Trayvon Martin, One year later

[Seabear]

Who resorted to physical violence first? Who is the only person in this whole situation unambiguously known to have committed a crime?

Unless you honestly expect us to believe that Zimmerman walked up and started a fist fight with a 6'2" 170# stranger, then it was Martin. After knocking Zimmerman to the ground, Martin could have just walked away. But he didn't. He climbed on top of the prone Zimmerman, overpowered him, and continued the beating, splitting the back of his skull on the sidewalk.

At this point, Zimmerman had no way of knowing Trayvon was only 17. He had no way of knowing how far or how badly the beating would continue. And, he had no means to defend himself or end the beating other than his gun. In fact, he had none of the 20/20 hindsight that is being used here to judge his actions ex post facto. No reasonable person would have lain there and let a stranger continue to beat them, possibly to unconsciousness or worse, with a means to defend themselves at hand. No reasonable person would expect them to do so.

But in a sane state, shooting someone to death for beating you with his fists is illegal.

So let me get this straight. In your mind, if a larger, stronger person is beating you to death with his fists, you are obliged to only use your fists in self defense, even though you have no chance of saving yourself. If you use a gun, then you are the criminal, even though they assaulted you.

That is an utterly ridiculous argument. And, I might add, completely false as far as the law is concerned. Especially under the Florida "Stand Your Ground" law.

[Johan]

Who resorted to physical violence first?

Only one living person knows. And since his freedom depends on his answer, I don't know that his answer can be trusted.

After knocking Zimmerman to the ground, Martin could have just walked away. But he didn't. He climbed on top of the prone Zimmerman, overpowered him, and continued the beating, splitting the back of his skull on the sidewalk.

And you KNOW that how exactly? Were you there?

[Seabear]

Who resorted to physical violence first?

Only one living person knows. And since his freedom depends on his answer, I don't know that his answer can be trusted.

After knocking Zimmerman to the ground, Martin could have just walked away. But he didn't. He climbed on top of the prone Zimmerman, overpowered him, and continued the beating, splitting the back of his skull on the sidewalk.

And you KNOW that how exactly? Were you there?

It's funny, you weren't nearly so anxious to admit "we don't know" or adopt a "we weren't there" rationale while you were indicting Zimmerman's actions. But ironically, you think this is an acceptable defense for Trayvon's actions? Your powers of critical thinking seem to only work in one direction.

In fact, this sort of stilted emotional double-standard/special pleading type of thinking is the hallmark of every argument against Zimmerman.

Btw, in response to your last question, there are police photos of the wounds Zimmerman sustained at the hands of Martin. We know from the details of the gunshot wound that Martin was atop Zimmerman. So, we didn't have to actually be there to rationally conclude that Zimmerman didn't beat himself up. In legal terms, this is what is called evidence.

Edit/ps:
It's true, its possible that Zimmerman may be lying about some of the details, but he can't lie about all of them. Regardless however, you can't ignore the facts you do know in favor of drawing your conclusions from hypotheticals for which you no evidence, nor can you pass judgement using the 20/20 hindsight based on knowledge that the people in the altercation didn't have at the time.

It doesn't matter what you THINK. It's what you can PROVE. Just because you don't think you can trust Zimmermans account is totally irrelevant unless you can prove he willfully and maliciously shot Martin, and so far, based on what we DO know, the evidence doesn't support it.

[Shiranu]

Who resorted to physical violence first? Who is the only person in this whole situation unambiguously known to have committed a crime?

Unless you honestly expect us to believe that Zimmerman walked up and started a fist fight with a 6'2" 170# stranger, then it was Martin. After knocking Zimmerman to the ground, Martin could have just walked away. But he didn't. He climbed on top of the prone Zimmerman, overpowered him, and continued the beating, splitting the back of his skull on the sidewalk.

At this point, Zimmerman had no way of knowing Trayvon was only 17. He had no way of knowing how far or how badly the beating would continue. And, he had no means to defend himself or end the beating other than his gun. In fact, he had none of the 20/20 hindsight that is being used here to judge his actions ex post facto. No reasonable person would have lain there and let a stranger continue to beat them, possibly to unconsciousness or worse, with a means to defend themselves at hand. No reasonable person would expect them to do so.

But in a sane state, shooting someone to death for beating you with his fists is illegal.

So let me get this straight. In your mind, if a larger, stronger person is beating you to death with his fists, you are obliged to only use your fists in self defense, even though you have no chance of saving yourself. If you use a gun, then you are the criminal, even though they assaulted you.

That is an utterly ridiculous argument. And, I might add, completely false as far as the law is concerned. Especially under the Florida "Stand Your Ground" law.

Holy fucking shit cakes of hypocrisy.

[Seabear]

Holy fucking shit cakes of avoiding the key issue.

Who struck the first blow?

[Hakurei Reimu]

You don't know. So you can't with any veracity say that anyone struck the first blow. For all you know, it could have been Zimmerman himself.

Now, I read through the entire thread in one go, and I at no point noted in Trayvon's defenders any claim that anyone knew who struck the first blow, instead of trying out different scenarios for size. Indeed, some doubt that there was any "fight" at all. Their assignment of blame was based entirely on the testimony of the police dispatcher and Zimmerman himself.

Absent any police report that says otherwise, I don't think that this beatdown Zimmerman claims happened at all, and certainly not to the point where any reasonable person would think his life is in danger (he didn't go to the hospital to have his wounds treated). The only person who witnessed this beatdown has credibility problems, pure and simple.

Since I believe that the fight angle can be thrown out entirely, we're left with a aggressive man stalking then killing a boy who was minding his own business. To me, there's something wrong with that.

[Johan]

It's funny, you weren't nearly so anxious to admit "we don't know" or adopt a "we weren't there" rationale while you were indicting Zimmerman's actions. But ironically, you think this is an acceptable defense for Trayvon's actions? Your powers of critical thinking seem to only work in one direction.

I think you have me confused with someone else. I have maintained all along that we can only judge based on what we know. We know Zimmerman was following Martin. We know Zimmerman was told not to follow Martin. We know he continued to do so anyway. We know that Martin knew he was being followed by someone unknown to him and for a reason unknown to him. We know the Martin is dead and we know that Zimmerman shot him. That is what we know.

We don't know who attacked whom first or what extent before the gun was fired and we don't know the exact cause of any of Zimmerman's injuries.

All of my opinions are based on those facts and only those facts. You might not agree with my opinions but you not agreeing with me does not equate to me using any kind of double standard.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I think the reason why it got so much attention is because Zimmerman was acting as someone with a nominal bit of authority, the shooting having taken place on his patrol as part of the local, volunteer Neighborhood Watch.

Which gives Zimmerman exactly as much authority as the pebble he stepped on - absolutely none that any other citizen doesn't have.  Neighborhood watches have no actual "authority".  Zimmerman was (and probably still is) a wannabe cop, plain and simple.  Members of neighborhood watches have only one job - to call the police.  Not to attack people, not to prevent crime, not even to follow suspects.  JUST to dial 911 and report what they see.

Zimmerman over-reacted, over-responded and in most other states would have committed a few felonies.

I agree with your point.  I was addressing public perception ("why it got so much attention"), not the facts of the case itself.  When someone in a perceived position of authority, no matter how wrong the perception is nor how miniscule the authority, is thought to have acted in a racist manner, the American public goes apeshit.

I know that NW has no actual authority.  I had this discussion in the immediate aftermath of the shooting and in the course of digging up info on the case came across the NW training pamphlet used in the class Zimmerman had taken.  It declares the "no-pursuit" policy explicitly, in a boxed section of oversized text.

You're preaching to the choir.

[Thumpalumpacus]

But in a sane state, shooting someone to death for beating you with his fists is illegal.

That's not necessarily the case.  Lethal force is an acceptable defense if you have a reason to fear for your life.  That is not limited to this or that weapon, and men can be and have been killed with bare hands.

[Nonsensei]

Nobody knows who struck first (though the fact that Zimmerman is wounded is pretty fucking telling).

Some people think that not knowing what happened isnt sufficient reason for a case dismissed. This just touches once again on a recurring theme in this thread of Zimmerman being guilty until proven innocent.

If you acknowledge that you don't know what happened but still feel he is guilty, fine. But don't try to pretend your position has any association with the law. Some of the mental contortions ive seen being executed to legally justify a guilty verdict for Zimmerman in this thread are distressing.

FFS we have people insisting that assault victims should be legally bound to fight fair with their attackers or risk becoming the guilty party!

[SvZurich]

But in a sane state, shooting someone to death for beating you with his fists is illegal.

That's not necessarily the case.  Lethal force is an acceptable defense if you have a reason to fear for your life.  That is not limited to this or that weapon, and men can be and have been killed with bare hands.

I think that defense is null and void when you create the circumstances that put you in such a position.  It falls under the maxim: "The stupid shall be punished."

Stalking a kid ain't the way to calm the kid and make a friend.  From Trayvon's view, some scary dude is stalking him, time to fight or flight.  Dude has a gun?  Stakes just went up.

[Nonsensei]

But in a sane state, shooting someone to death for beating you with his fists is illegal.

That's not necessarily the case.  Lethal force is an acceptable defense if you have a reason to fear for your life.  That is not limited to this or that weapon, and men can be and have been killed with bare hands.

I think that defense is null and void when you create the circumstances that put you in such a position.

Well it doesn't. No amount of walking behind someone cancels your right to not be assaulted.

[Thumpalumpacus]

But in a sane state, shooting someone to death for beating you with his fists is illegal.

That's not necessarily the case.  Lethal force is an acceptable defense if you have a reason to fear for your life.  That is not limited to this or that weapon, and men can be and have been killed with bare hands.

I think that defense is null and void when you create the circumstances that put you in such a position.  It falls under the maxim: "The stupid shall be punished."

Stalking a kid ain't the way to calm the kid and make a friend.  From Trayvon's view, some scary dude is stalking him, time to fight or flight.  Dude has a gun?  Stakes just went up.

I understand that.  My point was that even in a fistfight, the use of a gun might be justified.

I've got part of my left ear missing.  It was bit off in a fight about 25 years ago.  The guy thought I was fucking his wife (I wasn't), and he wanted to kill me.  If I'd had a gun, I would have been justified in killing him, I think -- at one point he'd stunned me, and I came to with him spearing my sternum with copper conduit -- good thing bone is dense, eh?   After coming to, I managed to grapple him to the ground and in the close-quarters combat he bit off some of my ear:



Anyway, had I had a gun that night I probably would have used it, because after being speared like that, I certainly felt my life was on the line.  Granted that the conduit itself wasn't deadly, but the intent he showed in attacking me in that manner was clearly maniacal.

I'm not saying that either party is guilty or innocent.  I'm saying that I can envision circumstances to justify both possible outcomes of the trial.

[SvZurich]

Well it doesn't. No amount of walking behind someone cancels your right to not be assaulted.

If someone stalks me, I will assume my safety and life are in danger, and will be considering violent ways to defend myself.  Ink pen (Cross) in the throat or eye are my first choices.  If I am carrying, I will chamber a round at this point instead.

[SvZurich]

Thump, in your circumstances, I too would have shot if carrying.  I am sorry you went through that dear.  That bastard deserves to be punished severely.