Trayvon Martin

[Colly Wolly]

Well I believe that there's another eyewitness - the one who has been on some news programs the last few days and who is one of the 9/11 callers - he says (as this article notes) that there is no question that the guy in blue (Martin) was on top of the guy in red (Zimmerman) and pummeling him.

That is consistent with Zimmerman's account - that he got knocked down immediately - and consistent with his broken nose - which wld explain why he went straight down and why he also might have started to believe he was in mortal danger (if someone breaks your nose, then jumps on top of you and starts bashing your head against concrete in a dark place I would expect that one's danger sensors might go into hyperdrive).

The evidence seems strong at this point that the cries for help were from Zimmerman which wouldn't make any sense if (a) he were the one who instigated the attack and (b) if he were already brandishing a weapon.

It sounds like he panicked - if he'd intended or wanted to use deadly force he wouldn't have been calling for help.

IF his account is accurate - and I'm not assuming it is, even though the eyewitnesses and his injuries seem to corroborate it - and he was, in fact, getting his head bashed against the concrete by a bigger dude on top of him then, in a panicked state, he might have thought he was one or two head-to-concrete bashes away from death or brain damage.

The tragically sucky thing is that if he weren't an idiot he wld have taken a shot at the kids knee or thigh. On the other hand - he may have thought that if he didn't kill Martin then Martin was going to kill him.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and predict Robin is gonna have a hard time accepting any of this.

[Jacob]

Can you imagine up a scenario where an armed citizen could justifiably detain a fellow citizen by threat of deadly force, where the detainee is safely and legally occupying a public space? That would help me understand what additional information might be relevant to a self-defense plea if the armed person then killed the fellow citizen. And just for the sake of argument, let's say that the detained-then-killed person in the scenario meets the legal definition of being a 'child.'

Why do you continue with this fantasy hypothetical detention with threat of deadly force? Interesting, indeed.

So far no description of the altercation matches all of the 'facts' as we know them. Zimmerman's account (both the version where he said Martin went for his gun, and this newer version, where that detail isn't mentioned) + Martin's GF's account of what she heard (Martin saying that he was afraid and that he was attempting to walk quickly away from the area when Zimmerman approaches him for questioning) + the 13yo eye witness who claims to have seen a man matching Zimmerman's description on the ground, calling out for help, but not seeing anyone on top of him (the cries for help stopped immediately after the gun shot, as established by the 911 call where the killing shot can be heard).

Of course the cries for help stopped after the gunshot. You would expect that regardless of which party they came from, no?
But it seems that this latest version does in fact meet all the "facts" as we know them. I'm not seeing the same gaps you are seeing. The GF account matches Zimmerman's account and the 911 recording and the conclusion of the police investigation. Where are you seeing the contradiction?

But lets put all this aside for a moment. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that this latest account is true (the one posted by Oxcoug). Would it change your opinion of the case?

[RobinFinderson]

Halt doesn't mean detain necessarily. If someone is advancing towards another with the intent to attack, halt can mean stop coming towards me.

Got it. I understand and agree with your point. If Martin was approaching Zimmerman, and Z said, "Halt, I have a gun," that would not be an attempt to detain by threat of deadly force. Of course that isn't Z's story. If, however, Zimmerman came upon Martin in the process of fleeing and said, "Halt, I have a gun," that would be an attempt to detain by threat of deadly force. Can we agree on that?

[Colly Wolly]

Can we at least agree that Zimmerman wasn't getting beat up by a "child"?

It detracts from his position. So no.

[Colly Wolly]

Got it. I understand and agree with your point. If Martin was approaching Zimmerman, and Z said, "Halt, I have a gun," that would not be an attempt to detain by threat of deadly force. Of course that isn't Z's story. If, however, Zimmerman came upon Martin in the process of fleeing and said, "Halt, I have a gun," that would be an attempt to detain by threat of deadly force. Can we agree on that?

Yes. 100%.

[Jacob]

I find myself becoming less critical of Zimmerman as a person. I don't know that we'll ever have all of the details. And if we do, if that will even be enough to put out the fire and anger across the country. It's incidents like this that reveal that we're not where we thought we were.

I agree with the rest or your post, but have to question this point. Is it the incident (i.e. the killing) or the public and media reaction to the incident that reveals that we are not where we thought we were.

Either way, I'm not sure I agree. This incident seems to reveal that we are exactly where we thought we were.

The tragically sucky thing is that if he weren't an idiot he wld have taken a shot at the kids knee or thigh. On the other hand - he may have thought that if he didn't kill Martin then Martin was going to kill him.

Again, I agree with everything in your post except for this. I think just about everybody who is a big gun owner will tell you, when you shoot someone, you don't aim for their leg. The question is whether to shoot, not where you aim. You shoot to kill. And if you are in the middle of a fight and you aim for the knee, you probably miss.

[Paperback Writer]

For real. I don't know Martin's h/w but all of us who follow recruiting know that there are 17 year olds who are 6'6 290 pounds and a lot more physically fit than some domesticated older guys.

The Zimmerman police report lists Martin as 6'0 160 lbs. Zimmerman was listed as 5'9 no weight given but may have outwieghed Martin. I have a soon to be 17-year-old son and almost never refer to him as a child.

[Jacob]

I'm not a fighter. Maybe I would be now that I'm older and bigger and stronger than 90% of other people. But my instinct when I got into a fight as an 17 yo was to block the punches and get away. That's right. Choose your derogatory term. I didn't fight back against the slightly smaller, older guy attacking me and his 3 buddies.
Had I punched a guy who was following me and he fell down (as apparently happened to Zimmerman) I would have then fled. But that's not what Martin did. I have a hard time understanding the mentality of a person that first knocks a guy down and then gets on top of him and continues beating him. I've just never been a violent person. But I know that some people are fighters. So what about the gun? For some reason, I don't have the same reaction to the use of the gun. I can better understand pulling out the gun when being beaten on the ground than I can jumping on top of someone who is already down to beat them further.

This case was hard to understand from the beginning. Why would Zimmerman shoot an unarmed teenager? By all accounts, Zimmerman is a good guy. Never in legal trouble. A mentor. So what would make him shoot someone? The guy we hear on the 911 recordings is calm, and doesn't sound like he is wanting a fight. He's calling the police, after all. A guy looking for a fight or to cause harm to a random black kid usually doesn't call the police.

Something must have happened. This latest account makes sense of the situation, so I tend to believe it, unless it is contradicted by further evidence. It explains why the calm Zimmerman would have reached for his gun and pulled the trigger. The police seem justified in handling the case the way they did. And all the usual suspects react exactly the way you would expect them to react.

[UtahDan]

Really? On such little information? Also interesting.

I didn't say that was what happened, I was just agreeing with the hypothetical.

[RobinFinderson]

Can we at least agree that Zimmerman wasn't getting beat up by a "child"?

This is a stupid argument, and this will be the last time I address it. Yes, a 17 yo can have an adult physical body, but in every other significant way, emotionally, cognitively, and LEGALLY, a 17-yo is a CHILD.

What is still missing from the story and is absolutely critical is when exactly Zimmerman produced the weapon and when Martin knew Zimmerman had a weapon.

I agree that this is a very important detail, and it speaks to my question about how Martin knew that Zim had a gun, and whether or not Martin went for the gun.

For real. I don't know Martin's h/w but all of us who follow recruiting know that there are 17 year olds who are 6'6 290 pounds and a lot more physically fit than some domesticated older guys.

Who knows what sources are accurate, but most reports I have read describe Martin as 6'-3" and 150 pounds. That is EXTREMELY SKINNY. Most sources describe Zim as having 100+ pounds on Martin.

Why do you continue with this fantasy hypothetical detention with threat of deadly force? Interesting, indeed.

Of course the cries for help stopped after the gunshot. You would expect that regardless of which party they came from, no?
But it seems that this latest version does in fact meet all the "facts" as we know them. I'm not seeing the same gaps you are seeing. The GF account matches Zimmerman's account and the 911 recording and the conclusion of the police investigation. Where are you seeing the contradiction?

But lets put all this aside for a moment. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that this latest account is true (the one posted by Oxcoug). Would it change your opinion of the case?

According to Martin's GF, Martin was in the process of fleeing when he was confronted by Zimmerman. According to Zimmerman, he was returning to his car when he was confronted by Martin. There is a contradiction regarding who was stalking whom. That matters as it relates to Zim's claim to self defense.

If I was being attacked, and I was crying out for help, and I shot my assailant, I would continue to cry out for help, especially if I was possibly seriously injured from having my head repeatedly slammed into the sidewalk. Zim might just be different, but to answer your question, I would NOT necessarily expect the cries for help to stop after the deadly shot.

[Shaka]

This is a stupid argument, and this will be the last time I address it. Yes, a 17 yo can have an adult physical body, but in every other significant way, emotionally, cognitively, and LEGALLY, a 17-yo is a CHILD.

A child who, had he been the one who killed Zimmerman, would most likely be tried as an adult.

I think using the term child to describe this kid doesn't serve your cause. by your definition I was a child well beyond the age of eighteen. On the flip side my best friend was making far better decisions than a lot of adults at seventeen.

[UtahDan]

Well I believe that there's another eyewitness - the one who has been on some news programs the last few days and who is one of the 9/11 callers - he says (as this article notes) that there is no question that the guy in blue (Martin) was on top of the guy in red (Zimmerman) and pummeling him.

That is consistent with Zimmerman's account - that he got knocked down immediately - and consistent with his broken nose - which wld explain why he went straight down and why he also might have started to believe he was in mortal danger (if someone breaks your nose, then jumps on top of you and starts bashing your head against concrete in a dark place I would expect that one's danger sensors might go into hyperdrive).

The evidence seems strong at this point that the cries for help were from Zimmerman which wouldn't make any sense if (a) he were the one who instigated the attack and (b) if he were already brandishing a weapon.

It sounds like he panicked - if he'd intended or wanted to use deadly force he wouldn't have been calling for help.

IF his account is accurate - and I'm not assuming it is, even though the eyewitnesses and his injuries seem to corroborate it - and he was, in fact, getting his head bashed against the concrete by a bigger dude on top of him then, in a panicked state, he might have thought he was one or two head-to-concrete bashes away from death or brain damage.

The tragically sucky thing is that if he weren't an idiot he wld have taken a shot at the kids knee or thigh. On the other hand - he may have thought that if he didn't kill Martin then Martin was going to kill him.

If that is the case then it sounds like self defense to me. Even if Martin had a legal excuse to strike Zimmerman, that privilege is not going to extend to beating him while he's down. Under those circumstances I believe the law would support the use of deadly force. Again, if that is what happened.

I'm not a fan of vigilantes walking around armed. On the other hand, perhaps it saved his life here.

Robin or anyone else, what is the argument that once Martin has him down and is beating him that he is not justified in using deadly force at that point? Or is there evidence that contradicts that account?

[Shaka]

I have a hard time understanding the mentality of a person that first knocks a guy down and then gets on top of him and continues beating him.

You've obviously never played hockey.

[UtahDan]

You've obviously never played hockey.

Sounds like someone who is angry.

[RobinFinderson]

Robin or anyone else, what is the argument that once Martin has him down and is beating him that he is not justified in using deadly force at that point? Or is there evidence that contradicts that account?

If Martin didn't initiate the confrontation, and was presented by a threat of deadly force (Zim illegally brandishing a gun, or being told to stop fleeing by threat of deadly force) then he would be protected by Florida's Stand Your Ground law. He would not be obliged to stop the beating or flee until Zim was 100% incapacitated/dead.