Martin/Zimmerman: humble opinions and speculation thread

[BlakeTyner]

Lookit–the facts of this particular case aren’t really what’s being discussed.

At the core of the issue seems to be, for what reason does an individual have the right to defend himself or herself?

Whether any of us here in this thread agree or disagree, the state law of Florida (and Texas, where I took the class, passed the background checks, obtained a CHL, and have carried a gun daily since 2006) codifies it very simply: use of force, up to and including deadly force, is justifiable if one is in fear of death or serious bodily injury. This fear needs to be applied to the standard of “a reasonable person.”

For me personally, as one who’s been through the class, studied the law at length, and considered at what point I would draw my gun, I would say Zimmerman showed more restraint than I would have. He allowed Martin to come within his personal space without drawing his weapon and/or shooting. I would have most likely had the gun drawn when Martin was 10 or 15 feet away from me and acting as an aggressor. Because, at that point, I, as a reasonable person, would be in fear. This isn’t something I decided because of this case–it’s a decision I made when I decided that I was going to carry a gun. And, in conversing with others with CHL’s, it is a decision we all made–every last one of us. In no case did anyone say they would allow an attacker to actually injure them before they shot. Injuries are for lawyers and juries–they have no bearing on one’s decision in the moment.

Likewise, were I in a situation like Zimmerman’s, I would have unloaded all 13 rounds of my magazine into Trayvon. Once the trigger is pulled once, I will not stop until I am confident that the aggressor is dead.

I know there are people in this thread who will accuse me of having no regard for life because of my position, and that’s fine. To those people, I say: don’t carry a gun. Rely on the police. That’s your right, just as it is mine to have my pistol–and use it in the appropriate circumstances. Personally, I could give a shit less about what you would do in the situation; to put it bluntly: I believe some people are better off dead, and that includes anyone putting me in the position to question my safety. Sorry.

[Human_Action]

@Condescending_Robot

Your idea of invoking it to explain why it’s a positive good that you have killed someone probably has less than 87% support. Do you believe we should have a criminal justice system at all? Are there certain murders that were not part of God’s plan and need to be punished?

I’m sure you’ll have no trouble showing me where Zimmerman called Martin’s death a “positive good”.

[Condescending_Robot]

He didn’t, but you are chugging along. Can you answer the question about why we should have police, courts, or prisons at all if everything that happens, including people being shot to death, is an unavoidable part of God’s plan?

[Steophan]

@Condescending_Robot

He didn’t, but you are chugging along. Can you answer the question about why we should have police, courts, or prisons at all if everything that happens, including people being shot to death, is an unavoidable part of God’s plan?

Because police, courts, and prisons are all an unavoidable part of God’s plan, obviously…

It’s no more ridiculous than arguing that anything else is god’s plan.

[Human_Action]

@Condescending_Robot

He didn’t, but you are chugging along. Can you answer the question about why we should have police, courts, or prisons at all if everything that happens, including people being shot to death, is an unavoidable part of God’s plan?

That was a serious question? My answer is “because God doesn’t exist”. Religious folks’ answer is probably closer to Steophan’s. Render unto Caesar and etc.

[Steophan]

@Human_Action

That was a serious question? My answer is “because God doesn’t exist”. Religious folks’ answer is probably closer to Steophan’s. Render unto Caesar and etc.

My personal answer would be the same as yours, I was attempting to express what I expect a religious person would think.

[Condescending_Robot]

@BlakeTyner

At the core of the issue seems to be, for what reason does an individual have the right to defend himself or herself?

I don’t believe you’ve followed most of the discussion. As a strong supporter of the individual right to bear arms and self-defnese, there is only one direct issues here, in my view.

That issue is whether the incident happened in any way close to the manner that Zimmerman claims. No reasonable person will dispute that if he was, in fact, assaulted by someone who was intent on bashing his head into the sidewalk until he suffered traumatic brain injury, he had the right to defend himself with lethal force. I, and anyone else who is less than 100% willing to believe what Zimmerman says just because he says it, simply don’t believe that Zimmerman was, in fact, assaulted by someone who was intent on bashing his head into the sidewalk until he suffered traumatic brain injury.

[Steophan]

@Condescending_Robot

That issue is whether the incident happened in any way close to the manner that Zimmerman claims.

No, it isn’t. The issue is whether he was in reasonable fear of death or serious injury when he shot Martin. He could be lying about everything, and it still not be proven that he wasn’t in said fear. In short, the issue is whether he is guilty of murder.

[BlakeTyner]

@Condescending_Robot

I don’t believe you’ve followed most of the discussion. As a strong supporter of the individual right to bear arms and self-defnese, there is only one direct issues here, in my view.

I’ve read every page of all discussions here. Took a while.

I don’t give a shit if Zimmerman is lying or telling the truth. The issue is: can the state prove that he’s NOT telling the truth?

No, they can’t.

[Hbns]

@Steophan

No, it isn’t. The issue is whether he was in reasonable fear of death or serious injury when he shot Martin. He could be lying about everything, and it still not be proven that he wasn’t in said fear. In short, the issue is whether he is guilty of murder.

I’d simplify it even more and say the issue is simply whether or not, out of all possible scenarios, the evidence does or does not preclude a reasonable possibility for self defense.

[Bricker]

@Condescending_Robot

I don’t believe you’ve followed most of the discussion. As a strong supporter of the individual right to bear arms and self-defnese, there is only one direct issues here, in my view.

That issue is whether the incident happened in any way close to the manner that Zimmerman claims. No reasonable person will dispute that if he was, in fact, assaulted by someone who was intent on bashing his head into the sidewalk until he suffered traumatic brain injury, he had the right to defend himself with lethal force. I, and anyone else who is less than 100% willing to believe what Zimmerman says just because he says it, simply don’t believe that Zimmerman was, in fact, assaulted by someone who was intent on bashing his head into the sidewalk until he suffered traumatic brain injury.

How about the broken nose?

If he was assaulted by someone who broke his nose, does THAT give him the right to defend himself with lethal force?

Yes.

[BlakeTyner]

Under the letter of the law, had Martin just said “I am going to hit you in the face now,” and Zimmerman believed him, he’d have been justified in using force, including deadly force.

Whether or not he actually sustained injury–as has been pointed out over and over–is pretty meaningless, except to say that his injuries simply add to the credibility of his story.

Like I say, Zimmerman showed far more restraint than I would have.

[Steophan]

@BlakeTyner

Under the letter of the law, had Martin just said “I am going to hit you in the face now,” and Zimmerman believed him, he’d have been justified in using force, including deadly force.

Pedantic nitpick - only if it were reasonable for him to believe that the hit would have been hard enough to cause death or serious injury. But your general point is correct.

[BlakeTyner]

@Steophan

Pedantic nitpick - only if it were reasonable for him to believe that the hit would have been hard enough to cause death or serious injury. But your general point is correct.

Originally I didn’t have the “and Zimmerman believed him” clause in there, but it’s necessary. I’d conclude that a reasonable person, upon being told by a stranger that they were about to get hit, would feel fear.

And regardless of Zimmerman’s body mass, Trayvon’s being taller would usually indicate that he had reach on Zimmerman–meaning he could make contact with Zimmerman while Zimmerman could not make his own contact back. For me, that would certainly play a role in my assessment of my own danger…

ETA: I was in a fight at 17 where I took a punch to the temple. It never bruised or showed any external evidence of having happened (hell, I didn’t even feel it–one second I was standing up straight and the next thing I knew I was blind…other kids watching told me I’d been hit twice–once in the mouth and once in the temple. I didn’t ‘feel’ either of them, although I heard my teeth cracking.)

Anyway, that kid did, in fact, ‘seriously injure’ me, even if I couldn’t prove it.

[chargerrich]

@Condescending_Robot

What does this mean? No brain injuries WERE observed in this case. Hypothetical evidence is not evidence. Obviously I agree with “if the evidence was different, we should adjust our conclusions accordingly”…but the evidence is what the evidence is, not something else.

He had injuries consistent with a low-scale scuffle of minor intensity. His injuries are totally inconsistent with having his head repeatedly slammed into concrete. That’s the entire point. That goes to not only the absence of a threat to his life but to the contradictions between the physical evidence and his statement; i.e., one of his eight identifiable lies and the reason he has zero credibility and we can’t trust anything else he says about what happened or what his thought process that night was.

You dropped some extra bias there as you were typing… let me wipe that up for you.

Seriously though, I guess we are all biased to a degree but getting your head slammed on concrete even ONCE is VERY traumatic. Keep in mind that as it is happening (aka heat of the moment) you have no real idea what the “damage” is
visible or internal is.

I can say, for me personally, trying to put myself in that situation, that if my head was slammed into concrete I would immediately think the worst case, be fearful for my life and health and launch into the fight portion of “fight or flight”.

It so awfully myopic to sit back, out of context and with emotion and fear removed and say that the visible damage tells the entire story… it clearly IMO does not.

[Stoid]

By the way, has their been any corroboration of Martin doing anything remotely similar to slamming Zimmy’s head into the ground? I thought the only thing any witness saw was non-descript struggling and the likely-punches downward armstrokes?

Cuz it seems clear to me, given the relative insignificance of the head injuries, that GZ could very easily have gotten his bean booboo from one blow - the “blow” of his head hitting the sidewalk when he hit the ground, no Martin-inflicting involved.

[Steophan]

@Stoid

Cuz it seems clear to me, given the relative insignificance of the head injuries, that GZ could very easily have gotten his bean booboo from one blow - the “blow” of his head hitting the sidewalk when he hit the ground, no Martin-inflicting involved.

Even if that were the case, it was still inflicted by Martin, as Zimmerman hit the ground after being punched by him.

[Stoid]

@Steophan

Even if that were the case, it was still inflicted by Martin, as Zimmerman hit the ground after being punched by him.

Really? Someone other than GZ see that and testify to that? Cuz the only GZ evidence I believe is evidence that is corroborated by other evidence.

[Human_Action]

@Stoid

Really? Someone other than GZ see that and testify to that? Cuz the only GZ evidence I believe is evidence that is corroborated by other evidence.

What did you mean to suggest caused Zimmerman to hit the ground? I also assumed you meant from a blow by Martin, but please clarify.

[Steophan]

@Stoid

Really? Someone other than GZ see that and testify to that? Cuz the only GZ evidence I believe is evidence that is corroborated by other evidence.

You believe precisely what you like when it suits you. There’s no other reasonable explanation of how Zimmerman came to be on the floor, beneath Martin, with injuries to his nose, face, and head, and with Martin continuing to beat him.

Not that you have displayed an excess of concern with reason.