What the media chooses not to know. The mainstream journalistic malpractice continues, and it will likely lead to race riots when Zimmerman is found not guilty.
70 thoughts on “Trayvon Martin”
Comments are closed.
What the media chooses not to know. The mainstream journalistic malpractice continues, and it will likely lead to race riots when Zimmerman is found not guilty.
Comments are closed.
Buying a drink and candies, even if those items are part of a formula for a recreational drug, is not a crime. Even if Zimmerman knew about these purchases, they do not give him reason to stop Martin.
Martin had not smoked dope that night. The levels of THC detected don’t reflect Martin’s character or even his state of mind the night he was shot. For one, they are so low as to almost certainly not be connected to recent intoxication: 1.5 nanograms of THC were found as well as 7.3 nanograms of THC-COOH, a metabolite of THC that can stay in the system for weeks after cannabis has been smoked. Immediately after inhaling, THC levels typically rise to 100 to 200 nanograms per milliter of blood, although there can be a great deal of variation.
Again, even if Martin had smoked dope, Zimmerman, not being a police officer nor having probable cause, had no authority to stop Martin.
What you fail to grasp, Rand, is that Martin doesn’t have to be a saint in order to make Zimmerman’s shooting of him a crime.
You are apparently clueless about what I grasp and what I don’t grasp.
Then why do you persist in slandering a dead person? The only facts relevant in a criminal case like this are what Zimmerman knew and what Martin was doing while being observed by Zimmerman.
As pushback against the media in a) their continuing slander of George Zimmerman and b) their continuing attempts to paint Martin as an innocent little child, ruthlessly “hunted down” by the racist white guy.
Martin was innocent. He had done nothing wrong until after Zimmerman hung up with police. Then, suddenly, we’re to believe that Martin ambushes Zimmerman while the later is taking 3 minutes to walk 30 yards to his vehicle. 3 minutes to cover 30 yards in an “effing cold” rain.
Perhaps Zimmerman’s story is true, and perhaps reasonable doubt will get him off. But it sounds fishy as hell.
Zimmerman is innocent. Martin had no right to pummel him. Is that what you mean by was?
Martin was innocent. He had done nothing wrong until after Zimmerman hung up with police. Then, suddenly, we’re to believe that Martin ambushes Zimmerman while the later is taking 3 minutes to walk 30 yards to his vehicle. 3 minutes to cover 30 yards in an “effing cold” rain.
You seem to be the one “leading us to believe” that. What’s the evidence for this assertion?
Perhaps Zimmerman’s story is true, and perhaps reasonable doubt will get him off. But it sounds fishy as hell.
Based on what?
What I’m curious about is whether they tested Martin’s blood for DXM, which perhaps wasn’t done because it’s found in cough syrup. The low levels of THC in Martin’s blood are probably worse than high-levels, which would’ve pointed to extreme mellowness. ^_^
And Chris, what you fail to grasp is that absolutely nothing that’s come out makes Zimmerman’s shooting of Martin a crime.
We have only Zimmerman’s story as to who stopped who and how that led to a fight. Since he’s a defendant in a murder trial who went running after Martin with a gun in his waistband, color me suspicious.
You are wrong Chris, and you know you are wrong, besides Zimmerman’s story we have physical evidence and other witnesses.
You haven’t responded at all to the media continuous portrayal of Martin as a Cherubic teen. Any thoughts on that?
You haven’t responded at all to the media continuous portrayal – isn’t that what I’m doing now? I’m responding to attempts by people with agendas to use MSM-provided information to slander Martin.
I’m also pointing out that Martin does not have to be a saint for his shooting to be wrong.
I see your problem. Let me clear it up for you. Because of Martin’s actions proved by the physical evidence…
MARTIN IS DEAD AND DESERVES TO BE.
He earned his death by his actions. If he hadn’t attacked Zimmerman that would be a different story. You have to stop claiming a different story where no evidence exists. Sainthood on anybodies part has nothing to do with it. The right to protect your own life when under assault (and I didn’t need to add that qualifier) is INALIENABLE. It can not be taken away by anyone.
You keep saying Zimmerman stopped Trayvon. I have never seen that in any of the reporting. In any case talking to someone isn’t a crime nor does it legally warrant beating the shit out of someone.
Trayvon was innocent right up until he grappled Zimmerman and ground and pounded him.
Trayvon was innocent right up until he grappled Zimmerman and ground and pounded him.
I didn’t scroll down enough earlier, but this is the issue.
We have only Zimmerman’s story as to who stopped who and how that led to a fight.
Exactly. There is no evidence to counter his testimony, and therefore no evidence with which to convict. The only available evidence indicates that he was being attacked by Martin. You do realize that the burden is on the prosecutor to prove him guilty, not on him to prove himself innocent, right? The case should be dropped, because it is unwinnable, absent new evidence that the prosecutor has not provided.
No, actually, since Zimmerman admits to shooting Martin, Zimmerman has to make an affirmative defense. He has to prove that it was reasonable to shoot Martin. In addition, the prosecutor does have evidence that she has not provided publicly – Zimmerman’s statements to police.
Z’s “I was ambushed” story never made sense. It made even less sense when I heard that M was on the phone during the start of the fight and M’s best weapon, the can of ice tea, never left his pocket. I mean, if you were going to ambush somebody at night, wouldn’t you hit them with whatever heavy object you had to hand?
So, based on this, Corey can present an alternative theory of what happened, based on the girlfriend’s testimony. It goes something like this: Zimmerman kept looking for Martin after the call with police. Z found M, walked up to him and demanded to know what he was doing. M, having no reason or requirement to answer, asked instead who Z was.
At some point, M turned to leave, and Z grabbed him. M punched Z, who fell down backwards. Z, on the ground after being clocked by a person he thought was an armed criminal (see Z’s apology at his bail hearing) goes for his gun. (I would. Wouldn’t you?) Maybe M sees him going for a gun and tries to stop him, maybe not. Either way, M ends up dead.
In this scenario, since Z initiated contact twice (stop & grab) and was the adult, it looks to me like he’s guilty of manslaughter.
If I have some putz in the ‘mount’ position, I have no -need- of a weapon.
I’m not necessarily intending to kill this ass (though he might fear that I am), but a couple hard hits to the face and bonks off the concrete would all go off without significant opposition.
It’s -quite- difficult to get out of ‘mount’ without specific training.
The victim’s even called 9-freakking-11, but as usual when seconds count, they’re mere minutes away.
Luckily for the victim, he was legally armed.
No, Zimmerman doesn’t have to prove his actions were reasonable, he just has to convince a jury that his version is plausible enough to for them to have a reasonable doubt that he’s guilty.
He’s being tried in the Fifth Appellate District, where his conviction will be overturned if the the jury has been instructed that the defendant has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that his affirmative defense was true, as established in Montijo v. State, a 2011 case, where exactly that happened.
The Florida Bar is considering a change to the jury instructions to make it more clear that the jury has to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self defense.
Al – the question is how Martin got Zimmerman in the “mount position.” The question is also how Zimmerman got his gun out if Martin was mounting him.
George – Zimmerman does have to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that his story is true. It’s a lower standard, but still “proof.”
‘Mount’ Has the guy-on-top’s arms -inside- the guy-on-bottom’s arms. This gives the agressor effectively unlimited access to the face/head.
What it does -not- do is prevent the bottom from fiddling around outside the area between the two faces. Reaching in a pocket for a knife/gun, for instance.
Iff the guy on top knew the guy on bottom was armed, I’d (as the guy on top) be focused on controlling hid freaking arms, not pounding him.
Since he didn’t, I means Zimmerman wasn’t running around like the maniac portrayed with a loose cannon.
Getting someone into “mount” is easy. You attack them first without telegraphing the attack.
Chris, the prepondernace of the evidence thing only applies in the pre-hearing that the Stand Your Ground law allows. The one where the Judge can throw the whole thing out. If it goes to a jury trial, the Prosecution still has to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden is wholly on the Prosecution.
You are getting confused on this and on other legalisms like illegal detention. That requires physical restraint or blocking all avenues of escape, not simply standing in front of somebody and asking them what they are doing there and who they are.
These terms are all defined in the Florida Criminal Code and are not arbitrary words to lightly throw around in a debate. They have very specific legal meanings.
Z’s “I was ambushed” story never made sense. It made even less sense when I heard that M was on the phone during the start of the fight and M’s best weapon, the can of ice tea, never left his pocket. I mean, if you were going to ambush somebody at night, wouldn’t you hit them with whatever heavy object you had to hand?
Let us keep in mind that Martin allegedly pounded Zimmerman’s head into the sidewalk. The sidewalk was larger and heavier than the can of ice tea. It’s also not fragile. Hence, it makes a better weapon of choice.
Chris,
Its not a crime for Zimmerman to confront Martin, follow martin or even verbally harass the moment martin takes offense to this and has a physical response, its martin that has committed a crime. Physical evidence is that martin was beating Zimemrman. As long as Ziimerman could not physically escape from Martin and feared for bodily harm then the shooting has noting to do with stand your ground, its simple justified self defense.
Again an armed society is a polite society, in an armed society you can not EVER EVER use your fists for any purpose against another human being without risking your life. To do so risks ending up as Martin did.
So the specific question to you Chris G is do you not believe that Zimmerman was on the ground with Martin beating on him unable to escape? If that’s the case EVERYTHING else is irrelevant. Also can you say what specific laws you think Zimmerman broke prior to Martin assaulting him?
Even if Zimemrman taunted Martin, martin has no right to use physical force against Zimmerman, unless Zimmerman first uses PHYSICAL force against Martin.
Actually, attempting to stop somebody walking down a public street is a crime. It’s called false arrest, and Martin has a perfect right to self-defense in that case. So, I think Zimmerman was attempting to falsely arrest Martin. I also don’t know when Martin became aware of the gun. If Zimmerman while on the ground pulls a gun, then Martin is fully within his self-defense rights to kill Zimmerman. It has become a fight to the death.
Answer me this – your sister / wife / girlfriend is walking home one night. Some dude follows her in a car, then, when she goes where the car won’t, he gets out and approaches her. She then pepper-sprays the dude. How many months in prison should she get for assault? If your answer is a positive number, please explain why this case is different.
No, in most countries, including just about all of Europe, the US, Canada, and Mexico, the law allows any person to perform an arrest. They do, however, face possible civil or criminal charges if their arrest is found to be invalid, or if they used improper force, etc. One of the more common caveats is that you’re not allowed to transport the person you arrested without their consent.
False arrest? Put the crack pipe down and slowly back away.
But let’s follow your reasoning. Trayvon stopped Zimmerman on the way back to his car. That would be false arrest according to you.
There is a big difference between talking to someone and stopping them and trying to arrest them. There is zero evidence to support the claim Zimmerman tried to arrest Trayvon. There is actually evidence that contradicts this claim.
Actually, attempting to stop somebody walking down a public street is a crime. It’s called false arrest, and Martin has a perfect right to self-defense in that case.
That depends on whether you request they stop or you physically obstruct their egress.
There is ZERO evidence Zimmerman attempted the latter.
stop somebody walking down a public street
There is no more evidence that Zimmerman did that than there is that he started throwing tomahawks at Martin.
Even if Zimemrman taunted Martin, martin has no right to use physical force against Zimmerman, unless Zimmerman first uses PHYSICAL force against Martin.
That’s ridiculous. If I point a gun at you, and threaten to shoot you, you are entirely justified in using physical force to disarm me.
Do you have any evidence that Zimmerman pointed a gun at Martin and threatened to shoot him, or are you just pulling that out of your ass?
IMO, Zimmerman acted improperly by getting out of his vehicle. However, that’s a long way from 2nd degree murder.
Alas, the only person who would have seen that is Martin, and he’s dead.
So let’s just make up stuff.
Larry, Wodun, and Chris, you are all smart enough to understand that Jim’s point wasn’t about the specifics of the Zimmerman & Martin case. Jim was refuting Paul’s claim regarding when anyone – in general – has the right to use physical force.
And good for Jim! Discussing abstract rights and laws is more interesting, since none of us knows what really happened that night.
Actually, the phrase “physical force” in Florida is problematic because of the way Florida defined it. The state’s definition covers all physical force, such as touching (or even smooching?) instead of more precisely limiting the term to “violent force.” Thus the Supreme Court ruled that a conviction of battery in Florida (based on their definition of physical force) doesn’t necessarily satisfy a deportation law that requires a conviction for violent assault.
Also being skipped is the legal existence of “fighting words” in almost all states, which simply reflects the reality that yes, you can manage to goad a resonable person into punching you in the face, and the punch can be perfectly justified.
The distinctions between verbal threats and fighting words are interesting to me. “I’m going to kill you!” seems very different from “you’re a damned fascist!”, and the latter seems much more worthy of legal protection. And yet, the Supreme Court was 9-0 on Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire in deciding that “you’re a damned fascist” constituted fighting words.
Sure pointing a gun at someone might justify physical confrontation but there is no evidence to support that this happened. Trayvon defenders have said that Zimmerman should have ran away, would they say that Trayvon should have ran away?
How many punches to the face does it take before Trayvon decides to remove the gun from Zimmerman’s hand? Why would Trayvon choose to ignore the gun and focus on bashing Zimmerman’s face?
That is an interesting distinction. I would gather that “I’m going to kill you!” is a threat of murder which is legally covered in numerous ways (assault, harrassment, intimidation, etc) so perhaps it doesn’t really need to fall under fighting words since the direct threat already elevated things to a higher level.
The court’s reasoning on the fascist insult probably reflects the line at which a person may respond with force to a mere insult, as opposed to a verbal threat. Without the concept of fighting words there wouldn’t be a way to prosecute a jerk who goes around insulting people until he takes a punch, and the courts would instead have to prosecute and probably convict each of his insulted and unwitting victims for violent physical assault. We’d also be plagued with jerks who publically insult the heck out of everyone because they’d feel untouchable.
Oh, and what would make an interesting case on fighting words is whether you can implicitly consent to be insulted, such as the hypothetical of a comedian suing Mike Tyson for a punch thrown at Mike’s celebrity roast.
>The only facts relevant in a criminal case like this are what Zimmerman knew >and what Martin was doing while being observed by Zimmerman.
Chris,
You seem to not understand the basics of the Law, assume everything you think Zimmerman did is exactly right. He searched for and confronted Martin because he was walking while black. He was a complete ass and called Martin all kinds of derogatory names did all sorts of nasty bad VERBAL things. Its all irrelevant, the key question is who hit who first. If Martin made the first physical contact then Martin not Zimemrman first broke the law.
The first amendment is why the west borough baptist church can go to funerals and try to verbaly provoke a response and nothing can be done to stop them. Assume Zimmerman is as much of an ass as the west borough baptist church being an ass is actually protected in our constitution.
Zimmerman still did not break any law.
Now if Zimmerman was the one to throw the first punch… unlikely, no evidince to show this etc… even if he did then If he then tries to break off the fight and retreat and Martin does not let him, then its still possible for Zimmerman to legally use deadly force if Matin won’t let him run away…
You may not like this fact, but its the way of the Law and why an armed society is a polite society, noone should EVER resort to physical violence to settle an issue. To do so risks ones life, IMHO that is how it should be.
>No, actually, since Zimmerman admits to shooting Martin, Zimmerman has to >make an affirmative defense. He has to prove that it was reasonable to >shoot Martin. In addition, the prosecutor does have evidence that she has >not provided publicly – Zimmerman’s statements to police.
All Zimmerman has to say is he feared for bodily injury , could not escape and was thus justified in using deadly force. That’s it. We have at least one witness that says Zimemrman was on the ground, Martin was on top beating him. The Forensic evidence says Zimmerman had an injusry inflicted by Martin and Martin had no injury other than the gun shot wound. the gun shot was from very close. Martin had to be in physical contact with Zimmerman to be that close.
Based on the time line I’ve seen Zimmerman was on the path from the point of his call back to his truck and martin is the one that had to have turned around and gone back to confront Zimmerman .
Actually, Zimmerman was not on the path to his truck – he had detoured to go between houses. Also, he was on that 30-yard-long path for 3 minutes. Anything faster than a snail could have covered the distance in less time.
You cannot start a fight with an unarmed person and then shoot your way out of it.
So there is physical evidence Zimmerman started a fight like skin abrasions or bruising on the knuckles?
You cannot start a fight with an unarmed person and then shoot your way out of it.
Sure, you can, if your life is threatened.
Is there ANY evidence of any kind other than speculation that Zimmerman tried to detain Martin? Any evidence that he had drawn or shown his gun until he fired the Fatal shot?
I’m not saying he did or did not, only asking if there is any evidence?
It may be that Zimmerman is guilty as you say. Is there any physical evidence that counters Zimmermans Story?
Ever done much shooting?
Suppose Zimmerman had drawn his gun before Martin knocked him down, while falling over backwards it would be really hard to maintain control of the weapon if it was in you hand. I’ve had 4+ years of serious martial arts training and I’ve been an active pistol shooter since I was 10yrs old. I could not do it. Your instinct unless trained in doing a proper fall is to break your fall with your hand, gun in your hand screws this up. I think that the fact Zimmerman ended up on the ground and Still had his gun says it was not drawn until after he was on the ground. Also there is evedence that zimemrman was on the ground screaming for help, its recorded in the 911 calls, witness says Martin was on top.
As for the case of some guy following a girl, until he physically touches her its assault. That does not mean she should not present her pepper spray (or better yet her firearm) and convince him that his best course of action lies elsewhere, but until he touches her she can not fight back.
If the dude the dude so much as touches here she has every right to kill him.
Until that happens she has not right to harm him.
Zimmerman had been trying to detain Martin from the time they first saw each other. That’s why Z got out of his car and chased after M.
I didn’t claim that Z had his gun out before he fell. I too have been shooting pistols since I was a wee lad (12, in my case), and if I have a gun in my pocket and somebody I think was in the wrong puts me on my ass, yeah I’ll draw. So, probably would my dad and his dad. That’s why they told me to never chase after somebody while you’re carrying a gun.
I think you’re wrong on the pepper spray hypothetical, at least in the practical “no jury would convict” sense.
How could Zimmerman have been trying to detain Martin since he first saw him? Does he have some kind of grab-arm mounted in the bed of his pickup truck? If he was trying to detain Martin, why was he spending his time chatting with the 9/11 operators instead of, you know, detaining? The evidence even shows that Zimmerman did not pursue Martin and instead went to find a street address, and was returning to his truck when the confrontation occured. Returning to his truck would definitely be an avoidance of detention opportunities.
And again, detaining someone is legal in the US, Canada, Mexico, England, Germany, Sweden, …
All of the evidence released to the public shows Zimmerman was not trying to detain Trayvon. Following and or talking to does not equal trying to detain or arrest.
We only have Zimmerman’s statement that he was returning to his truck and ambushed in route.
You can only detain somebody if you see them commit a crime. The girlfriend says that Zimmerman stopped Martin.
Following somebody can lead to reasonable people thinking that you mean to do them harm.
The girlfriend also said, in what I assume is a previous version of her story, that Martin started hollering at Zimmerman first and then went to confront him.
In Florida the police can briefly detain somebody if they have reasonable suspicion, which is short of probable cause where they can actually arrest them or get a warrant for their arrest. For example, if you appear drunk someone may briefly stop you to acertain whether you are, in fact, drunk. The other key fact about Florida law is that all people have the same arrest rights and responsibilities as a sworn police officer who is outside of his jurisdiction, and citizen arrests are treated in court identically to such, with the civilian held to exactly the same standards of behavior as a police officer. That’s why Florida law has no seperate sections on citizen arrests. They’re the same as any other arrest.
So even if Zimmerman did try to detain Martin, it was completely legal for him to do so, as he’d established reasonable suspicion in his long, long descriptions to the 911 operator of Martin’s meanderings. The police were on their way based on exactly that reasonable suspicion, and would’ve detained Martin the minute the arrived to figure out if reasonable suspicion rose to probable cause for an arrest (it wouldn’t have).
Zimmerman, about to complete a degree in criminal justice, would know this. Martin wouldn’t have a clue.
Stopping someone to ask a question does not mean they are being detained. Preventing someone from leaving is detention. There is no evidence that Zimmerman prevented Trayvon from leaving. There is evidence that Trayvon prevented Zimmerman from leaving. This would be false arrest.according to you.
Unless you physically obstruct or block somebody, you are not detaining them. Not unless you are a POST Certified LEO in the State of Florida and order them to stay where they are.
A private civilian cannot detain or arrest somebody unless they personally witness them commit a feloinous act.
” until he touches her she can not fight back.”
Paul, where did you get this idea? Jim disagreed above, calling it ridiculous, and I agree. One more example, for clarity: If an angry looking person comes running straight toward me at top speed brandishing a long knife and is shouting “I’M GOING TO KILL YOU!”, you’re saying I can’t shoot him, or even pepper spray him?
Bob, you pretend to be a smart person. Perhaps in your mind of Unicorns and Kingdoms being Republics; you thought Gerrib wouldn’t find it reasonable for a woman to pepper spray a guy yelling “I’m going to kill you!”, anymore than Gerrib finds it unreasonable to shoot a person that just got finished beating your head against the concrete. But I’m going to go out on this rather sturdy limb and consider that Paul assumed the stalker in Gerrib’s scenario was stalking and thus being quiet about it.
In your haste to be insulting, you’ve managed to make no sense at all. Paul was imagining a conversation between the girl and the guy – the imaginary guy wasn’t relying on stealth at that point. But moreover, Paul is arguing for a general principle: that a person has no right to use physical force against a second person, unless the second person first uses PHYSICAL force against the first person. I’m questioning that general principle. If you can’t understand that, I’m not sure I can help you.
Bob, you are pretending again. Paul made no discussion of arguing, as he clarifies later on. Creepy person following you does not equal arguing with you.
I think the actual standard is did you fear for great bodily hard, so an angry man running at you screaming with a knife would pass that test.
I’m thinking more of the following you being creepy case….
Just cause your paranoid does not mean you can shoot anyone just beacuse. Its clear that a naked man covered in blood screaming and runnign with a large sword would pass the fear for great bodily harm test by almost any one… I was thinking more the creepy person following you test… I all really boils down to what can you convince a jury of…. once physical force is imitated by one party it becomes pretty much unambiguous…
Thank you for clarifying.
By the way, the only time I ever saw anything remotely like this was at a City Council meeting, in which a resident lost his cool and walked toward an alderman saying “you’re dead!” The resident was not holding a long knife. The resident did not touch the alderman. I felt sorry for the arresting officer. Here he was, in front of 1) his boss, the police chief; 2) his boss’ boss, the city manager, and 3) his boss’ boss’ bosses, the aldermen and the mayor, and 4) their bosses, a crowd of voters. Clearly, the officer would want to use just the right amount of force when handcuffing the resident and taking him away.
But he was arrested and taken away. I don’t know what happened next.
“But officer, she was so sexy and her top was just busting out! So I shot her.”
A whole new murder defense is born from a typo.
Martin has a perfect right to self-defense
Yup. Too bad for your argument that there’s no evidence of that. The problem isn’t that there might be a case where Martin is just an innocent angel defending himself. The problem is it doesn’t matter and Zimmerman can not be found guilty based on what might have been.
Once Martin started throwing punches, he forfeited his life.
Once he got Zimmerman on the ground and continued to pummel his head against the sidewalk, he was bought and paid for.
Cool! An entire thread in italics!
…but it stops here!
I like italics, but I hope the thread can be set straight.
Well, 5% of threads are, you know, not straight.
I am curious if it really does.
Well, perhaps we should take a moment to remember Aldus Pius Manutius, who invented both italic type, the comma, and was the first to establish how to use a semicolon.
Thank you Aldus.
Now please switch us back to a non-italicized sans-serif font.
Holy cr*p, I can’t believe that praying to Aldus Manutius for intervention actually worked, but it did! 😀
I wonder if that’s in the WordPress manual?
Remember that (as evidenced in his blog posts) in the red-sun universe where Gerrib lives , basic laws of encomics and logic do not exist. So of course in that universe, what constitutes an act of justifiable is different from the universe where the rest of us live.
The Trayvon Martin affair has some similarities with the well-known tendency of (for example) men accused of housebreaking or assault to turn up at court in a suit. Old joke over here in UK: “What do you call a Scouser in a suit?” “Don’t know, what do you call him?” “The accused.”
For non-Brits here (probably the majority), Scousers is another name for people from Liverpool.