This message was self-deleted by its author

[Atypical Liberal]

This message was self-deleted by its author (Atypical Liberal) on Thu Mar 22, 2012, 01:46 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[DearAbby]

1. There will be an investigation

[CAPHAVOC]

90. Grand Jury

Will get to the bottom of this. Never believe media reports until the facts are clear. They are always at least half wrong at first. They go without corroboration to try and get a scoop.

[Atypical Liberal]

203. I can't wait for a Grand Jury and independent investigation, hopefully by the FBI.

This could turn out to be a hate crime.

[CAPHAVOC]

291. Or a murder

Or not. This media outburst is reminding me of the Casey Anthony mass insanity. The Holder Justice Dept. and FBI will get it right. Lets not jump the gun.

[JustAnotherGen]

2. Sooooo

Since Trayvon fought back against his attacker - his attacker had the right to shoot him?

Wait - Stalker AND Attacker. . . The 140 lb CHILD got the best of the 28 year old 250 pound GROWN MAN and then the grown man couldn't take it - and shot him - is that correct?

[Atypical Liberal]

8. We don't know who the attacker was.

Since Trayvon fought back against his attacker - his attacker had the right to shoot him?

Wait - Stalker AND Attacker. . . The 140 lb CHILD got the best of the 28 year old 250 pound GROWN MAN and then the grown man couldn't take it - and shot him - is that correct?

Bear in mind I am not defending Zimmerman because all the facts are not yet known.

But I will point out here that we don't know who started the fight.

And a 17-year-old "child" can beat you to death. There is a 911 caller and eye witness who claims he saw Travyon on top of Zimmerman beating him while Zimmerman called for help. You can here his account in one of the vidoes above.

Zimmerman was beaten.

Finally, being beaten can be justification for self-defense with deadly force.

[ScreamingMeemie]

13. Yes we do...

" He said this man was watching him, so he put his hoodie on. He said he lost the man...I asked Trayvon to run, and he said he was going to walk fast. I told him to run but he said he was not going to run.

Trayvon said, 'What, are you following me for,' and the man said, 'What are you doing here.' Next thing I hear is somebody pushing, and somebody pushed Trayvon because the head set just fell. I called him again and he didn't answer the phone."

http://gawker.com/5894832/trayvon-martins-girlfriend-i-told-him-to-run-seconds-before-he-was-shot

[ellisonz]

36. Don't bother.

Last edited Wed Mar 21, 2012, 02:31 PM - Edit history (1)

Atypical Liberal
Response to safeinOhio (Original post)
Fri Feb 24, 2012, 10:47 AM

I find it hard to muster up sympathy for dead armed robbers.

The simple fact is two armed men decided that this clerk's life was worth whatever money and/or property he was carrying. They were willing to threaten and presumably follow through with killing him to get it.

I just can't muster much sympathy when their victim killed them instead.

Personally I think the law ought to be that if you get killed during the commission of an armed robbery it shouldn't matter how you got killed. Shot in the front, shot in the back, or hung from a tree.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=17132

[cali]

49. why is that poster even here?

"a typical liberal", my ass.

[ellisonz]

57. Believe it or not...

...he's actually one of the more "with it" Gungeon posters.

Also, I believe sometimes it's better to try to educate than just alert away. A noble goal, but questionable in practice.

[2ndAmForComputers]

282. "One of the more 'with it'?" Who are the others then, Charles Manson & Co.?

[MADem]

70. not "a" typical, but "atypical." Atypical = not typical. nt

[muriel_volestrangler]

73. "atypical", ie "not typical"

Such as, in this case, thinking it's fine for a vigilante to follow and confront someone doing nothing wrong whatsoever. Apparently, they do it themselves all the time, in their own neighborhood.

[DLevine]

82. Wow. n/t

[Atypical Liberal]

93. I'm very interested in the facts.

I'm very interested in the facts, thank you very much.

[ScreamingMeemie]

116. It appears you are not very interested in the facts.

I posted a link to the witnesses who saw (from right across the street, on their porch) Mr. Zimmerman straddling Trayvon...and you've yet to respond. You can also turn on HLN and hear the witnesses and also from the lawyer who states that what Mr. Zimmerman did, in pursuit of Trayvon was outside the law.

I wonder why that is...?

[liberalhistorian]

137. Because it wouldn't fit his

"guns uber alles" and his type's desperate determination to protect and defend the use of guns no matter how, why or what. The facts that we know so far in this case clearly implicate Zimmerman, especially that he was the aggressor who had no right to confront this kid who was minding his own damned business walking home from the store to where he was staying, which was IN that neighborhood, and there was no reason for the watch captain to have a gun in the first place. Most watch captains are unarmed and they listen when 911 operators tell them NOT TO CONFRONT people but to wait for police. Especially when it's a young unarmed black kid doing nothing but minding his own damned business.

But these gun nuts will do anything to justify any actions taken with a gun, even if the stalked and murdered person was "armed" with only a bag of skittles and a can of iced tea. But I hear those skittles bags can turn into really heavy, dangerous weapons. Sheesh.

And as far as "we don't know who was the aggressor". BULL. SHIT. The kid was walking home when the murderer GOT OUT OF HIS CAR TO CONFRONT HIM for the "crime" of walking while black, even AFTER being told by 911 NOT TO DO SO. If the murderer had any wounds at all it was due to the kid DEFENDING HIMSELF from being aggressively confronted.

And if you'll note on Zimmerman's 911 call, he hits every black stereotype promulgated and promoted by racists, particularly when it comes to blacks and crimes. "He looks like he's on drugs." "He's wearing a hoodie". "He keeps staring at all the houses". Check, check and check. Oh, and let's not forget "I'm tired of these assholes getting away" and his "fucking coons or punks" (it's unknown at this point which word he said) statements. There would have been NO reason for him to "defend" himself if he'd left his stereotypes at home, recognized the kid as a neighbor and LEFT HIM THE FUCK ALONE AND LET HIM WALK HOME FROM THE FUCKING STORE IN PEACE. Period. That poor child was absolutely terrified and screaming for his life at the point when the fucker brought out his gun, which he shouldn't have had in the first fucking place.

But these goddamned guns uber alles people would have guns everywhere all the time, including in churches and bars, so that we have NO peace whatsoever from them. And they excuse those who use them illegitimately all the fucking time. Since FL has enacted the "murder with impunity"-oops, I mean the "stand your ground" law, there have been THREE HUNDRED FIFTY MURDERS attributed to it. THREE HUNDRED FIFTY. But I suppose, to you, they ALL "deserve" it. ANYTHING to protect your "murder with impunity" laws that are causing tragedies like this and destroying this country.

[EmeraldCityGrl]

150. +1000

[Atypical Liberal]

168. Everyone seems eager to talk about skittles and iced tea.

Last edited Wed Mar 21, 2012, 03:20 PM - Edit history (1)

That poor child was absolutely terrified and screaming for his life at the point when the fucker brought out his gun, which he shouldn't have had in the first fucking place.

Everyone seems eager to talk about skittles and iced tea but no one wants to address the fact that that "poor child" evidently beat Zimmerman pretty good.

Again, the question all boils down to who started the physical confrontation.

There is no reason why Zimmerman should not have had a gun. He had a concealed carry permit and it was completely lawful for him to be carrying one.

[polly7]

175. Big deal!

Would you stand and allow someone (NOT a cop) who'd been stalking you with a gun to continue to do who knows what else? How would - yes, that poor child - not fear for his life and why wouldn't he defend it?

[Atypical Liberal]

196. I'm not aware of any evidence of Zimmerman brandishing his concealed firearm.

Would you stand and allow someone (NOT a cop) who'd been stalking you with a gun to continue to do who knows what else? How would - yes, that poor child - not fear for his life and why wouldn't he defend it?

There is no evidence that I am aware of of Zimmerman brandishing his weapon prior to the altercation. So Martin would not have any reason to initiate a physical response to Zimmerman nor fear Zimmerman because he was carrying a gun.

Of course, Zimmerman would have no reason to initiate a physical response to Martin, either.

All we know, from Martin's girlfriend, is that Zimmerman asked Martin what he was doing there.

After that, it seems there was a fight. What remains to be determined is who started it.

[Ikonoklast]

270. The person that got out of his car, and accosted a pedestrain minding his own busines initiated

any confrontation that followed.

If Zimmerman had remained in his vehicle, none of this would have happened.

But he made sure there was a confrontation; in fact, he sought one out.

And that is why he will go before a judge.

[ScreamingMeemie]

177. "evidently beat Zimmerman pretty good"

I have yet to see any proof of that, outside of initial police statements. One would think, if it were true, the police would eagerly trot out photographs to prove it...if only to take the heat off of their department.

[Atypical Liberal]

193. If the police are lying or covering up that that is something that needs to come out.

If the police lied or covered up for Zimmerman than that needs to come out in an investigation and should be pretty easy to refute through a medical examination.

I would think any claim of self-defense would hinge on this.

If there is no evidence of a physical altercation it is going to be hard to justify self-defense.

[polly7]

200. It's not self-defense in any case.

Any more than for the case of any stalker finally trapping his prey and not getting peaceful submission.

[Duer 157099]

220. "There is no reason why Zimmerman should not have had a fun."

Is that a Freudian typo or something?

[Atypical Liberal]

223. Fixed.

Sorry.

[Blue_Tires]

226. OK, I've got to stop you here because you are locked in to this

"Martin was beating Zimmerman to an inch of his life" narrative like its the unquestioned truth

Any possibility at all that Zimmerman slipped on the wet grass? Maybe he tripped and Martin was actually trying to help him up? Maybe all Martin did was shove him, or brush him off in the get-your-hands-off-of-me kind of way? Maybe Martin actually got the worst of the beating, but it's not like the cops gave a shit about investigating anything other than sewing this thing up as fast as possible...See? Random unfounded speculation is fun and we can do it all day!

And as I have said repeatedly, the question doesn't boil down to "who started the physical confrontation," because when you start there, for legal arguement's sake the two men are equals with NO CONTEXT OF THE SITUATION leading up to it considered...One more time, the question boils down to WHY did Zimmerman follow, report to police, chase down on foot and the accost Martin? There has to be a much more concrete reason other than "suspicious activity"... THIS is where the case starts, because if those four parts aren't met then Zimmerman is the "threat", and nothing he did after that is justifiable...

It would do you some good to honestly put yourself in the mind of a 17-year-old getting tailed by some burly stranger and how you would react...

It would do you some good to honestly think about the indignity of being treated by strangers like a common street criminal based on your appearance...


Since you're so hellbent on exonerating Zimmerman (not sure if serious, trolling or just devil's advocate), please come up with any reason why Martin's actions were worthy of so much attention from the un-official nightwatch captain...

[yardwork]

230. What evidence do you have that Zimmerman was beaten?

Do you know Zimmerman personally? Have you seen him? Is there a photo of Zimmerman with evidence that he was beaten? Has anybody claimed to see Zimmerman since this took place? Link?

[Blue_Tires]

204. very true

That transcript is so crammed with coded stereotypes it's almost like it was rehearsed...

From the FIRST thing he says: "We've had some break-ins in our neighborhood" = I think I've found the culprit, nevermind the fact that nobody does break-ins at 7 p.m. on Sunday

"Looking at all the houses" = casing the neighborhood

"Now he's looking at me" = an immediate threat to a law-abiding citizen

"Now he's coming towards me" = Send the cops over NOW

"He's got his hands in his waistband" = armed

"He's got something in his hands" = pulled the gun out

"How long until you get an officer over here" = crime about to or being committed, but suspect will likely escape before police arrive

[csziggy]

292. Zimmerman's call about Martin was almost the same as some of his other 911 calls

And if you'll note on Zimmerman's 911 call, he hits every black stereotype promulgated and promoted by racists, particularly when it comes to blacks and crimes. "He looks like he's on drugs." "He's wearing a hoodie". "He keeps staring at all the houses". Check, check and check.

Go to the City of Sanford web site - http://www.sanfordfl.gov/index.html - then to the link for the Trayvon Martin investigation. Then listen to some of Zimmerman's previous calls. Several might as well have been rehearsals for his call about Trayvon.

[Atypical Liberal]

151. I cannot find your link.

I am getting lost in all the replies, but I went down through all your posts below and don't see the link, unless I missed it.

Please post the link again, I would like to read it.

[ScreamingMeemie]

167. Here is the link, or you can turn on headline news. They are playing

the Anderson 360 interview at about half hour intervals today:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/21/justice/florida-teen-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=450756

[Atypical Liberal]

170. Thanks, I am reading it now.

I do not have cable so I do not watch traditional television news.

[Atypical Liberal]

184. I have watched it.

"Another caller, Selma Mora Lamilla, said she did not hear any altercation, but the teen cried and "whimpered" before the shooting.

She described Zimmerman as "straddling" the teen after the shooting, saying he was "on his knees on top of a body.""

These women say they did not see the altercation, only the aftermath.

I think it is interesting that they did not hear any struggle or signs of fighting.

But we know that there was a fight as Zimmerman came away from the encounter with a bloody nose and a wound on the back of his head, as well as a wet back with grass on it, according to police testimony.

What seems clear to me was that there was a fight, which ended up on the ground (as many fights do).

It's still not clear who started the fight. Maybe we will never know.

[ScreamingMeemie]

187. Where is the proof of "knowing there was a fight". Have the police released photos

of a bloodied George Zimmerman? No, they have not. Don't you find that odd.

We have proof of nothing but Zimmerman committing murder, with witnesses to the fact even.

[yardwork]

256. You obviously haven't listened to the 911 tapes. Why don't you do that and then get back to us.

Furthermore, I don't "know" that Zimmerman came away from the encounter with "a bloody nose, a wound on the back of his head, or a wet back with grass on it." All I have you - like you, unless you are Zimmerman or were an eyewitness - is the police saying this. The Sanford police have lied about this case from the beginning.

Here's my request. Post evidence that Zimmerman was actually hurt or stop saying it.

[Atypical Liberal]

258. OK.

All I've got is what the responding detective is quoted as saying. I'll stop saying it.

[yardwork]

260. Thank you. The responding detective has been caught in numerous lies about this case.

Also, several of the witnesses state that he "corrected" their statements, including contradicting them and telling them that they actually saw Trayvon on top when they were saying that it was Zimmerman they saw on top.

[yardwork]

255. +1. Numerous people have presented facts that are being ignored by this poster. Wonder why.

[cali]

147. no you're not. not even a little tiny bit, dear.

you've made that very clear.

[baldguy]

182. Funny because your OP is full of nothing but wild speculation.

Speculation that just happens to attempt to exonerate a guy which most evidence suggests is a racist murdering gun nut.

[Atypical Liberal]

188. The speculation is that Zimmerman started the fight.

I agree that it appears Zimmerman is a racist.

What is not clear is who started the physical confrontation. It's clear there was a fight that ended up on the ground. It's not clear who started it.

This is not speculation.

[freshwest]

165. Hung from a tree? Remarkable post. But he owns it, not you.

[Atypical Liberal]

190. Understand that I was talking about what happens to VIOLENT CRIMINALS.

And I stand by my statement that I do not have much sympathy for what happens to violent criminals.

Even if that violent criminal turns out to be Zimmerman.

[ellisonz]

271. Who determines who the violent criminal is?

You're claiming Trayvon Martin may have been a violent criminal because he may have attacked Mr. Zimmerman. Would that then give Mr. Zimmerman the right to lynch Mr. Martin?

[JustAnotherGen]

39. Thank you

For answering those questions.

[Atypical Liberal]

97. We don't know who started the pushing.

Martin asked Zimmerman why he was following him, and then Zimmerman asked Martin what he was doing there.

Then a scuffle is heard.

We don't know who started the scuffle.

[rufus dog]

179. So it is o.k.

To question anyone walking down a street? Is walking while black your defense of Zimmerman? Or is it because he got his ass kicked so using deadly force is justified?

[X_Digger]

183. Confront? Yes. Detain? No. Pull a gun? No.

Of course, Martin had no obligation to say shit to Zimmerman, either.

[ieoeja]

194. This is why pro-gunners like myself have come to despise the pro-gun activists.

I believe in the right to keep and bear arms. I have never wavered in that opinion.

But for the past two or three decades the pro-gun lobby has not just been arguing for the right to keep and bear them. They have been arguing increasingly for the need to *use* them. Crime has been decreasing since the 70s, yet you keep ramping up the "fear and kill" rhetoric.

And, Mister, if I needed to use my gun, no law on the rule would stop me. It is just plain sick that you fuckers want to make murder easier as long as the person being killed is an undesirable.

In this post you seem to be implying that it is perfect legitimate to kill someone if they hit you. And you utterly fail to see the complete moral bankruptcy of your position.

Cheerleading a fucking murder because it was a "legal" murder.

Digusting. Contemptible.

"It isn't wrong if we make it legal," ranks right up there with, "it's not illegal if the Governor/President** does it."


[font size=1]**"Governor" because Gov. Len Small (R-IL) first used that defense 90 years ago. Nixon had precedence. He just didn't have Al Capone to bribe and intimidate the jury for him like Gov. Small did.[/font]

[MagickMuffin]

48. I listened to one of the 911 calls

the dispatcher asked if they could tell who was on top of the other man. The witness stated they could NOT tell who was who because they were calling from within their home. They were not close enough to make a judgment.

I'm not going to listen to the link you posted. If this is the same one I listened to when they were first released then you are mistaken. As the witness was not close enough to distinguish what really happened.

[Atypical Liberal]

145. Police reports corroborate the testimony.

http://articles.cnn.com/2012-03-20/justice/justice_florida-teen-shooting_1_martin-family-cell-phone-benjamin-crump/3?_s=PM:JUSTICE

"After speaking with Zimmerman, who had called 911, Smith observed that Zimmerman's "back appeared to be wet and was covered in grass, as if he had been laying on his back on the ground. Zimmerman was also bleeding from the nose and back of his head.""

It does appear that Zimmerman was on his back and did get beat up.

Unless the police are lying, of course.

[Blue_Tires]

237. Police have been twisting and suppressing the investigation from the first hour

The only thing that made them suddenly get off their asses was the fact that the national media started paying attention

[savalez]

61. Where is the evidence that

"Zimmerman was beaten?" I did not read that.

Also, I guarantee that I can provoke any stranger into defending himself. When he does, and the fight is on, am I now defending myself as well or am I just continuing with my original attack? I say the latter.

[Atypical Liberal]

140. Lots of places.

http://articles.cnn.com/2012-03-20/justice/justice_florida-teen-shooting_1_martin-family-cell-phone-benjamin-crump/3?_s=PM:JUSTICE

"After speaking with Zimmerman, who had called 911, Smith observed that Zimmerman's "back appeared to be wet and was covered in grass, as if he had been laying on his back on the ground. Zimmerman was also bleeding from the nose and back of his head.""

Also, I guarantee that I can provoke any stranger into defending himself. When he does, and the fight is on, am I now defending myself as well or am I just continuing with my original attack? I say the latter.

I'm no lawyer, but I'm guessing it depends on the manner of the original provocation.

[savalez]

174. What injuries did Martin have?

I'm no lawyer, but I'm guessing it depends on the manner of the original provocation.

How about stalking an innocent person and then confronting them with a gun?

[UnrepentantLiberal]

123. So one of Zimmerman's neighbors lied for him.

That changes nothing for me.

Two women saw him sitting on Trayvon Martin's back right after they heard the gunshot.
Someone is lying here and I don't think it's the women.

[snooper2]

136. I beat down a 300lb POS once when I weighed 175

FYI,

Bigger doesn't always mean smarter

[Maine-ah]

189. nope

they're also usually slower.

I had to do the same back in high school. Me = 105lb soaking wet...other girl = 180 lbs.

[life long demo]

250. Thanks for posting the physical size differences

I heard this on a newscast but no where else. When I heard the differences in size, I gasp. So Z was protecting himself from Martin. Get real. It does sound like (to me) that Z was a wannabe cop.

[ScreamingMeemie]

3. "Whether or not Zimmerman should have confronted someone in his neighborhood" is not up for debate

in my world. He was told he didn't need to follow Trayvon...and the continued to do so.

The (traced and vetted) phone call of Trayvon's girlfriend, where he talks to her of a man following him. The witnesses (that the cops kept ignoring) who stated they saw Zimmerman straddling Trayvon.

Sorry but, if you follow me, and then touch me, I'm going to think you're going to kill me or hurt me badly (especially if I am a black child in Florida) and I am going to defend myself. That still does not give you the right to track me and hunt me.

I know who started the fight. Zimmerman, when he followed Trayvon. He's a murderer. It sometimes is really that simple.

[Atypical Liberal]

19. That doesn't really mean much to me.

He was told he didn't need to follow Trayvon...and the continued to do so.

The police told Zimmerman that they didn't "need him" to follow Trayvon. They did not tell him that he could not. Zimmerman may have felt it was his responsibility as the Community Watch person to follow until the police arrived. Maybe he was just an over-zealous police-wannabe. I don't know.

But I don't have a problem with a Community Watch person rationally confronting a strange person in a neighborhood. We confront people in our neighborhood all the time - usually kids from other neighborhoods trying to sneak into the community pool at night.

Note that confronting someone doesn't mean you get to assault them. But we don't know who initiated the assault here.

The (traced and vetted) phone call of Trayvon's girlfriend, where he talks to her of a man following him.

Yes, it seems clear that Zimmerman got out of his car and confronted Trayvon.

The witnesses (that the cops kept ignoring) who stated they saw Zimmerman straddling Trayvon

I don't have a cite for that witness. You can hear the account of the witness who says he saw Trayvon straddling Zimmerman in one of the videos above.

Sorry but, if you follow me, and then touch me, I'm going to think you're going to kill me or hurt me badly (especially if I am a black child in Florida) and I am going to defend myself. That still does not give you the right to track me and hunt me.

We don't know who initiated the physical altercation.

I know who started the fight. Zimmerman, when he followed Trayvon. He's a murderer. It sometimes is really that simple.

A neighborhood watch person following a stranger in your neighborhood does not start a fight.

We don't know who started the fight.

[ScreamingMeemie]

35. Yes we do. You follow. You initiate. Simple.

Here's your link.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/21/justice/florida-teen-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

[The Magistrate]

47. Get It Through Your Head, Sir: 'Neighborhood Watch' Has No Legal Authority What-So-Fucking-Ever

People in a neighborhood watch are simply citizens like everyone else. When properly trained, they are told to observe only, and not to carry weapons, it being drilled into them that are not in any way shape or form peace officers.

Of course, this fizzing little fellow was not actually a 'neighborhood watch': he was a self-appointed vigilante, without training or direction, being the sole 'member' of what he styles himself 'captain' of, and was simply the neighborhood busy-body, cruising the streets nightly looking for a chance to shot somebody.

[X_Digger]

172. Actually Zimmerman had the same legal authority as anyone else..

Up until the point that he started the confrontation (assuming witnesses testimony bears out.)

There's nothing illegal about following someone down a public street.

There's nothing illegal about even asking someone what they're doing there. Of course, Martin had no obligation to answer, either.

Who threw the first punch, or did Zimmerman try to detain Martin- that's what the case will hinge on.

[The Magistrate]

207. Which Is None, Sir, Unless Witness To a Crime, Which Zimmerman Was Not

As to the legality of asking someone what they are doing, that depends on the manner in which it is done. If it is done in a belligerent manner, the person addressed may have a reasonable apprehension of imminent danger, and be entitled to act in self-defense.

Following someone on the street certainly can be classed as suspicious, even threatening behavior; it is by no means something a person is absolutely at liberty to do.

[X_Digger]

219. Absent a pattern of following a person (harassment / stalking), no, it is not illegal.

In response to your first statement, you'd be hard pressed to mount a self-defense argument for taking a swing at someone who was following you or asking you a question, even in a belligerent manner.

I daresay that we've seen that argument made in the gungeon @ DU2, and I've seen you take the other side of that position.

[The Magistrate]

229. Now You are Just Making Stuff Up, Sir; You Have Never Seen Me Argue Against Self-Defense

You may have seen me state that a disproportionate or un-necessary degree of force was used i some specific instance, or that a specific claim of self-defense was false, but that is far from what you are claiming.

You do not really seem to have a very sound grasp of what people can and can do in regard to employment of violence....

[X_Digger]

238. Actually, I know my state's laws backwards and forwards, have followed as many cases as my westlaw..

.. credentials can bring up.

Perhaps it's different in your state, in which case we're simply talking past each other.

[The Magistrate]

242. Perhaps, Sir

It is not my custom to argue from personal history, but I have been left on the street by police after having struck people to the ground, including one instance where I freely admitted being the first to strike a blow. I submit my sense of what can and cannot pass muster on the street is pretty good....

"In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is always a difference."

[Atypical Liberal]

186. Being the "sole member" is not surprising.

I've lived in two communities with HOAs. Trying to get people to volunteer for community positions is like pulling teeth out of a chicken. I'm not surprised they only have one community watch person.

[The Magistrate]

212. Which Just Says, Sir, Most People Are Not Fizzing With The Desire To Shoot Somebody

The fact is places with homeowners associations generally have minimal levels of crime and no real need for private patrols recruited among the members.

[Justice wanted]

68. You know You should watch an old movie call 12 Angry Men. You remind me of the man who had

all the answers and when it comes down to it HIS own prejudice was the only think keeping him from seeing ALL the facts!

[ScreamingMeemie]

103. That is a perfect analogy!

Thank you

[Justice wanted]

115. His arguements HAVE to be Wingnut talking points. I bet we are going to hear a lot of this in the

next few days.

[tledford]

158. Lee J. Cobb played him beautifully. eom

[Blue_Tires]

232. "A neighborhood watch person following a stranger in your neighborhood does not start a fight."

No true Scotsman?

[Atypical Liberal]

234. You are right.

He was looking for a fight even if he did not physically start it.

[Blue_Tires]

239. So now we get to the WHY was Martin even followed in the first place?

I already have a pretty strong idea, but once we get THAT question answered, then we'll know everything...

[Withywindle]

261. Yes, we DO know who started the fight.

Stalking and trailing a stranger for no reason is a hostile act, especially at night when the stalking victim is on foot and the stalker is in a car. It engenders a fight-or-flight reaction in most people. Unless the stalker can sincerely prove innocent intentions quickly, that IS the start of a fight.

Sounds like at first, Martin did would most people who DON'T want a fight would do in this situation - he ran! And then Zimmerman chased him. How is that not Step 2 in an imminent fight?

It doesn't MATTER who threw the first punch. If Martin did, he would have been completely justified in believing that HE was acting in self-defense. He was not the one who acted in a frightening, hostile manner first.

[csziggy]

293. There was no neighborhood watch program

Just Zimmerman as a wanna be cop. There was no organization, no training, no procedures, no other members. Just Zimmerman, wandering around the neighborhood spying on people he considered 'suspicious'.

Go to the city of Sanford site http://www.sanfordfl.gov/index.html and the Trayvon Martin Investigation page. Check out Zimmerman's 911calls of the last six months. Then read the logs of his 911 calls since 2004. Zimmerman was looking for suspicious people everywhere.

[Old and In the Way]

4. Except he had the gun and he left his vehicle to pursue Martin

No Sale.

[Atypical Liberal]

21. He was legally able to carry a gun.

He was legally able to carry a concealed weapon.

We don't know what happened when he got out of his vehicle to confront Martin.

[cali]

56. uh, so what?

He stalked the kid before he killed him. duh.

[arthritisR_US]

102. If I was being stalked there is no way I

wouldn't feel threatened. He stalked in his SUV and then on foot, he was the aggressor.

[Hugabear]

113. We know EXACTLY what happened. He shot and killed an unarmed kid.

That is not in dispute. Whatever happened before that was 100% instigated by Zimmerman.

[XanaDUer]

114. So you admit he left his vehicle

To confront Martin. I'm not getting the premise about who started the fight. Real NW volunteers have guidelines to follow. Pursuit W/ weapons does not fall within those guidelines.

[liberalhistorian]

154. Jesus Christ. Do you NOT understand

that he SHOULDN'T HAVE GOTTEN OUT OF HIS VEHICLE TO CONFRONT HIM IN THE FIRST FUCKING PLACE? What part of that is so hard for you to understand? And he had NO legal authority whatsoever to be doing what he was doing, he wasn't even a true "neighborhood watch captain". He ignored 911's orders to NOT GET OUT OF THE FUCKING CAR. If someone gets out of their car and confronts me while I'm walking home from the store IN MY OWN GODDAMNED NEIGHBORHOOD, you'd better believe I'm gonna have a problem with that. And if I'm unarmed, as the kid was, you'd better believe the confronter has a far greater advantage over me.

You seem not to understand or accept that Zimmerman shouldn't have gotten out of his car and had NO RIGHT OR BUSINESS doing so in the first place. For someone so big on self-defense against aggressors, you seem not to understand that the kid also felt threatened being stalked and followed (as he told his girlfriend when he was on the phone with her when Zimmerman first started following him in his car) and had the right to then defend himself and he was greatly outmatched. Unless you consider a bag of skittles and a can of Arizona iced tea to be dangerous weapons right up there on a par with a fucking GUN.

But anything to defend a fellow gun nut and those "murder with impunity" laws, huh?

[Atypical Liberal]

235. You are right.

He went looking for a fight and he found one, whether he actually started the physical confrontation or not.

[jeff47]

267. Starting the physical confrontation is irrelevant

The "stand your ground" law means the kid could have legally shot Zimmerman, because Zimmerman was perusing him.

So the kid could have been beating the holy shit out of Zimmerman and be in both the legal and moral right.

On the other hand, Zimmerman decided to leave his vehicle and chase down someone when he had no reason to believe the kid was doing anything illegal, much less threatening to Zimmerman. That makes him a murderer.

[slackmaster]

5. Zimmerman is not on the short list for a MacArthur Foundation grant for his neighborhood watch work

He seems to be a dim bulb.

[DearAbby]

6. You also forget

Trayvon Martin also had a right to stand his ground and fight for his life. I suppose if the teenager was armed he wouldn't have ran, and there would have been a shoot out like the old west. Both standing their ground? Zimmerman wasn't the victim here, as soon has he left his SUV armed with a 9mm he was ready to use it. That is premeditated. JMHO

[Atypical Liberal]

22. We don't know that.

You also forget Trayvon Martin also had a right to stand his ground and fight for his life. I suppose if the teenager was armed he wouldn't have ran, and there would have been a shoot out like the old west. Both standing their ground? Zimmerman wasn't the victim here, as soon has he left his SUV armed with a 9mm he was ready to use it. That is premeditated. JMHO

We don't know who started the physical altercation. We do know that Zimmerman was beaten. I do not know of any injuries Martin sustained other than, obviously, being shot.

[The Magistrate]

30. We Absolutely Know Who Started The Confrontation, Sir: Zimmerman. He Got Out Of His Car

And that began the confrontation. He had absolutely no right to accost another citizen on the public way, and a person he accosted had every right to defend himself, if in fact he did.

[ScreamingMeemie]

38. We know that Zimmerman started the fight.

We know that you are being deliberately obtuse. To what end? I have no idea.

[MADem]

84. To what end?

Looking for "a major award," maybe? Not anything so fine as a Christmas Story Leg Lamp, mind you...




Some people love to fight on the internet. It gives their lives meaning...or something.

[Wind Dancer]

143. Agreed!

It's quite pathetic!

[liberalhistorian]

163. To the end of guns uber alles, to the

end of defending the use of his precious guns at any time for any reason deemed fit by the shooter, to the end of defending and maintaining the "murder with impunity" laws-ooopsie, I meant the "stand your ground" laws. THAT is his real aim.

[Atypical Liberal]

205. You may be right.

I don't think anyone knows at this point who started the physical altercation between Zimmerman and Martin.

Clearly Zimmerman precipitated the entire situation by confronting Martin. But merely asking Martin what he was doing in the neighborhood might not justify beating him.

But maybe it would. Maybe Martin could claim that he was being followed and feared for his own safety. His girlfriend said as much.

Maybe you are right.

[kestrel91316]

60. We DO know who the stalker was. We know that he was strangely obsessed with calling the cops.

And we don't know how Zimmerman got the wound to his head. I consider it possibly self-inflicted so he could claim the kid attacked him.

[seabeyond]

155. this wasnt a cop. he has NO authority. the kid had a RIGHT to be there. that simple. was the kid

able to turn and walk away, or does zimmerman have rights beyond the kid, making him stay in place until the police come?

what is this bullshit?

it makes no sense

zimmerman at every point was the aggressor and in the wrong. infringing on the kids right.

then he further infringed, and killed the kid

[X_Digger]

180. If Zimmerman laid hands on Martin to detain him, or took the first swing- that's the point it..

.. crossed into illegal territory. At that point, he is precluded from using the 'self-defense' defense.

Following someone down a public street, even asking them what they're doing- is no in and of itself, illegal.

[jeff47]

268. This wasn't following

This was running after someone. Not anywhere near as benign as you're trying to pretend.

[X_Digger]

272. I'm not pretending anything- I'm just going by what has been reported / 911 tape, etc.

Legally, it's the confrontation that matters, at least as far as Zimmerman's defense claim is concerned.

When Zimmerman crossed that line, he's precluded the self-defense claim:

[div class='excerpt']776.041 Use of force by aggressor.

The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

[jeff47]

276. No, you're not going by what's been reported

Because it's been reported that Martin ran. Literally. Started running away. Then Zimmerman perused him. By running after Martin. That is when Zimmerman started the confrontation.

[X_Digger]

279. Florida law doesn't support that contention. n/t

[jeff47]

284. Because in FL, chasing someone is considered non-threatening?

Somehow, I don't think so.

[XanaDUer]

185. Right

If a citizen holds another against their will, isn't that kidnapping? Not sure if the OP is deliberately being obtuse? A civilian w/ ZERO authority to question another citizen in a public common area did so in an aggressiveanner.

[polly7]

159. You don't seem to be able to put yourself in the place of a

teenager, alone and frightened, being stalked and threatened. How should Martin have perceived Zimmerman's actions?

[LanternWaste]

7. it is indeed, "as it seems..."

Unless Zimmerman did not in fact follow (itself an act of ethical if not legal provocation) and then shoot an unarmed individual, it is indeed, "as it seems"

[Atypical Liberal]

25. There is nothing wrong with following someone.

it is indeed, "as it seems..."
Unless Zimmerman did not in fact follow (itself an act of ethical if not legal provocation) and then shoot an unarmed individual, it is indeed, "as it seems"

There is nothing wrong with a neighborhood watch person confronting a stranger in a neighborhood.

If, upon this confronting, he was being beaten by Martin, this could be justification for deadly self-defense.

Just because the person who may have been doing the beating was unarmed does not necessarily mean that the person being beaten did not have reason to fear for their safety.

[The Magistrate]

33. Actually, Sir, There Is Something Wrong With Following a Person On A Public Way

If you call the police and say a man is following you, you will get a cruiser dispatched in response. It is considered suspicious and threatening behavior --- in a way simply walking down the sidewalk is not.

[LanternWaste]

81. Yes, indeed there is-- legally, of not ethically.

You can follow someone at a reasonable distance and not enter into the harassment or stalking area if done correctly. If you stay at least 500 feet away at all times, or you risk arrest yourself (context though, as always, matters-- including if the one being followed feeling threatened or harassed)

It would appear Zimmerman did not in fact, maintain a distance of 500 feet, either in his car, or on foot. Additionally, it appears Martin felt threatened.


However, please maintain your self-defense criteria... it is, in a word, bemusing to see such badly choreographed dancing to better validate one's own justification.

This of course, is particular to my own municipality; information I gathered after my sister in law was being followed. Until illustrated to the contrary, I will assume it is a standard enforcement code.

[Atypical Liberal]

86. If this is true, then I stand corrected.

You can follow someone at a reasonable distance and not enter into the harassment or stalking area if done correctly. If you stay at least 500 feet away at all times, or you risk arrest yourself (context though, as always, matters-- including if the one being followed feeling threatened or harassed)

Is this actual fact of law? That if you follow someone within 500 feet you are harassing or stalking them?

[X_Digger]

191. Harassment / Stalking usually requires repeated incidents.

If I drove up to you walking down the street, rolled down my window and asked where Oak street is, that wouldn't constitute either.

If I did that to you every day, or every 100 feet- yes, that could show a pattern of harassment.

[savalez]

121. You are changing the facts to make your point.

There is nothing wrong with a neighborhood watch person confronting a stranger in a neighborhood

I suggest there is especially if the confrontation is aggressive or physical like the evidence suggests. Aggressive altercations often turn sour as it did in this case.

If, upon this confronting, he was being beaten by Martin, this could be justification for deadly self-defense.

Maybe in your own mind you can rationalize it that way, but legally, no it would not. Oh, and your attempt to portray Martin was the aggressor did not go unnoticed.

Just because the person who may have been doing the beating was unarmed does not necessarily mean that the person being beaten did not have reason to fear for their safety.

Again you suggest that Martin was the aggressor. It's odd that you keep doing that. To your point, if you instigate an attack and find yourself on the losing end of the fight you are still the attacker.

[Atypical Liberal]

161. We don't know who was the aggressor.

I suggest there is especially if the confrontation is aggressive or physical like the evidence suggests. Aggressive altercations often turn sour as it did in this case.

I have not seen any evidence yet that suggests who started the physical confrontation.

According to the testimony of Martin's girlfriend, he asked Zimmerman why he was following him, and Zimmerman then asked what he was doing there, and then a scuffle started. We don't know who started the scuffle.

Maybe in your own mind you can rationalize it that way, but legally, no it would not. Oh, and your attempt to portray Martin was the aggressor did not go unnoticed.

I'm not trying to portray anyone as anything. The facts indicate that Zimmerman was in fact beaten by Martin. Who started the physical altercation no one knows at this point.

Again you suggest that Martin was the aggressor. It's odd that you keep doing that. To your point, if you instigate an attack and find yourself on the losing end of the fight you are still the attacker.

My point being we do not know at this point who instigated the attack.

To me, just following someone and asking them what they are doing there is not instigating an attack, nor is justification for a physical response.

[tledford]

164. Comprehension of the meaning of the word "aggressor"

clearly indicates that the person who confronted someone for no reason WAS the "aggressor."

[EmeraldCityGrl]

178. Zimmerman became the aggressor/ predator

when he choose to disregard the PD's instructions to stand down. From that point on
Trayvon was prey and had every right to stand his own ground and defend himself.

Although, from witness statements it doesn't appear he ever had a chance to defend himself.

[savalez]

278. Of course it does.

To me, just following someone and asking them what they are doing there is not instigating an attack, nor is justification for a physical response.

Especially when you make it sound all rosy and stuff.

[liberalhistorian]

160. Except that he was NOT a "neighborhood watch captain."

He was self-appointed as such and didn't even belong to any such formal group. Except that the kid LIVED IN THE DAMN NEIGHBORHOOD and had EVERY right to walk in it in peace and unaccosted. Except that a legitimate watch captain would NOT have gotten out of his car with his gun to confront him, especially after being told NOT TO DO SO by 911. You still seem not to understand that HE was the aggressor and the kid, if he even did anything at all, felt threatened and also had the right to defend himself. Unless, of course, you share Zimmerman's bias and can't understand what one of "those "people were doing in "your" neighborhood. Methinks if the victim were white and Zimmerman black you'd be all over the shooter in that case.

[Atypical Liberal]

202. That's not how I read it.

He was self-appointed as such and didn't even belong to any such formal group.

I've lived in two neighborhoods with HOAs, like this community had.

All positions are "self-appointed", as they are filled by volunteers, and usually it is like pulling teeth out of a chicken to get anyone, let alone a single person, to volunteer.

If one person volunteers, they they are it! About the only positions that I can think of that are actually voted on are board members. For everything else, whoever volunteers gets the position.

I assumed that was the case with Zimmerman.

If he was acting without the approval of his HOA, then that's something else.

Except that the kid LIVED IN THE DAMN NEIGHBORHOOD and had EVERY right to walk in it in peace and unaccosted.

I expect neighborhood watch people to check up on suspicious activities in the neighborhood. During the summer months we routinely have kids who try sneak into our community pool. Neighborhood watch "confronts" these kids and sends them home.

Except that a legitimate watch captain would NOT have gotten out of his car with his gun to confront him, especially after being told NOT TO DO SO by 911.

He was not told explicitly not to do so, it was stated that they did not "need" him to do so. He may have felt it was his obligation to investigate regardless.

You still seem not to understand that HE was the aggressor and the kid, if he even did anything at all, felt threatened and also had the right to defend himself.

No one had a right to take physical action to defend themselves until they were physically assaulted or otherwise had reason to fear for their safety.

We don't know yet who started the physical confrontation.

Unless, of course, you share Zimmerman's bias and can't understand what one of "those "people were doing in "your" neighborhood. Methinks if the victim were white and Zimmerman black you'd be all over the shooter in that case.

No, it seems quite clear from Zimmerman's 911 call that he is a racist.

[liberalhistorian]

213. I repeat that more than enough evidence has been

established that he was NOT a formal "neighborhood watch captain." And I find it incredible that you'd believe he had the right to get out of the car with a gun to confront a child who LIVED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD and who was doing nothing wrong other than walking home from the store while black. Somehow I don't think that true neighborhood watch people who find and send home non-neighborhood kids trying to sneak into the complex pool would use the tactic of confronting them with a gun to do so.

And you still seem not to understand that Martin likely felt threatened as well, by someone following and chasing him, while he was alone, at night, and doing nothing wrong. What about HIS feelings of being threatened? Anyone in their right mind would have felt threatened under those circumstances. Why are his feelings of being threatened, intimidated and in danger not legitimate to you, but Zimmerman's are, even though he had the car and the gun? I guess in your world, only people with guns have the legitimate right to feel threatened and in danger, even when they confront and intimidate those who do not.

[unionworks]

195. Zimmerman WAS NOT A NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH

Member! This has been established. You are misrepresenting the facts.

[Atypical Liberal]

198. I had not heard this

The last I heard he was the "self-appointed" neighborhood watch person.

[unionworks]

215. from what I'mseeing

He had received no NW training whatsoever. If he had, this might not have happened.

[X_Digger]

9. For me, it comes down to this..

Did Zimmerman grab, try to detain, or swing at Martin first? If so, it's not self-defense.

[TheWraith]

12. If believe even pursuing him alone qualifies in that regard.

It makes Zimmerman the aggressor.

[X_Digger]

14. I don't know enough about FL case law to say, but ethically, I agree. n/t

[Atypical Liberal]

28. Exactly. If Zimmerman initiated the altercation, all bets are off.

Did Zimmerman grab, try to detain, or swing at Martin first? If so, it's not self-defense.

This is the six-million-dollar question that remains unanswered.

If Zimmerman initiated the physical altercation, it may be hard to justify self-defense.

[TheWraith]

10. I don't think the details of the fight really matter, actually.

Zimmerman initiated the confrontation, which puts him in a position of legal responsibility for it. Even if things were exactly as he claimed, that means that he's still on the hook for manslaughter for going beyond the legal guidelines for his actions.

[Atypical Liberal]

31. We don't know that Zimmerman initiated the confrontation.

Zimmerman initiated the confrontation, which puts him in a position of legal responsibility for it. Even if things were exactly as he claimed, that means that he's still on the hook for manslaughter for going beyond the legal guidelines for his actions.

We don't know that Zimmerman initiated the confrontation, at least the physical confrontation.

We don't know yet who started the fight.

Just following someone or even asking them what they are doing in the neighborhood is no excuse for starting a fight.

[JustAnotherGen]

46. Put yourself in trayvon's shoes

For just a moment?

Do you hit first and ask questions later . . . as your attempt to evade your STALKER that is threatening you in an SUV (large vehicles -Trayvon probably couldn't beat it up! ) - but find that your stalker is back on your tail?

We can't know what Trayvon was thinking - but if a man is following me in an SUV and gets out? I know - at minimum I need to make a ball shot.

[TheWraith]

54. He initiated the confrontation by pursuing Martin.

Who threw the first punch, if there were punches, becomes irrelevant after that. Zimmerman was not the subject of any kind of danger until he inserted himself into the situation.

[fishwax]

75. following and chasing someone is an aggressive act

The kid was walking through a neighborhood at night when some guy in an SUV started following him. Then chased him down when he tried to walk quickly away. We don't know who through the first punch, but we know who instigated the confrontation.

[XanaDUer]

132. Yes and with a gun in his hand, too

If someone did that to ME my thought would be kidnap/sexual assualt/murder and I'd damn WELL throw a punch to get away. So I don't get the OP's obsession how this may clear Zimmerman.

[Life Long Dem]

51. If Martin went on the attack as Zimmerman walked up to him then yes it does matter.

[X_Digger]

197. Unlikely as that scenario is at this point, I agree. n/t

[Life Long Dem]

277. It does seem unlikely.

There are witnesses who saw Zimmerman on top of Martin. And they heard what they say was the boy crying for help until the gunshots abruptly ended the cries.

[jeff47]

269. No, actually it doesn't.

"Stand your ground" applies to Martin too.

Martin ran. Zimmerman chased him. At that point, Zimmerman was the aggressor and could be reasonably be considered a threat to Martin. Thus Martin could not only legally attack Zimmerman, but he could legally beat the holy hell out of Zimmerman or shoot Zimmerman.

On the other hand, Martin was no threat to Zimmerman until after Zimmerman started running after him. Thus Zimmerman had no reason to defend himself - there was no threat until Zimmerman himself aggressed Martin

[eShirl]

11. The kid had as much right to Stand His Ground as anyone else in Florida.

[nashville_brook]

41. [phone]

[kestrel91316]

64. + 1 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000

[Blue_Tires]

94. thank you...end of story

[Ganja Ninja]

108. That's exactly right.

Put yourself in his place. Some strange man is following you. Then he starts chasing you. Wouldn't you feel threatened? If there was an altercation then the kid was only defending himself from a guy that was menacing him and he didn't have a gun so there was no deadly force on his part.

[tallahasseedem]

119. There you have it.

Bravo!

[Rex]

15. Some would love that to be the case.

Thank goodness the FBI is looking it this.

[leveymg]

16. The prey sometimes scratches a careless poacher before being killed. Zimmerman was an inept hunter

who shouldn't have been stalking Martin. Getting scratched while poaching doesn't excuse the poacher.

[DFab420]

17. So you think it's totally ok to follow and physically

Engage a stranger/child??? You think that because Trayvon fought for his life that he deserved to die?? Or do you think Zimmerman was right for being suspicious of a black kid?

The only think Atypical is your opinion on who gets blamed for murder. It's usually NOT the victim..

[Atypical Liberal]

40. Absolutely not.

So you think it's totally ok to follow and physically Engage a stranger/child???

I think it's totally OK for a community watch person (or any other resident of a neighborhood) to follow and/or confront strangers in the neighborhood. We do it all the time - we always catch kids from neighboring communities trying to sneak into our pool at night during the summer.

This is totally different from physically engaging someone, which is of course not OK.

You think that because Trayvon fought for his life that he deserved to die??

We don't know who started the fight and who was fighting for their life. It may have been Zimmerman.

Or do you think Zimmerman was right for being suspicious of a black kid?

We don't know what Zimmerman's motives were for being suspicious.

[The Magistrate]

87. Actually, Sir, We Know Just What His Suspicions Were Based On: He Saw A Black Youth On The Sidewalk

Zimmerman's words are on tape. That he says the person was acting suspiciously, that there was something wrong with him, that he was on drugs or something, Zimmerman simply reveals that this is what he sees when he sees an African-American youth on a sidewalk, for we do have facts available to check the validity of what Zimmerman claims he saw: young Mr. Martin was in fact simply walking back from a convenience store to his father's home, carrying snacks and change, talking on the telephone to his girl, and under the influence of nothing but the night air.

[zipplewrath]

18. Careful

We don't know this either:

We don't know who started the fight. But it's pretty clear at least that Zimmerman took a beating during the altercation.

The boy may have "counter attacked" causing Zimmerman to have some defensive wounds. That's a long way from "taking a beating". This comes up regularly in domestic violence cases. He had her by the throat, so she scratched his face. When the cops arrive, he has "defensive" wounds, but the bruises on her neck won't appear for a day or so. She gets arrested.

When this is all over, we may never really know what happened. But I suspect that buried under here is a huge lesson for the law. The law should make it clear that "stand your ground" goes all to hell when you are a prime instigator of the confrontation. Someone who goes out looking for people committing crimes, be it neighborhood watch, or the nosey neighbor, should have a different standard than the guy who walks down to the corner to get some milk. They need to have a narrower definition of "their ground". Once one decides to "pursue" they have a GREATER burden to identify ACTUAL threats prior to using deadly force. One also has a greater burden to NOT instigate a state of fear in, or threat to, another person.

[Politicalboi]

20. Zimmerman still didn't need a gun

So they fought maybe. Zimmerman outweighed Trayvon by 100 pounds, and was probably taller than him too. His g/f on the phone heard the 2 talking, and Zimmerman didn't identify himself, just pushed Trayvor after asking him why he was there. The fact of the matter is, Zimmerman could have killed Trayvon with his bare hands if he wanted too. Trayvon wasn't armed, so there was no threat at ALL to Zimmerman. And maybe Trayvon's dad just didn't want to recognize his sons last words on earth. He just maybe couldn't believe it. I would like to know what he says now. I bet he hears his son's voice now. He probably never heard the fear in his son's voice like he did on the tape. I'm going with what Trayvon's g/f said. That is the closest we are going to come to being there. And according to her, Zimmerman was the one who started it. And Zimmerman should be in jail for murder.

[barbtries]

29. Trayvon's mother

recognized her son's voice.

[Atypical Liberal]

55. Forensics should be able to determine who's voice is on the tapes.

Hopefully they will be able to shed some light on the case.

[barbtries]

224. hopefully anyway they'll be able to eliminate the killer.

they can't get a sample from Trayvon though

[Politicalboi]

62. I know

I also heard his father didn't recognize it. And I would think he was still in shock, and he never heard such fear in his child before. I truly believe it was Trayvon screaming, and the father just maybe didn't want to face the truth.

[barbtries]

199. that's my feeling as well.

he was terrified and that's the sound through walls and windows in the rain. his mother recognized his voice.

[Atypical Liberal]

50. Weight does not always count for anything.

Zimmerman still didn't need a gun. So they fought maybe. Zimmerman outweighed Trayvon by 100 pounds, and was probably taller than him too. His g/f on the phone heard the 2 talking, and Zimmerman didn't identify himself, just pushed Trayvor after asking him why he was there. The fact of the matter is, Zimmerman could have killed Trayvon with his bare hands if he wanted too.

If Zimmerman initiated the assault, then it is clearly Zimmerman's fault here.

But I will point out that just because someone is heavy does not necessarily mean they can fight someone 10 years younger and in better shape. I've done a fair amount of martial arts in my time. You can get your ass handed to you by someone half your weight and half your age no problem.

Trayvon wasn't armed, so there was no threat at ALL to Zimmerman.

If Zimmerman was being straddled on the ground and beaten as one witness claims, then there most definitely was a threat to Zimmerman.

And maybe Trayvon's dad just didn't want to recognize his sons last words on earth. He just maybe couldn't believe it. I would like to know what he says now. I bet he hears his son's voice now. He probably never heard the fear in his son's voice like he did on the tape. I'm going with what Trayvon's g/f said. That is the closest we are going to come to being there. And according to her, Zimmerman was the one who started it.

Or maybe it really was Zimmerman calling for help. We just don't know. Forensics should be able to determine who's voice is on the tape.

[Politicalboi]

80. Zimmerman chased him

Zimmerman initiated it. And if Tryavon was straddled over Zimmerman it still doesn't give him the right to use his gun. Hopefully forensics will decide what happened, but since the Keystone cops didn't do their job, how good is that evidence going to be? Zimmerman could maybe walk thanks to their lack of care for the victim, and taking the word of some nut that calls 9/11 like it's his dispatch.

[Oilwellian]

166. So let me get this straight...

We are to believe the person with the gun is also the person we heard screaming for help? That really is a streeeeeetch.

[polly7]

52. Yes.

http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/864644/what_everyone_should_know_about_trayvon_martin_%281995-2012%29%2C_the_young_man_whose_killer_remains_free/

12. A police officer “corrected” a key witness. “The officer told the witness, a long-time teacher, it was Zimmerman who cried for help, said the witness. ABC News has spoken to the teacher and she confirmed that the officer corrected her when she said she heard the teenager shout for help.”

13. Three witnesses say they heard a boy cry for help before a shot was fired.“Three witnesses contacted by The Miami Herald say they saw or heard the moments before and after the Miami Gardens teenager’s killing. All three said they heard the last howl for help from a despondent boy.”


I thought it was officers' job to record information and report it ...... why would he take it upon himself to correct a witness?

[Politicalboi]

88. They were either covering their asses

Or they just like Zimmerman, assumed the victim was guilty because he was black. That's what I am feeling from their lack of concern of evidence. I'm just afraid this may be Zimmerman's ticket out of this. The cops screwed up, and they can't take it back.

[CakeGrrl]

23. The S.O.B. was instructed by 911 to NOT get out of his car and pursue the situation.

He created an excuse to kill this unarmed kid.

Florida has the DP, yes? Someone figure out a way to use it.

[slackmaster]

37. I agree that he should have stayed in the car, but I'm troubled by how many think the 911 operator

...has any actual authority to tell people what to do.

[ScreamingMeemie]

43. Well, a lawyer on CNN this morning (I don't claim to know the ins and outs of FL law)

claims that the 911 operator does indeed have actual authority to tell a caller what to do. And that they do have to follow that. It comes down to was it suggested, or ordered.

[Atypical Liberal]

66. Sounded like a suggestion to me.

The 911 operator said they didn't "need" him to do follow Zimmerman.

Zimmerman may have assumed he would go ahead an be helpful even though they said they didn't need his help.

But aside from that, I would not put much stock in what a 911 operator told me to do anyway. I've heard 911 calls where the victim has a gun and they having their home broken into and 911 tells them not to shoot. They shot anyway and saved their lives.

[The Magistrate]

96. Perhaps God Will Be Kind, Sir, And Give You A Chance To Shoot Somebody Someday, Too....

[closeupready]

216. Perhaps One Day You'll Stop With Your Pretentious Initial Cap Nonsense.

Or perhaps not.

[The Magistrate]

231. An Incautious Observer, Sir, Might Conclude You Do Not Like Me Very Much....

"What other people think of me is none of my damn business."

[closeupready]

248. Have we ever met??? So no,

I have no basis to like or dislike you.

I do feel you post in a pretentious manner. It's one thing to use different forms of the English language that reflect someone's background. For example, someone from the UK would use, say, "bollocks!" rather than "bullshit!" It's another entirely to use archaic grammar, capitalizing each word in your post title, and the use of titles such as "Madam" "Sir" or whatever. You will probably continue to do so. And so it goes.

More to the point, I do find that I strongly disagree with you on a number of issues - and not just in the form of speech you employ, but also the disagreeable way you have to disagreeing with people here.

Specifically, here you disagree with the member who posted to this thread by, essentially, wishing bad on them. Not only do I feel that is vulgar and rude, but unfair to all of us who wish to participate in this discussion, not knowing if or when you are going to butt in with your sniping.

So it's not personal, but perhaps I'll just put you on ignore, as I don't feel we need to divert the thread to hash out our differences. Peace.

[The Magistrate]

249. Damn, Sir, That was A Lot Of Words....

And to no good purpose but bringing a smile to my face.

Thank you for the grin.

[closeupready]

251. lol, you're welcome.

I guess you aren't so bad after all. Anyone with a sense of humor gets a plus in my book...

[ScreamingMeemie]

99. I wonder if he felt threatened by the bag of Skittles? Or the can of Iced tea?

Once he got up to him. I work with Skittles on a daily basis, and you can just barely choke to death on one.

I didn't see the part where Trayvon entered Zimmerman's house...? Do you have a link for that.

I did see the part where Zimmerman actively followed Trayvon after he was told that he didn't need to. Or is that part of being broke into where you come from?

Sorry, but I'm going to go with the lawyer on this one.

[The Magistrate]

110. The Can, Ma'am: It Glittered, And All That Glitters Is Gun....

Especially when you have been fizzing for a year with the desire to just blow away one of these black boys you keep seeing on your sidewalks....

[Politicalboi]

101. Zimmerman called 9/11 ALL the time

He knows to listen to them. He wanted to be the hero. He couldn't wait for "back-up" to arrive. Zimmerman is a bully. That is what some who live near him say. And it's a good thing that other black kid didn't go out and help, there would have been 2 dead boys. The kid has to live with the fact he didn't help, and can't get the screaming out of his head.

[jsmirman]

131. Yep

please see what I say right below in post #128.

[jsmirman]

128. "We Don't Need You To Do That" = "You Have No Authorization To Do That"

we had a case like this in crim law.

Even if Zimmerman were dealing with someone he had caught attempting to break into his home and was now stalking that person, that instruction is an instruction that tells him he has no authorization to follow.

And it is sure as hell is a directive to not actively confront.

Why is this the case?

1) For the "neighborhood watch" person's safety (and you keep repeating that he was part of some neighborhood watch, which from what I am reading seems to be factually untrue) - the person is not trained to insure their own safety, and the cops want the concerned citizen to remain safe

2) Because the concerned citizen is not trained in how to properly confront or question the person they are pursuing, any responsible law enforcement agency does not want "concerned citizens" creating situations that would not have existed absent the "concerned citizen's" actions and

3) Because the concerned citizen is surely not trained in proper procedure in the case of an actual altercation and has no legal authority to be involved in such an altercation, and it is not possible to rely on a concerned citizen's training in application of levels of appropriate force.

Let me tell you this - if this guy WAS a neighborhood watch member - or even just knowing how many complaints he had already called into the police department (I believe it was just shy of 400) - I find your version that he did not know what this standard "DO NOT ENGAGE" directive from the 911 Operator meant to be UTTERLY IMPLAUSIBLE.

Or to be straightforward, I find it to be utter bullshit.

[slackmaster]

135. A person who has no legal authority to tell you TO do something has no authority to tell you NOT to

What if the 911 operator tells you to take off your shirt, swing it around your head, and scream like a chicken? Do you have to do it?

What if the operator tells you to stay in your car and not to drive it anywhere, but you are parked on a railroad track and a train is approaching? Are you breaking the law if you get out of the car and run, or move it out of the path of the train?

I'm afraid that a creeping authoritarian mindset is taking over my country.

[jsmirman]

138. Wrong, utterly fucking wrong

and a terrible analogy.

The 911 operator told the person to do none of those things. The 911 Operator told him not to take an ACTION that was sure to put Zimmerman in MORE danger.

And there is an established meaning to the instructions of a 911 Operator when it comes to telling someone what they do not have the backing of any city authority to do.

This is ridiculous. Your post is taking fear of authority to a very, very stupid place.

[slackmaster]

247. Zimmerman CHOSE to disregard 911's ADVICE and placed himself at risk

Your post is taking fear of authority to a very, very stupid place.

What authority?

Fear is not the issue. I recognize that the role of government is to provide services, not to command.

[jsmirman]

286. WRONG - he placed them BOTH at risk

as I explained, there are multiple reasons the 911 operator tells the private citizen to back the fuck off in that situation.

[slackmaster]

289. You seemed to be suggesting that a 911 operator has some legal authority to tell people what to do

What law would be broken by a person who doesn't comply with something a 911 operator says?

What's the penalty?

[jsmirman]

290. I think you are correct that a 911 operator has no legal authority

however - your call with a 911 operator - what you say to them and how you respond to their directives - will be relevant to a determination of whether you acted in self-defense or committed a murder. The 911 operator's directive - the 911 operator is a municipal employee and must, specifically, be trained under Florida law - is a reminder that, under the law, you have no authority to "pursue" a "suspect" when you are in no way, shape, or form, a law enforcement officer. When you are told you are not to pursue - and you disregard that directive - it is evidence that you intentionally disregarded the law that states that only law enforcement authorities can pursue, question, or apprehend.

The case I am thinking of is the Horn case in Texas - where Horn pursued two men and shot them, despite the fact that he was told not to do so and that he was under no physical threat from the men.

Horn was found not guilty - by a Texas jury - but, in my opinion - speaking both legally and morally - anyone who thinks that jury did not perpetrate an utter failure of justice - has a seriously warped view of our laws.

[LanternWaste]

241. Reductio ad absurdum

Reductio ad absurdum: My second favorite logical fallacy.

[slackmaster]

252. Reductio ad absurdum is a valid way of pointing out lack of substance in someone's argument

If you think a 911 operator has legal authority to tell a caller what to do or what not to do, let's see the source for that authority. State constitution? Statute? Local ordinance?

People who call 911 are free to make their own choices and accept the consequences of their choices. Anything a 911 operator tells you to do is advice, not a directive with any legal weight.

Police officers have constitutionally derived powers that allow them to detain people and give them lawful orders in certain specific circumstances. A 911 operator has no such powers.

[jsmirman]

149. And btw, if he was carrying a gun AND

actually managed to get beaten despite that disparity in available force, that is a PERFECT ILLUSTRATION of #1 from my post #128 - the reason that any responsible law enforcement agency dreads the idea of armed citizens with no (or even insufficient) law enforcement training entering into potentially violent confrontations.

For someone who wants to argue on this particular subject, you seem to know stunningly little about the laws and procedures surrounding citizen activity of this nature.

[Logical]

275. Why would anyone pursue a man who was not breaking the law? I think in this case....

the 9/11 operator was correct.

[slackmaster]

280. There is nothing wrong with following and confronting a person who looks suspicious

That kind of interaction happens between strangers every day, and most of the time there is no resulting injury.

A reasonable person asks the suspicious party what is going on. There is rarely a need to get into a physical altercation.

[Logical]

281. If you mean talking then OK. Confronting seems a little more extreme. If you are walking down my....

street I can ask you a question and you have no need to respond. Anything more is harassment.

And I might not trust another persons definition of "suspicious".

And his answer to "what is going on" might be "Fuck Off". That does not mean you get to escalate anything.

[slackmaster]

283. I confronted two men on Monday. It looked like they were going to illegal dump a load of stuff...

...on a vacant lot.

At first they tried to ignore me. I start taking pictures and advising them in three languages that it was illegal to dump in that vacant city-owned lot. I didn't just talk to them - I told them I was going to call the police if they didn't stop what they were doing.

We figured out that they were about to dump a load of mulch that a neighbor had purchased, but they had backed their truck up to the wrong place.

My confrontation ended up saving them some unnecessary work.

There is nothing wrong with confronting, in that manner, a person who appears to be doing something wrong. I was prepared to call the police if they gave me any guff.

[Atypical Liberal]

58. No, he wasn't.

The 911 dispatchers told Zimmerman they didn't "need" him to follow.

They did not tell him not to follow.

He may have felt it his duty as the community watch person to follow.

[Blue_Tires]

111. Duty? Didn't I read that Zimmerman self-appointed himself as nightwatch guardian

with no training at all?

I know you're just playing devil's advocate here, but this is getting absurd...Duty?? Zimmerman followed Martin because of racial profiling...That's not even in dispute unless some miracle witness comes forward with proof that Martin was in the process of committing a felony...

NOTHING Martin was doing was illegal...NOTHING Martin was doing justified a phone call to the police....NOTHING Martin was doing justified following him other than his appearance...

[The Magistrate]

118. Yes, Sir, You Did: 'Captain' Of A 'Neighborhood Watch' He Was Sole Member Of

Basically, he just went out and cruised the neighborhood nightly hoping to get a chance to shoot one of those black boys he kept seeing on the sidewalks.

[The Magistrate]

24. This Is Just the Initial Set Of Police Lies, Sir

It is hardly anything new, the date on the story being that of Friday last. Since then it has become well known the police attempted to 'persuade' witnesses to alter their accounts, mis-represented their contacts with the murdered youth's family, and mis-behaved in sundry other ways.

Since Zimmerman initiated the confrontation, by interfering with another person who had a perfect right to be where he was and doing what he was doing, Zimmerman has no real claim to right of self-defense if the matter went sour once he began it. Thus, even if claims Zimerman was being bested by a boy he outweighed by a hundred pounds, to the point of being on the ground ( highly suspect claims, to anyone who has ever been in physical alteration as an adult male with another adult male ), it would not alter the matter in the slightest: Zimmerman committed murder while engaged in felonious assault.

[Atypical Liberal]

69. We don't know who initiated the physical confrontation.

Since Zimmerman initiated the confrontation, by interfering with another person who had a perfect right to be where he was and doing what he was doing, Zimmerman has no real claim to right of self-defense if the matter went sour once he began it.

We don't know who initiated the physical confrontation.

Martin's girlfriend's testimony seems to implicate Zimmerman as she says that Zimmerman accosted Martin while he was on the phone with her.

[The Magistrate]

100. We Absolutely Know Who Started The Confrontation, Sir: Zimmerman. He Got Out Of His Car

And that began the confrontation. He had absolutely no right to accost another citizen on the public way, and a person he accosted had every right to defend himself, if in fact he did.

[Jennicut]

26. Except Trayvon Martin had no gun and was 17.

Zimmerman seems to have a history of harassing people he thought looked like the did not belong in the neighborhood. A young black male shows up. Zimmerman may have caused the altercation. He should have left Trayvon Martin alone.

[Atypical Liberal]

74. That doesn't mean much by itself.

Except Trayvon Martin had no gun and was 17.

That by itself does not mean much. A 17-year-old can still beat you to death.

Zimmerman may have caused the altercation. He should have left Trayvon Martin alone.

If Zimmerman initiated the assault then he no doubt is guilty as sin.

[ProSense]

89. Really?

That doesn't mean much by itself.

Except Trayvon Martin had no gun and was 17.

That by itself does not mean much. A 17-year-old can still beat you to death.

Zimmerman may have caused the altercation. He should have left Trayvon Martin alone.

If Zimmerman initiated the assault then he no doubt is guilty as sin.

So Zimmerman was beaten to death?

I mean, a young unarmed man is shot to death and you're here pushing speculation about why the young man could likely have been responsible for an apparent racist shooting him to death for no reason.

Then your "if" disclaimer.

[The Magistrate]

157. You Know, Sir, This Insistence On How Deadly Un-Armed People Are Is Rather Funny

Particularly coming from people who insist they have to have a firearm to feel safe themselves.

Why not simply partake of the fearsome lethality present in the unarmed state?

[XanaDUer]

171. It's dark, you're alone, walking in a common

Area outside. You notice an older-looking male watching and tailing you. You become nervous and try to get away, but he pursues you. He corners and confronts you, perhaps brandishing a weapon. Wtf would YOU do? You don't want him to know your name or where you/ loved Ones live. He could be a psycho.

[Jennicut]

295. An unarmed man vs an unarmed teenager.

It means a lot. By all accounts Zimmerman confronted Trayvon Martin. He was the one with the gun.

[KT2000]

27. forget that!

Trayvon was walking on the sidewalk. Zimmerman is an armed man - not a police officer - who confronts Trayvon.
In what universe is someone expected to submit to some stranger's demands? You bet he should have fought back.

Strange - in cases of rape, some say that legally, if a woman does not fight back it was consensual.

[polly7]

32. +1

I'm just trying to imagine how frightened he must have been .... I think anyone in that situation would have fought back.

[msanthrope]

153. Apparently, this minor was supposed to submit to the questioning of a man with

a gun but no badge.....

This OP is one of the screwiest I've read on this site.

[XanaDUer]

214. You know, I'd say, even if Trayvon Martin was walking on the common grass

this is still not justified. When I was a kid and would visit NYC, we were told that, should anyone follow you in a vehicle, cut THROUGH the buildings (this was in Queens), so, hopefully, the man following you in a car would not be able to cut through the buildings, too. Then, run to your home, trusted neighbor, or nearby relative's apartment/home and tell them what happened.

Of course, this was back in the day and in a place where most folks knew each other -you KNEW you could go to the older neighbor lady and you'd be safe.

Of course, we're speculating, but perhaps that is what Trayvon did - cut through to keep this IDIOT GZ from driving behind him. Of course, GZ decided to IGNORE the suggestion of the dispatcher and get out of his vehicle and FOLLOW TM through the back of the buildings.

Either way - yes, we have to see what comes out of the state/federal investigation, but GZ stalked, followed, scared, and then shot TM, who's dead, in his grave, and now GZ is God-Knows-Where.

You know, Rev Al accidentally said "Skillets" instead of "Skittles", and I thought- shit, I wish Trayvon DID have a damn heavy, cast-iron skillet on him - maybe he would have whacked this overgrown cop wanna-be upside his head when GZ -again- got out of his vehicle, with a firearm, followed him, cornered him, questioning him and then, murdered him. Just. 'Cause. He. Didn't. Like. What. He. Looked. Like.

Not good enough.

[mike_c]

34. it's also clear that if Zimmerman hadn't had a gun...

...he might or might not have gotten punched out for being an asshat, but no one would have been killed. That's often the case with gun violence-- without the gun, there might still have been violence, but both parties would likely be alive to argue in court about it later.

[kenfrequed]

42. Riiight...

So how did this not come out until after the feds started asking questions about the investigation of this case. I'm sorry but this sounds like its going to be another BS moving defense. I expect the story to shift from week to week from Zimmerman and the police department that seems invested in defending him.

[cali]

44. bullfuckingshite of the worst order

your post is beyond sickening. there is a startling amount of evidence that contradicts your sicko post.

[Atypical Liberal]

77. Please cite it.

I'd love to read it.

Right now the biggest damnation of Zimmerman is the testimony of Martin's girlfriend. She claims (and phone logs back up her timing) that she was on the phone with Martin when Zimmerman physically accosted him.

[cali]

92. there you go. he expressed fear to his girlfriend and told her he was being stalked

that's evidence right there. Not to mention the racial slurs used by the killer. Not to mention the police suggesting that he not fucking follow the kid. Not to mention zimmerman's past history.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/trayvon-martin-parents-phone-call-proves-slain-son-141202780.html

[Blue_Tires]

162. Right now the biggest damnation of Zimmerman

1. His own phone call to the police (posted everywhere)

2. Accusations that he was a little overzealous, to put it mildly about his vigilantism especially when people of a certain color were around (miami herald)

3. His history of four dozen calls to the police everytime he hears a twig snap (sanford PD's site)

4. His statement given to police that night -- Hasn't been released yet, because I promise you it will sink Zimmerman like a goddamned anvil since his 'official' story will be debunked in 10 seconds

5. No account whatsoever, even from those stumblebum cops, that Martin was doing anything illegal (and by "illegal," I mean a real crime committed against a person, not some bullshit "trespassing" just because he cut across someone's lawn)

I could go on...And I could refer you to the ongoing thread in the Af'ram forum where I've dumped a bunch of news links and commentary, but you're missing the point because the 'SYG' law is kind of a red herring...The legal burden idoesn't start with trying to prove who started fighting with first...The legal burden starts with Zimmerman proving why he started following Martin and called police; (you know, since he was so diligent in his responsibilities and "duties&quot because if that intention was based on spurious or knowingly false pretenses, then NOTHING Zimmerman did from that point forward can be justified, unless Martin physically pulled him out of his truck and started bombing on him...

[EC]

45. This is one witness

where as at least 3 others have said different so far. We'll wait and see. One guy could be a friend backing up a friend. I can't see a scrany 17 year old besting an adult 100#'s heavier. I seem to remember reading yesterday or day before that the witness you are citing was the guys (Zimmerman)Dad..?

[polly7]

59. His dad also said, prior to the 911 tapes coming out, that

Zimmerman had not followed Martin.

3. Prior to the release of the 911 tapes, Zimmerman’s father released a statement claiming “[a]t no time did George follow or confront Mr. Martin.”[Sun Sentinel]

http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/864644/what_everyone_should_know_about_trayvon_martin_%281995-2012%29%2C_the_young_man_whose_killer_remains_free/

[Atypical Liberal]

79. Really?

If the guy in the above video was Zimmerna's dad, then that pretty much blows that out of the water. I'd love to see a cite for that.

[Justice wanted]

53. Sounds like desperation to make this kid to be some sort of Threat. This is a way for the PD

to try and cover their collective ass. Keep in mind 3 very important facts Zimmerman had the gun, Zimmerman was older AND Zimmerman had 100lbs advantage over Trayvon

[6000eliot]

63. So, the racist backlash begins.

[Hugabear]

65. Bullshit. There is no defense for this racist pig.

He followed a young unarmed kid simply because he was black. He referred to him as a "fucking coon" in his call to 911. He then shot him in cold blood.

[Nye Bevan]

67. So if a racist carrying a gun follows and starts a fistfight with a young black man,

then the black man defends himself, perhaps gets a few blows in, starts to gain the upper hand, can the racist then shoot him and claim self-defense? That doesn't seem right.

[The Magistrate]

71. Apparently, Sir, Our 'Atypical Liberal' Here Thinks So....

[kestrel91316]

72. The sum total of all your posts in this thread = RACIST APOLOGIST BS.

[Atypical Liberal]

83. What in my posts would you consider racist?

In what way am I, a white man, who actively marches against the HB56 anti-imigration law here in Alabama, making comments that are racially apologist for a Latino who shot and killed an African-American?

[Atypical Liberal]

126. OK, Zimmerman may have been a racist.

Just saw this Young Turks clip here:

Seems pretty clear what Zimmerman was saying to me, so I see what you mean by "racist apologist bs".

Sorry.

[Stinky The Clown]

76. If Zimmerman followed Martin and confronted him, then who is the aggressor?

Do you get to kill some that you assault and who then successfully wards you off?

[Atypical Liberal]

85. Depends on what you mean by "confronted"

If Zimmerman followed Martin and confronted him, then who is the aggressor?

If Zimmerman physically confronted Martin, then it seems to me that that would negate self-defense.

Do you get to kill some that you assault and who then successfully wards you off?

This is a good question I do not know the answer to. I would hope not. I would hope that if you start a fight you cannot end it with a weapon and claim self-defense.

[cthulu2016]

127. re: "Do you get to kill some that you assault"

No, because your shooting them is part of a chain of events begun by a crime. (Your assault of someone)

Normally when you are in reasonable fear for your life you can defend yourself, but a lot of bank robbers find themselves in very reasonable fear for their lives from armed guards pointing guns at them, but cannot shoot in self-defense. And if they do, it will usually be charged as first degree murder as "felony murder" because the felonious premeditation of the bank robbery boot-straps all crimes that follow from it to premeditated.

The same goes for if a bank customer has a fatal heart attack when you start waving the gun around, even if the gun is a toy gun.

That said, however, a jury will often go for second-degree or manslaughter in cases that could be felony-murder. You say something rude to my girl-friend in a bar. I slap you. You pull a knife and I pull a gun and shoot you.

Since I started the violence and somebody ended up dead I'm probably liable for something, but most juries (and prosecuters) would say that my slap didn't call for deadly force in return. I started the violence but you kicked it up to a deadly weapon and I responded to fear for my life... it's complex.

[cthulu2016]

106. "confronted"

The law has no interest in "confronted"

Say, hypothetically, that I come up to you on the sidewalk and demand to see your ID. I have no legitimate reason or authority to do so. I just like annoying people.

You respond by striking me repeatedly. I shoot you.

You have no claim of self-defense for striking me. I have a claim of self-defense for shooting you.

It is legally irrelevant who "confronted" who, so it is best to stick to what matters in law.

If Zimmerman was the first to use physical force then that matters a great deal, but in the eyes of the law his initiating the confrontation is barely even suggestive. It's interesting and may bear on latter develops in some way, but is no element of the crime of murder.

So that's the question. Legally. I have no doubt that Zimmerman is utter scum. Just defining the legal question.

[X_Digger]

209. Thank you.

Much as it pains me to admit it, being a racist asshole and following black kids, even asking them what they're doing- isn't technically illegal.

My guess? Zimmerman tried to detain Martin, an illegal act- at which point, he loses the self-defense claim.

[ScreamingMeemie]

120. "These assholes always get away..." is all I needed to hear.

[Atypical Liberal]

129. It's worse than that.

Check this Young Turks video:

[Snake Alchemist]

78. There needs to be a thorough independent investigation. nt

[Atypical Liberal]

91. I agree. n/t

[Speck Tater]

95. Who needs facts when we have perfectly good outrage?

Clearly I don't know what happened, any more than anyone here knows exactly what happened. But it seems like we have all made assumptions that fit our preferred scenario. Wouldn't it be better to wait for the facts to be discovered before making assumptions just because those assumptions justify how we happen to feel about the case, one way or another?

[cali]

104. sorry, we know a great deal about what happened as well as quite a bit

about Zimmerman's past interactions with the police. We don't have to assume that Zimmerman stalked Trayvon. We know he did because he says he followed him. We know he made racist comments. They're on tape. We know the cops told him he didn't need to follow Trayvon.

Unlike many cases, there's a shitload of evidence.

Arrest him, charge him and let it get sorted out in court.

[Speck Tater]

122. I am in complete agreement! He should be in jail.

Personally, I'm sure he's guilty as hell. But I don't know that for a fact, and I'm just advising not getting carried away with assumptions just because those assumptions support what we want to believe.

And that include the OP's possible assumption that the shooter is innocent because he was attacked. We don't know that either. So neither we, assuming he's guilty, nor the OP, perhaps assuming he might be innocent, should let ourselves get carried away by our preconceived preferences.

[sadbear]

107. Under what circumstances should Zimmerman not be held accountable?

What additional facts could come out that would exonerate Zimmerman for killing Martin?

[snooper2]

146. Then what would people do with their time around here

Hang out in Meta?

[EFerrari]

98. What a bunch of crap.

[HockeyMom]

105. Bar fight

So if two people get into a bar fight, fists flying, then the one who is losing the fight gets to pull out a gun and shoot the other person? Don't you think a gun is a little more of an "advantage" than a fist? What ever happened to meeting force with force? It sounds to me like the Wild West mentality.

[polly7]

125. True, but Trayvan didn't even enter this fight as a willing participant.

Zimmerman sounds like a complete coward who probaly wouldn't have dared get out of his vehicle without that gun.

[Atypical Liberal]

208. I suspect it depends on who started it.

So if two people get into a bar fight, fists flying, then the one who is losing the fight gets to pull out a gun and shoot the other person?

I think it depends on who started the fight.

Don't you think a gun is a little more of an "advantage" than a fist?

Yes, that is why people carry them. You can be beaten to death, after all.

[X_Digger]

240. If you were in a bar fight in FL, and tried to disengage, and your opponent pursued the fight..

you'd be legally within your right to shoot him..

http://law.onecle.com/florida/crimes/776.041.html

[div class='excerpt']776.041 Use of force by aggressor.

The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

[HockeyMom]

245. That is SICK.

I would the bar owner would call the cops LONG before it ever got to that. It seems to be that in these stupid laws, the cops are there for AFTER the fact. Please protect me from living in a state with these laws as someone who doesn't WANT to own a gun. DIE you stupid person seems to be what they think.

[Avalux]

109. Sorry. There is no justifiable excuse for stalking and shooting an unarmed person. n/t

[Atypical Liberal]

130. Even if that person is on top of you and beating you up? n/t

[sadbear]

139. Only if the other person started beating you up for no reason

[cali]

141. uh, yeah.

and the guy outweighed the kid by 100 pounds.

[Ganja Ninja]

152. Just because you're losing a fight does not give you the right to shoot ...

an unarmed man. Especially when it you that was threatening him.

[WI_DEM]

173. Who pursued who?

If anyone it was the boy who felt he was defending himself. Even Zimmerman said the boy was walking/running away and he had to haul his big ass out even though the 911 operator told him not to and pursue him. The boy was defending himself against Zimmerman! Isn't that clear?

[XanaDUer]

225. IF that happened, and I hope TM got some good licks in IF IT IS true

Good old GZ put himself in that position of being beaten up. So I hope he has a fabulous criminal-defense attorney - I am pretty sure the NRA will hire a dream team for him.

But, who put himself in the position of being attacked, IF that happened?

Not TM. He was walking in a public common area in a community where he was a guest of his father. Should everyone in that place have vetted all friends and relatives to GZ, just in case? Maybe they should have, seeing how seriously he took his self-appointed "watchman" "commander" or what he called himself for his one-man Neighborhood Watch posse.

I read earlier today -I'm in the process of moving for a better job - that one neighbor who, at first, praised GZ for his cool helpfulness said GZ also emailed out a composite of someone who looked like the neighbor- so that neighbor had to exercise outside of the f-ing gated community he was paying to live in, b/c of this paranoid GZ character.

Maybe the whole place should have brought a crime/neighborhood watch complaint against Zimmerman?

[chowder66]

266. No.

If you a) pack a loaded gun b) call the cops - why call the cops if you are not expecting them to come to investigate? then ignore the dispatchers advice that there is no need to pursue c) continue to pursue a person who is walking away d) get out of your car with said loaded gun and keep pursuing (possibly confronting the pursuee).... you become the agitator, the aggressor. Now the pursuee is dead from a gunshot from the pursuers gun. The pursuee is dead and unable to "tell their side of the story" but there are traces of what happened via recordings/phone calls. There is a problem with the pursuers background, not so for the pursuee. Even if there was it wouldn't matter.
The event between Trayvon and Zimmerman was obviously a situation for potential disaster and Trayvon did not have anything to do with setting that up.
Zimmerman had everything to do with that by ignoring the fact that he just contacted the police, did not stand down, did not wait for the cops, got out of his car with a weapon and continued to intensify the situation based on assumptions and prejudices. That IS NOT a reason to approach or set up a physical confrontation where deadly force might come into play. Zimmerman had multiples opportunites to stop what he was doing and he ignored them step by step by step.

There is a good case here against Zimmerman.

If I, a woman, was being pursued by a man in a car or on foot and I picked up my pace to get away from him and was later to be found shot dead and that man had injuries, am I the agressor? Am I the attacker? Did I seek out the attack?

[jeff47]

273. Yes, even if they are beating you up.

If someone runs away from you, and you run after them, you are now the aggressor. The person running can decide to "stand their ground" and kill you.

The boy was no threat to Zimmerman, and then Zimmerman started running after him. Thus ends any claim Zimmerman has to self-defense - perusing the kid was not necessary to save Zimmerman's life.

[fascisthunter]

112. you have to be playin' blind to come up with this

wow!

[cali]

117. more like

"a typical freeper" than "atypical liberal".

[fascisthunter]

124. .

I had suspicions before this, but yeah... me thinks you are right.

[Atypical Liberal]

217. I am not a freeper.

I am sure that if we made a list of liberal causes you and I would share most of them.

I support the environment. I oppose drilling our way out of our energy crisis. I support infinite power sources like solar. I do not support America's imperialistic wars in an attempt to maintain a global hegemony. I support gay rights. I support gay marriage. I am pro-choice. I helped petition against Limbaugh to get his advertising pulled. I think Guantanamo bay should be closed and the people there given trials by civilian courts of law. I support and participate in the Occupy movement. I believe our democracy is being undermined by wealth. I am opposed to "immigration reform" and believe that if you come to this country and work hard and pay taxes for a fare wage then you should be a citizen. I support Affirmative Action.

[Baitball Blogger]

133. What you are reporting is the first information that the Orlando Sentinel

reported when the Sanford Police finally got off its ass and provided details. At the same time it released tape with large blocks of blank space.

We are a long way from that point. You are arriving to the game very, very late.

[SomethingFishy]

134. So you say Zimmerman was losing a fist fight with a kid

100 lbs smaller than he, so he pulls out his concealed carry and shoots the kid? And you think that's justified? Murdering someone over a punch in the face? If that's what happened? Yeah big man with a concealed carry. Shoots an unarmed kid in a fist fight. He's a COWARD. And you come here to defend him. Nice.

[Atypical Liberal]

156. I'm not defending him.

So you say Zimmerman was losing a fist fight with a kid 100 lbs smaller than he, so he pulls out his concealed carry and shoots the kid? And you think that's justified? Murdering someone over a punch in the face? If that's what happened? Yeah big man with a concealed carry. Shoots an unarmed kid in a fist fight. He's a COWARD. And you come here to defend him. Nice.

First, I'm not defending him. It appears that he was a racist, for starters, from the Young Turks video that catches what he said under his breath while on the phone with 911.

I'm saying we do not know who started the physical confrontation.

We have an eyewitness who says Zimmerman was on his back being beaten by Martin, and the officer responding corroborates this story:

http://articles.cnn.com/2012-03-20/justice/justice_florida-teen-shooting_1_martin-family-cell-phone-benjamin-crump/3?_s=PM:JUSTICE

After speaking with Zimmerman, who had called 911, Smith observed that Zimmerman's "back appeared to be wet and was covered in grass, as if he had been laying on his back on the ground. Zimmerman was also bleeding from the nose and back of his head."

And Zimmerman had a bloody nose and a wound to the back of his head.

And yes, an in-shape 17-year-old can beat up an overweight 28-year-old.

[mindem]

142. Zimmerman was out of bounds.

The manual, from the National Neighborhood Watch Program, states: "It should be emphasized to members that they do not possess police powers, and they shall not carry weapons or pursue vehicles. They should also be cautioned to alert police or deputies when encountering strange activity. Members should never confront suspicious persons who could be armed and dangerous."

[sadbear]

144. Good find

[Atypical Liberal]

221. Good posting.

Clearly Zimmerman was not acting within the principles of Neighborhood Watch.

[chrisa]

287. He is a cop wannabe

Hence the gung-ho-ness, and the "I'm so bad ass with my gun" attitude.

In my opinion, there's a huge chance he would fail the police psychological exam. He has a few screws loose, imo (To follow someone with a gun, and then chase them down after being told not to pursue).

[bpj62]

148. Guns Guns Guns

Who cares if George Zimmerman and had a legal right to carry the 9 mm that he used to execute Trayvo Martin that night. I don't give a damm about his or your second amendment rights because that isnt the issue here. A seventeen year old African American Male was shot and killed because someone thought he didn't belong in the neighborhood and decided he was going to be judge jury and executioner for this child. As for the supposed fight, if Zimmerman attacked Martin and Martin was able to defend himself then Zimmerman got what he deserved if that is in fact the case.

It is clear from the 911 phone calls that Zimmerman was watching/stalking Martin and that he was looking for a confrontation. The moment Zimmerman stopped Martin he also violated Martins civil rights because the last time I checked Zimmerman is not a police officer and therefore had no legal authority whatsoever to impede Martins freedom of movement.

Finally if you have a pistol and the other person doesnt then you clearly have the upper hand. You can spin this all you want but I will ask this question, why was Zimmerman not drug tested after the shooting which is standard procedure. Why did the police fail to properly identify Martins body for three days after the shooting. Who are they covering for.

This isnt about guns this is about the death of an unarmed 17 year old boy who was doing nothing wrong. I hate it when gun rights advocates hide behind existing laws to defend indefensible acts.

Guns don't kill people stupid people with guns kill people.

[WI_DEM]

169. Nope, Zimmerman was told not to pursue the boy and he did

he confronted the boy and the boy was the one who felt pursued and yes, some physical confrontation took place--caused by Zimmerman, who wanted apparently to be a hero even though he was told by 911 operator to let the police handle and, according to the neighborhood watch rules, was not supposed to interfer but just contact police. So this big idiot, Zimmerman, chases the boy and the boy fights back. He had every right too. And then the big idiot, who was losing a fight and could have just backed off and let the boy go decided to shoot him. If there is blame it is with Zimmerman, the Charles Bronson wannabe.

[sabrina 1]

176. I think we do know who started the fight. Zimmerman was told to wait for the police to get there

and not to follow Trayvon. He was already out of his car when he called the police it appears and ignored that instruction.

We also know now that Trayvon was on the phone to his girlfriend and that he had no idea who this person was who was following him. He was clearly trying to GET AWAY from him.

It seems very clear that a teenager who was doing nothing wrong was followed and confronted by a total stranger for no reason other than 'he looks suspicious'. IF and it is a big IF, Zimmerman caught up with him and attempted to detain him, considering he was not a Police Officer and a total stranger, IF he tried to grab Trayvon in order to not let him 'get away, he had zero right to do that and Trayvon had every right to defend himself. Zimmerman was NOT the victim, he was the attacker. And according to that infamous law, Trayvon had every right to defend himself from an attack by a total stranger.

The timeline tells us now that the killing appears to have taken place minutes after Zimmerman got off the phone with the Dispatcher. Had he waited, maybe just five minutes, no one would have died. Again, Trayvon was trying to get away from Zimmerman. There would have been no confrontation, no fight assuming there was, had Zimmerman not started it.

[Rex]

211. Zimmerman has a history of domestic violence

when he assault a cop (and for some reason got away with it). The kid went to buy some snacks at the local gas station. Why people assume the person with NO history of violence is the aggressor...well is sad really. I think their true colors are showing.

[just1voice]

181. Weeeee, let's all pretend we're Nancy Grace!

We can present a bunch of invented "evidence" to gossip about on Yahoo and Fox while selling boner drugs during the commercials! After a year of lying we'll just pretend it never happened!

[Xyzse]

192. Does Not Matter

Seriously, even if he was being beat down, he was asking for it.

He was told by the dispatcher not to follow the guy, the fact that he did shows that he was looking for a fight.
Even if he was not able to bring it in a fight, the fight was his fault for pursuing. There is no basis for self defense when he was the one trolling for a fight and bit off more than he could chew.

Edit - The issue is, he pursued looking for a confrontation even when he was TOLD by a dispatcher not to follow. Speculation aside, this to me settles the case.

[Atypical Liberal]

210. I'll buy that.

Even if he was not able to bring it in a fight, the fight was his fault for pursuing. There is no basis for self defense when he was the one trolling for a fight and bit off more than he could chew.

I'll buy that.

[chrisa]

288. Agreed

It's like taunting someone until they snap, and then shooting them when they try to attack you. Worse, in this case, the kid probably thought Zimmerman was some psycho who was stalking him. Sounds like Trayvon made the wrong choice by choosing to charge at Zimmerman instead of running, but this is all Zimmerman's fault. He forced the confrontation into a situation where he could be a "gun hero."

I think the guy is nuts.

[opihimoimoi]

201. The man is a bully...who was a racist Bully...most likely still is...who violated his duties by not

listening to good orders from the Cop Dispatcher..

Zimmerman is guilty of murder...hate murder means 20 + years

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

206. Wow man this is like sooo atypical...... What a crock of shit. nt

[AtomicKitten]

218. The police broke the chain of evidence by allowing Zimmerman to leave the scene.

He should have been taken into custody and photographed. Not having done so, they have rendered any claims Zimmerman has of being assaulted moot. The police are SOOL and now are just trying to cover their asses.

Also, there were no eyewitnesses, just earwitnesses vis a vis the several 911 calls. Trayvon's father and attorney were on MSNBC yesterday and both said the voice screaming for help heard on the 911 calls was Trayvon's. No doubt a CSI type lab can prove that unequivocally.

[Atypical Liberal]

222. That is what I am hoping to see.

Trayvon's father and attorney were on MSNBC yesterday and both said the voice screaming for help heard on the 911 calls was Trayvon's. No doubt a CSI type lab can prove that unequivocally.

I am hoping that forensics can determine whether or not the voice on the tapes is Zimmerman or not.

[EFerrari]

227. Ridiculous. Why would the much bigger guy with the gun be crying on the tape?

Forensics, my @ss.

[Atypical Liberal]

236. I think forensics will save the day.

I think forensics will nail Zimmerman.

[EFerrari]

243. And I think you are trying to turn the easily observable into controversy

and you are doing a really shitty job of it.

[LanternWaste]

246. There's playing devil's advocate, and then there's simple absurdity

There's playing devil's advocate, and then there's simple absurdity based on untested hypothesis laced with fiction, with a double helping of "what-if" melodramatics-- more often than not, with an agenda beyond mere discussion.

I've heard it played out again and again in kind on AM talk radio stations quite often in the nineties.

[Atypical Liberal]

259. I agree.

I'm sorry for suggesting it wasn't Zimmerman's fault. Obviously it is.

[X_Digger]

244. I believe he was handcuffed and taken to the station..

.. then later released.

We don't know at this point what evidence was collected.

[AtomicKitten]

254. I'm reasonably certain he was allowed to leave the scene with his gun.

[X_Digger]

257. *nod* I had heard that as well. (or at least leave the station with it.) n/t

[yardwork]

228. You are missing a lot of facts.

First, who says that Trayvon's father said that wasn't his son's voice? Do you have evidence that Trayvon's father ever said this, other than the Sanford police department's say-so?

Second, who is this witness who says they saw Trayvon on top? Link?

Have you any evidence that Zimmerman was actually bleeding? Photo? Link? Or just the police chief's say-so?

Both those statements were made by the Sanford police department - who have been caught in numerous other lies.

I haven't read this thread yet. I imagine a bunch of other people have already posted about the evidence - like the 911 calls and interviews with eyewitnesses - that we can actually hear.

[Atypical Liberal]

233. Answers.

First, who says that Trayvon's father said that wasn't his son's voice? Do you have evidence that Trayvon's father ever said this, other than the Sanford police department's say-so?

In the linked articles it says the Sanford police played the tape for his father and that his father said it was not his son.

Second, who is this witness who says they saw Trayvon on top? Link?

Again, in one of the videos I linked to the witness, who does not wish to be identified, can be heard describing what he saw.

Have you any evidence that Zimmerman was actually bleeding? Photo? Link? Or just the police chief's say-so?

An article from CNN (I linked somewhere in this mess) had a statement from the responding detective.

Both those statements were made by the Sanford police department - who have been caught in numerous other lies.

I haven't read this thread yet. I imagine a bunch of other people have already posted about the evidence - like the 911 calls and interviews with eyewitnesses - that we can actually hear.

It is possible that the police are lying or covering up for Zimmerman.

[yardwork]

253. All your "evidence" is the say-so of the Sanford police department, plus a confused witness.

That particular witness has been all over the map on what she thinks she saw, apparently because the Sanford police "corrected" her when she tried to give her original statement. The 911 calls and other witness reports are very clear - people saw Zimmerman on top of Trayvon.

The police have been caught in numerous lies about this case. There is clearly a cover up.

[girl gone mad]

285. Trayvon's father never said it wasn't Trayvon's voice on the 9-11 recordings.

When the police initially played the recordings for the parents, Mr. Martin was asked if he could identify his son's voice and he told the police that the audio was too distorted to be certain. The Sanford PD subsequently mischaracterized Martin's statement.

[Electric Monk]

262. Don't let the facts get in the way of your defending gun rights. Defend your gun rights above all.

[Atypical Liberal]

263. Please re-read my original post. n/t

[guitar man]

264. I'm an advocate of 2a and self defense rights

....and I say fuck Zimmerman. If what I've been reading holds true he was out playing vigilante and I believe he gave up any right to a self defense claim when he started pursing that young man. Then the local PD did nothing, just swept it under the rug. I just hope they haven't botched the damn case against him to the point where it can't be won. He needs to be put away for this shit....for good.

[RainDog]

265. bullshit n/t

[Logical]

274. Wow, your Gun bias is beyond belief.......

You CANNOT start the confrontation and then when getting your ass kicked shoot the guy!!!

Do yourself a favor and self delete this POS!

[CBHagman]

294. "When George Zimmerman was arrested..."

I had thought he was not arrested after the death of Trayvon Martin.