No, you don’t recall this, because it never happened. It’s like what you claimed about the TV show.
Not plausibly.
There were grass stains and moisture on Zimmerman’s back. There were grass stains and moisture on Martin’s knees. There were no grass stains or moisture on Martin’s back. There were no grass stains or moisture on Zimmerman’s knees. There were eyewitnesses who saw Martin on top of Zimmerman during the fight. There were no eyewitnesses who saw Zimmerman on top of Martin during the fight.Therefore there is no evidence that Martin was ever on the bottom, nor any evidence that Zimmerman was ever on the top.
How did he get the grass stains off his own knees, and off Martin’s back, in the few seconds between the shot and the arrival of the police? How did he convince the eyewitness to lie on his behalf?
It’s clear at this point that you are simply making things up.
It’s one thing to have a closed mind. It’s another to have a mind so open that your brains fall out.
I expect next to hear you say that Martin was shot from the grassy knoll.
Freak accidents. Friend of mine did it, actually. Punched a guy who threatened him with a knife. First time he’d ever hit anyone in his life, smashed his jaw, bone fragment went into his brain and bam: dead. Just like that.
Just jumping in here. Who gives a shit? Why is everyone so fixated on the fight and if GZ was the aggressor in those last minutes of Trayvon’s life? It’s a nice ploy by the defense but it doesn’t matter.
What matters is GZ got out of his car against the Police directive and followed Trayvon. That is the only proven aggressive act of this incident. If Trayvon turned around and punched GZ in the nose for following him, that’s self-defense. If Trayvon opened up a can of whoop ass on this creep, it’s self defense. This a-hole was following him, a kid ; on an evening that was pouring rain and that’s why any kid would have their hood up. Trayvon reacted to being followed.
How does it then become okay to murder him? Because he was particularly threatening? Or Because GZ got beat up like any jack ass who violates your space and panic set in?
This was a kid.
As DL Hughley said, a kid who still goes to a pediatrician. What’s wrong with this scenario?
Hughley was right on when he said whites don’t think blacks love their children as much as they do, because then it is just fine for the juror B37 to compartmentalize her thoughts and not view “those people” the same way she’d view her own kid.
Because it’s the legal vs. moral culpability line. Most people seem to understand that GZ was morally culpable. It’s a matter of the legality. If he was legally the aggressor, he was legally culpable, and legal aggression is defined by what happened once they were face to face, not before. Rather, what happened face to face and possibly combined with what happened before. But his face to face actions mattered.
Not only is that nor proven, it’s provably false. Zimmerman did not speak to the police at any point that evening prior to the shooting, he spoke to a dispatcher, who simply stated that they didn’t need him to follow Martin - at which point he stopped following. He wasn’t told to stop, yet he did anyway.
But here’s the really interesting thing - even if he had continued following Martin against the orders of a police officer, he still would have done nothing wrong (as the police don’t have authority, generally, to order that), nothing aggressive, and nothing to provoke a forcible response.
Following someone is not an aggressive act. It does not justify violence.
Not true for two reasons. 1) It wasn’t a “police directive” the operator simply stated “we don’t need you to do that.” 2) Based on his breathing pattern and the sound of the wind in the microphone he likely did stop following Martin.
You don’t get to break a persons nose because they follow you or ask you what you’re doing.
Again, no. You can’t just go around beating people up who you think are creeps. This is probably the same mentality that Martin had, but it’s absolutely wrong.
I fully appreciate that Martin was only 17 years old and no matter what is said by anyone, it was a horrible tragedy that occurred that night.
That being said, 17 year-old testosterone fueled males are very strong, fast and agile. I have trained in martial arts for almost 25 years and those kids are tough. They are so strong at that age that it makes it hard to teach good technique because they can just use their muscles to over-power their opponents.
How culpable do you find your friend? Didn’t (s)he end a life intervening in a car break in? One might infer that if (s)he had just observed and called the cops no loss of life would have occurred.
Would your opinion be any different if your friend had been a licensed CCW and carrying? Would it make a difference if they used the firearm or their fist?
Maybe I’m misremembering. If so I apologize for drawing any parallels to Zimmerman.
if you’re gong to talk about the law, do you think you should know the law?
Or do you think that your innate moral sense and the law pretty much have to be the same, and product the same results?
No. Under Florida law, that’s not aggression.
No. under Florida law, it’s very doubtful that merely following someone would justify a punch in the nose. Legally, that’s NOT self-defense.
Because Florida law says that if you are in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury, and you can’t retreat, you can use deadly force.
Did you factor that in to your analysis? Did you think knowing what Florida law said on the matter was important for this discussion?
I would say that what’s wrong is you discussing the outcome of a legal case without knowing what the law actually says.
I would say what else is wrong is your not caring that you don’t know. You feel no hesitation to say the jury got the wrong result under the law when you don’t have a clue what the law says, and you’re proud that you don’t know. You feel anger at someone telling you that you should know. You feel that your opinion is just as valuable as someone who has taken the time to read the law.
Of course those are all guesses. I don’t really know what you feel. Seems silly to confidently say something without knowing it, eh?
The law says you can use deadly force if you reasonably fear death or great bodily harm. Such as an individual mounting you and throwing punches to your head.
I don’t know what you’re trying to say here.
As many have stated here in the past. I think Zimmerman made a great number of mistakes that night. I could name a dozen things I would like to think I would do differently in that situation. Just because I think his actions don’t reach the level of manslaughter or second degree murder doesn’t mean I’m justifying his actions.
According to current publicly known information, and six jurors in Florida, he had the legal right to use deadly force to prevent his own death or further physical harm.
My friend ended a life defending himself against somebody wielding a knife against him. There was never even a trial. And this was about 40 years ago in Los Angeles. So no, there are no parallels to Zimmerman. I was just pointing out that yes a punch can, as a freak accident, cause death. Almost anything can kill you in a freak accident… The human body is both extraordinarily tough and resilient while simultaneously being exquisitely fragile.
This is fucked up. There are a fuck of a lot of assumptions but the fact is a child is dead and the. Guy with the gun won’t take responsibility THAT is shameful no matter what the fucked up law says. If Tray was a 17 year old white kid GZ would be in jail. People hiding behind a bad law are as cowardly as Zimmerman. And don’t give me the line a out a 17 year old kid a 26 year old who wanted to be a policeman and was in shape at the time he murdered Tray
wouldn’t be scary to a high school kid
His description of the altercation, starting at the initial meeting all the way through to the cops showing up. Pretty much everything about it.
Such as the claims about smothering and head banging and being the one screaming… Nope. Got ears of my own, the person screaming isn’t being smothered or having their head banged into cement.
The complete lack of any explanation for what Zimmerman himself was doing while Martin was supposedly beating him to death followed by Zimmerman suddenly gaining Superman like power to restrain Martin, hold him back and shoot him in the chest.
The claim that he did not believe Martin was hit, seeing as how Martin supposedly also said “you got me”, followed by him falling over onto his face. If he wasn’t hit why would he do those things? And on what planet do you hold the gun a foot from someone’s chest when they are physically on top of you, pull the trigger, a bullet exits the chamber, and it does not hit the body a few inches in front of it? Really? The claim is ***100% unbelievable on its face. ***Which means he’s making the claim because he has to, why does he have to? Because he climbs on Martin’s back, and he has no excuse for doing that If he admits being aware of the fact that Martin had a mortal wound in his chest. And since he did know that Martin had a mortal wound in his chest, why did he climb on his back? I find it telling that none of the Zimmerman apologists have even attempted to answer these questions, they have not even acknowledged these issues. Because if they do, Zimmerman starts to look like what he is: a fucking liar who murdered that boy (in the heat of the moment).
And of course that was followed by the famous I spread his arms claim when he was found with his arms underneath him.
And of course there’s also no explanation from Zimmerman about how Martin punched him at the T but Martin was found dead three or four townhouses south of the T.
Too many gaps, too many implausibilities, too many inconsistencies. He’s lying. And he’s lying to cover his own illegal acts.
Is this based on your previous experience of hearing someone scream for their life while another person attempts to smother them?
Not sure you mean by “what he was doing” while being beaten. Generally you try to deflect punches or cover yourself up, but didn’t he address this in the video?
This statement is illogical. In any fight there are moments of opportunity to trap an arm or grab a wrist, even when you’re being dominated by someone on top. It’s doesn’t take “Superman like power” to temporarily control an arm by pinning it against your body. Overall I think many posters don’t understand the mechanics of how a fight like this unfolds.
Your perception is perfectly logical in a controlled/calm situation. It’s also understandable for people trained to operate under that kind of pressure. However, many people in life/death situations do things that completely defy logic. Several years ago a friend saw her fiance murdered in front of her, the other guy purposely ran him over with his car. The fiance’s skull was cracked wide open and internal organs were splayed across the pavement. A truly horrible thing for her to witness. Obviously/logically he was dead, but that didn’t stop her from trying to “put him back together” or screaming at the emergency responders to help him.
You may want to check out the book Blink by Malcom Gladwell. He talks specifically about what he calls “temporary autism” which is what happens to people in high stress situations like these.
I’m not a “Zimmerman apologist” by any means. I think he was a stupid individual with a hero complex that led to the premature death of a young man. I think there are a great number of things that he should have done differently. All that being said, I don’t I think he should be convicted of murder and sent to prison for 20 years based on the currently available evidence.
Let’s just say that Zimmerman lied about this. What exactly is he hiding? Why lie about something that has absolutely no bearing on his guilt or innocence?
I was just curious if your feelings regarding that incident were in any way colored by the Zimmerman trial and verdict.
My casual understanding of California self defense statutes would suggest your friend had a legal right to use deadly force. Though I have no idea if the law was appreciably different 40 years ago.
I think the point being made, is that a punch to the head resulting in grievous bodily injury or death is a bit more common than a freak accident in real life.
I am honestly curious if your opinion of your friend would differ had he used a firearm instead of his fist?
Or conversely, would your opinion of Zimmerman change, had he not had a gun and killed Martin with a single punch?
Let’s see if I understand your position. You believe that the biggest hole in Zimmerman’s story is that (1) he claimed Martin banged his head into the pavement; (2) he claimed that Zimmerman smothered him; (3) he claimed that he screamed for help; and (4) it’s not plausible that all three of these things happened between the time Martin first struck him and the time that he opened fire.
“If the truth leaves Zimmerman legally in the clear, why has he repeatedly gone out of his way to lie” seems to be the dominant theme of the people who don’t accept his story, yeah. Why you think this helps Zimmerman is beyond me.
I never said it helped him. I have no idea where you’re getting that. I asked a sincere question.
Zimmerman stated that he spread out Martin’s arms, but Martin was found with his arms underneath him. I accept this is an odd inconsistency, I can even accept that this may be a “Zimmerman lie.”
What I want to know is, what significance does this have to Zimmerman’s guilt or innocence? Not being snarky here. I really want to know, why is this particular inconsistency important? Why would Zimmerman lie about this particular detail? How does it help his case?
At every point of his story where Zimmerman could admit to being reckless or irresponsible, he conveniently has an explanation.
It would have been irresponsible for GZ to follow TM, especially when told not to. So what does GZ tell us happened? He tells us he wasn’t following…he was just walking in the same direction. And that he hadn’t got out of his truck to pursue TM, but rather to look for a street sign.
It would have been irresponsible and possibly illegal for GZ to have his gun unholstered, out in the open. But this hypothesis makes sense given the placement of his holster and the way TM supposedly straddled him. It would have been close to impossible for Trayvon to reach for the gun the way GZ says he did. But he sticks with this story because it makes him look a whole lot better than the truth does.
Even though the physical evidence indicates the fight started south of the T, GZ’s story has it starting and ending at the T. Why would he lie? Because he had no good “upstanding citizen” reason to be that far down the walkway, close to TM’s destination. He could have told a story involving a pushing and shoving match that covered a lot of ground…and he still could have come out looking like the “good guy”. But no. Realistic lies are beyond his capability. So instead his brain invents a strange story where TM ambushes him from behind some bushes and everything happens in a single spot in rapid-fire succession. Even though his flashlight and TM’s headset point to another narrative.
It is not enough for TM to punch him once. He has to slam him 20-odd times. It’s not enough for him to slam him. He must also be smothered. It’s not enough that he is smothered. But his life must also be verbally threatened. It’s not enough that GZ was screaming for help the whole time. No, he must be screaming and fading in and out of consciousness too.