant. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2012, 8:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-trayvon-martin-have-the-right-to-stand-his-own-ground/622287/698 "2012-06-17T08:07:10Z")
> [@voltaire](#): > > Okay one quick response to this (since it’s much more deserving) and I’m out, for now. > > Continuing the “It’s evident” game: It’s evident that TM’s female friend heard the scuffle begin after the two exchanged questions. The only thing she heard immediately after that was Trayvon saying “Get off me! Get off me!” > > This is evidence that GZ unlawfully attempted to physically detain TM, which is assault. At this point, TM would be justified in punching GZ and standing his ground. There is no way to determine who said "get off me! there is evidence that Martin was on top of Zimmerman. The logical conclusion that will be drawn in court will be that it was Zimmerman’s voice she heard. ---
**Author:** ![enomaj](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/59ef9b/32.png) [@enomaj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enomaj)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2012, 10:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-trayvon-martin-have-the-right-to-stand-his-own-ground/622287/699 "2012-06-17T10:58:00Z")
> [@magiver](#): > > The answer was pretty self explanatory. Martin should have been aware of the burglaries in the neighborhood. Had he said something threatening it would altered the dynamic but we know he didn’t. Wow. What reason would Trayvon have to know that there had been burglaries given he was just visiting? And why wasn’t Zimmerman aware that Brandy Green was dating Tracy Martin whose son was visiting at the time? Couldn’t have been watching the neigh very closely if he didn’t know that. No wonder there were so many burglaries. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2012, 12:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-trayvon-martin-have-the-right-to-stand-his-own-ground/622287/700 "2012-06-17T12:09:27Z")
> [@enomaj](#): > > Wow. What reason would Trayvon have to know that there had been burglaries given he was just visiting? And why wasn’t Zimmerman aware that Brandy Green was dating Tracy Martin whose son was visiting at the time? Couldn’t have been watching the neigh very closely if he didn’t know that. No wonder there were so many burglaries. There’s no reason these things should have been known. Zimmerman was clearly mistaken that Martin shouldn’t have been in the area, and was up to no good. Sadly, instead of explaining that to Zimmerman, or going home, or calling the police, or just ignoring him, Martin chose to punch Zimmerman to the ground, and beat him against the ground. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-trayvon-martin-have-the-right-to-stand-his-own-ground/622287.md?page=34) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-trayvon-martin-have-the-right-to-stand-his-own-ground/622287.md?page=36)