Stoid, I’m curious about whether you’ve researched the statistics of the people with concealed handgun licenses who actually use their weapons. In other words, if carrying the gun does, in fact, make them feel ‘tougher,’ then why are there so few cases of them shooting anyone?
Like I say, I’ve carried daily since 2006 and never once even thought about having to reach for my gun.
In Texas, for example, for all criminal convictions in 2011:
There were 63,679 convictions of people without a handgun license.
There were 120 convictions of people with a handgun license.
In other words, the conviction rate of those of us with CHL’s was .01884% of total convictions in the state.
He did threaten to rape her. Thus she had the right to self-defense.
Once again, and we went over this, if Martin had the right to self-defense, that does not preclude Zimmerman from having the right to self-defense. There are situations that are possible where both parties are “self-defending”.
Open and shut. She’s no-billed for her justified use of force, and he’s arrested for…something (I’m not sure about FL law here.) Menacing? Terroristic threats? Maybe in that case he’d meet the parameters for stalking?
I see what you’re getting at, though. In most circumstances, person A walking in a public place while person B (they’re complete strangers) ‘follows’ them, or is walking behind them but in the same direction, is perfectly fine. I think that, male or female, a reasonable person A would, at this point, feel nervous.
Do you try to increase the distance? Speed up? Cross the street and see if person B crosses behind you?
I have been in that situation, and I sped up and crossed the street. Person B didn’t, and I began to feel less nervous. Had he crossed behind me, then honestly my next move is predicated on whether I have a means of self defense (pepper spray, a baseball bat, a gun…)
If I do have a gun, and I’ve exhausted my options of going faster or cutting through somewhere else, then my choice is going to be to turn around and announce as loudly as I can “STOP FOLLOWING ME.”
If person B continues to approach, that’s followed with “I HAVE A GUN AND I WILL SHOOT YOU IF YOU KEEP APPROACHING.”
If person B continues to approach, the gun’s very likely coming out, and once I’ve decided to pull it, I’ve already made the decision to shoot. Person B’s ONLY option to live is to immediately turn around and run away, thus breaking contact.
I then find the nearest place to call the police and report what happened, including that I drew my gun (because I don’t want person B calling the cops on ME and filing a report that I threatened him.)
If I’m unarmed…I avoid confrontation at all costs. If there is ANY other option, I NEVER end up face-to-face with the guy.
It should be considered by the jury, sure. But not in isolation from the rest of the other evidence.
Do we have good reason to think that Martin could have spotted Zimmerman from a distance with his flashlight? Sure, your logic above is sound. But do we have good reason to think he would have seen the flashlight-carrying man from a distance and then accosted this person empty-handed, when all Zimmerman would’ve had to do is stick the flashlight in his face to blind him? No, we don’t have good reason to think he’d do this. Not when only minutes before, Martin had run away from him. It does not add up. And there is no witness testimony (outside of Zimmerman’s self-serving claims) that tell us that this is what happened, either. (In fact, Zimmerman claims Martin “ambushed” him by first asking him whether he had a problem. Not running up on him and clobbering him which is what you’d expect he was a true nocturnal thug.)
So let’s consider GZ. Do we have good reason to think that Zimmerman, with his flashlight and his vehement agenda, had the advantage over Martin with respect to the element of surprise? Yeah, we do have good reason to think that he did have the advantage. There is no indication he ever stopped following Martin, for one. And because had the ability to see better than Martin did, he would have been in a better position to spot Martin’s location from afar and then run up on him.
So are you another person who thinks Zimmerman was mistaken when he said “Oh shit, he’s running.” And then said again, “he ran”. I’m not trying to be mean (because you don’t seem to be arrogant or dogmatic in your position), but to doubt that the kid had it in him to run when that’s exactly what the evidence says he did from the very beginning suggests you’re looking at this through biased eyes.
Just based on his prior behavior, I think if the kid had been able to run from Zimmerman, he would’ve. Something prevented him doing so.
I might be mistaken, but aren’t you a woman? Chicks are different. (I’m a chick, so I can say that. )
Why are you all about the license? What difference does that make? Unless you can show that licensing somehow eliminates all bad behavior and decisions, or exempts you from having the same response to carrying a gun that other people have.
No he didn’t. I’m a girl and I assure that I do not take a man’s plain statement that he wants to fuck me as his declaration of his intention to rape me. I might under certain circumstances, such as the ones I described, but that makes him responsible for my perception. Does the law do that? I think sometimes it does, but I can’t say when.
If you know, then why do you think it is relevant if Martin was “self-defending”? You keep harping on Martin being afraid. For the sake of argument, let’s say he was. Does that mean Zimmerman could not have been defending himself and cannot use the self-defense clause?
And also, multiple witnesses testified that they heard trampled grass, foot steps, and traveling loud voices. That is evidence that someone was actively trying to get away from someone else during that fight.
Why would Martin be chasing Zimmerman? What would be his motive?
Zimmerman’s motive, in contrast, is perfectly clear. It was the same motive he had when he set the chain of events in motion.
Just based on his prior behavior, I think if the kid had been able to run from Zimmerman, he would’ve. Something prevented him doing so.
[/QUOTE]
Like what, a bear trap?
You’ve clearly put some thought into this, so I’ll ask you. Zimmerman ran after Martin, then stopped running, came to a halt, banged his non-working flashlight, reported losing sight of Martin, and hung up his phone. Two minutes pass. His working flashlight, still on, is dropped at the T, the shooting occurs 40 feet south of the T.
How can you square that with Zimmerman chasing Martin down?
No, I do think Martin ran, or did the “gangsta skip” thing at first.
And from the perspective of plausibility, I have to give you the scenario that you mentioned–Zimmerman, with his flashlight, could have been the one to initiate the 2nd encounter (the fatal one.)
But, could we at least agree on this: if that’s what happened, it was an out-of-the-ordinary action for Zimmerman to do, based on his prior history as a watch captain? I’m not denying that it could’ve been his first time doing such a stupid thing, but it certainly does seem out of character.
On the issue of Trayvon, looking back at my 17-year-old self, there were many instances where I ran or walked away, only to let my ego or pride start fuckin’ with me. It’s like, once you’ve reached “safety,” you sort of drop your guard and start thinking–“hey, why did I run from that guy? I’m a man! Men don’t run!”
And like I say, based on Trayvon’s crowd, and the way he presented himself on social media, it would be consistent with his character. I don’t actually think he was an irredeemable bad kid, but I do think he was on the road to it. Young black male subculture is, in some ways, harmful to the very people it includes–one of which being the “lean” he’d talked about before. I’m not proud of it, but I’ve done lean myself, and it’s a nice feeling…but then some of my favorite rappers, like DJ Screw, Big Moe, etc. died from the stuff. Yet it’s still popular.
Likewise, the “tough” image that young males in general, but especially young black males, are expected to maintain is damaging. I’m not suggesting that TM was part of a street gang, but it’s the idolization of that lifestyle–down to emulating the slang of “trap house” or the misogyny inherent in a lot of hip hop–that leads to so many negative consequences. Hispanics are dealing with it too, of course, and it’s certainly not “just” a minority problem as much as a socio-economic problem.
I realize that’s a really sticky issue, and as a while male I can only say so much about it–based mostly on my buddies and my experience of it. My “world” and the “world” of my 2 best black male friends are just completely different, and I’ve seen those guys react in ways that were anathema to me, because they were taught the code of “go hard or go home.”
I don’t know it for sure, but I wouldn’t be surprised if Trayvon bought into a lot of that “go hard” mentality. His school records and the bouncing from place to place are characteristic of it.
Even if he was experimenting with that lifestyle, as most adolescents try on different identities as they figure out who they are, it doesn’t mean he deserved to die. But, if Zimmerman’s story IS true, the only way I can rationalize it is that “hard” mentality–what my grad-school textbooks called the urban black male’s “tough guise.” I’ve seen a lot of that firsthand, so it just makes sense to me, IF Zimmerman’s story is true.
But I do have to say that it’s just as plausible that Zimmerman is who you think he is–a mall ninja with a God complex. Just as I can say I’ve seen that “tough guise” in my black friends, I’ve damn sure seen the gun-totin’, rebel-flag wavin’ rednecks who probably would take their tacti-cool plastic guns to the streets and look for a dark-skinned person to stalk. I just don’t think Zimmerman’s prior behavior establishes anything like that, the way Trayvon’s prior behavior reflects so poorly on him.
I’m not saying there shouldn’t be an investigation. There obviously should be one when a person is shot dead. But the police did that here. The police then forwarded their report to the State’s Attorney who declined to prosecute. Then the bitching started and the Special Prosecutor wrote a probable cause affidavit that was completely one-sided and lacking in evidence.
Our resident legal eagles said not to worry that SURELY there was some secret evidence out there that the prosecution had so that they could prove Z guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. We’ve now heard their case, and they have none of that.
The investigation showed that what Z said was consistent enough with the facts that he couldn’t be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. To bow to political pressure and ruin a man’s life is not what an attorney, let alone one with the power of the state, should be doing.
Zimmerman, convinced that TM is heading to the rear entrance of the community, continues to travel down RVC during and after his phone conversation with dispatcher. Not finding him on that street, he walks back up RVC in the direction of the T.
Once at the T, to his left he hears a voice (talking on the phone) and directs his flashlight down the dog path. Lo and behold, he sees Martin standing a few patios down south. Impulsively, with the same reptilian aggressiveness that led him to bolt out his truck the first fucking time , he charges after the kid immediately. But not before dropping his keyfob flashlight on the ground. Why would he do this? Because he’s be more interested in catching the asshole punk than keeping his hand occupied with a silly flashlight. Plus, he doesn’t know if Martin has seen him yet so if by running up on him in the darkness, he has a better chance of nabbing him.
W1 (Selene B.) lives south of where Martin’s body wound up. She testified to hearing the fight take place in front of her kitchen window and then move northward. The reason the defense tried so desperately to impeach her is that her testimony clearly contradicts Zimmerman’s. But her story was the same the one she gave the cops shortly after the incident took place. It would make no sense for her to lie about this detail. At all.
Assuming that all the witnesses are telling the truth (except for Zimmerman of course), this theory for how they encountered each other is what fits with all the available evidence. It fits with Rachel’s testimony when she said Martin told her that he was near his dad’s place. It fits with all the witnesses who said they heard grass sounds and a moving scuffle. And it explains why Zimmerman might have missed Trayvon his first pass across the T: he never looked down there because he was convinced the kid was on RVC the whole time, heading towards the exit.
This theory accounts for the missing 2 minutes in Zimmerman’s timeline as well. He was busy walking down RVC and then back again.
I didn’t realize this before, but the inoperative flashlight that Zimmerman had been carrying came equipped with a lanard. It was found a little south of Martin’s body. Zimmerman never explained what he was doing with that flashlight while Martin supposedly was raining punches down his head, but it’s plausible that it had been dangling from his wrist and then dropped when the two encountered each other. If Trayvon had accosted him at the T, it makes no sense that the flashlight would have wound up so far down south. No one defending Zimmerman has so far explained why this flashlight would have been located there.
First question: If Martin was inclined to flee from Zimmerman, how does Zimmerman ever catch him? Can a 5’ 8" chubby guy run down a 5’ 11" guy in good shape who has at least a 40 foot head start?
And wasn’t Zimmerman on some kind of medication for bad joints?
Plus, I have to reiterate something I’ve said before–regardless of their mass differential, Trayvon had the reach advantage on George. He could hit him while George was unable to strike back…
This is not a snarky question. The rules of the game say that in a trial like this one, character evidence is not admissible. Unfortunately (for Zimmerman), the defense tactically screwed up by eliciting character testimony from one of the State’s witnesses, and they will pay the price for that gaffe if/when the State rebuts this testimony with testimony of their own showing that Zimmerman has a documented history of harrassing neighbors and overextending his reach as a neighborhood watch person. Residents have reported him to the cops and to the HOA.
Based on what I’ve read about GZ, this behavior does not sound out of his character. It sounds consistent with it.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Trayvon was the opposite, to be honest. Most teenagers trying to act they are hard and dangerous don’t befriend socially awkward, overweight girls like Rachel Jaentel. They also don’t wear photo buttons in honor of a dead relative.
I’m sure Trayvon had many things in common with most adolescent boys. Machismo very well might be one of those things. To assume he was macho is another thing altogether. Stereotypes about how black kids act have about as much bearing to what happened to that night as stereotypes about Peruvian-Americans.
You see like a decent guy, Blake. But you don’t know Zimmerman well enough to know what his prior behavior establishes. Just like you don’t know Martin well enough to know what his prior behavior establishes. You should go by what the evidence says what happens. I have no probably with you having reasonable doubt, but when that doubt comes from stereotypes about black kids, you’re basically admitting you’re not thinking about this case critically.
Because TM didn’t see him. Zimmerman had the flashlight and the intent to look down the pathway to see if Martin was there. On his way west along the T, it would have only taken a second for him to have spotted Martin with his flashlight, since the kid would have been standing on the west side of the dog path and his view would have been unobstructed.
If Trayvon was facing away from the T the moment that Zimmerman saw him, he would not have seen the 5’8 chubby guy running him down in the dark. No time to run, only scream “get off me, get off me” .
What’s your explanation for how the inoperative flashlight ended up south of the kid’s body?
)