Dr Beinfest Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 Right. Which is not to say I'm some Zimmerman supporter (because again I don't know what really happened). But I still love that image ILMSF posted. For the media sensationalism part of it, really. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbob1313 Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 Best part about it is Michelle Malkin first popularized that image of 'Trayvon', only it isn't the Trayvon that got killed, from what I've read. Just another black guy named Trayvon Martin. Whoops. It is sad how this gives fringe groups like the New Black Panthers an opportunity to get more publicity, since conservative hosts (Especially Sean Hannity) love holding up the New Black Panthers as representative of 'Black America' everytime something happens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricWiener Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 There is a limit to what we know. George Zimmerman called 911 and was told to stop pursuing Martin Travon Martin lost George Zimmerman for a time in excess of 5 minutes - spent in an area within 100 yard of the house he was staying in Travon Martin told his girlfriend that he was not going to run away Travon Martin physically assaulted George Zimmerman George Zimmerman shot and killed Travon Martin We do not know if Zimmerman threatened Martin before Martin struck him, we do not know if Martin went for Zimmerman's gun, all we know are the raw facts. The rest is speculation, sensationalism and pandering. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbob1313 Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 There's a difference between "raw facts" and "alleged facts," and that distinction should be made clear as well. "George Zimmerman called 911 and was told to stop pursuing Martin" is a raw fact. "Travon Martin physically assaulted George Zimmerman" and "Travon Martin told his girlfriend that he was not going to run away" are alleged facts, at this point. If you are going to make the distinction between "raw facts" and "speculation, pandering, etc." then you should also be willing to make the same distinction between allegations and facts than can be verified based on what we actually know and have heard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Out of the Past Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 From the police leaks, there are witnesses that saw Martin assaulting Zimmerman and there’s evidence such as a bloodied face and stains on the back of his shirt that makes it seem as if Zimmerman was getting assaulted. And over 70% of the people think Zimmerman should be charged. People = dumb. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbob1313 Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 I do not believe any witnesses say they saw Martin initiate an attack. From everything I've heard, the only thing witnesses actually saw was when the two of them were on the ground, because they heard the scuffle happening. Which doesn't really tell you one way or the other whether Martin assaulted Zimmerman or not; neither does a bloody nose or stains on his shirt. That is going to be the crux of the investigation, really. A question I find interesting that I haven't really seen asked is, at what point does someone who can reasonably believe (because "I reasonably believed I was in danger" is the burden of proof in a Stand Your Ground case) they are being stalked have to fear for their own safety? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rabbethan Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 There is a limit to what we know. George Zimmerman called 911 and was told to stop pursuing Martin Travon Martin lost George Zimmerman for a time in excess of 5 minutes - spent in an area within 100 yard of the house he was staying in Travon Martin told his girlfriend that he was not going to run away Travon Martin physically assaulted George Zimmerman George Zimmerman shot and killed Travon Martin We do not know if Zimmerman threatened Martin before Martin struck him, we do not know if Martin went for Zimmerman's gun, all we know are the raw facts. The rest is speculation, sensationalism and pandering. Physically assaulted? Maybe, maybe not. Maybe he felt physically threatened when a man had been stalking him and felt he was going to be attacked (which I hadn't really considered until my mother brought it up earlier today). Frankly, I'm about as on the fence as one could be. I wasn't there so I don't know. But I do think saying that it's a known fact that Martin assaulted Zimmerman is incorrect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hotcorner Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 From the police leaks, there are witnesses that saw Martin assaulting Zimmerman and there’s evidence such as a bloodied face and stains on the back of his shirt that makes it seem as if Zimmerman was getting assaulted. And over 70% of the people think Zimmerman should be charged. People = dumb. I wonder if Martin had some blood on him too. Other than the bullet hole I mean. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Out of the Past Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 From the police leaks, there are witnesses that saw Martin assaulting Zimmerman and there’s evidence such as a bloodied face and stains on the back of his shirt that makes it seem as if Zimmerman was getting assaulted. And over 70% of the people think Zimmerman should be charged. People = dumb. I wonder if Martin had some blood on him too. Other than the bullet hole I mean. If someone is assaulting you, and you have a weapon, you should be allowed to use it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hotcorner Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 I'm hardly arguing that. I don't know that it's just that cut & dry though. A question I find interesting that I haven't really seen asked is, at what point does someone who can reasonably believe (because "I reasonably believed I was in danger" is the burden of proof in a Stand Your Ground case) they are being stalked have to fear for their own safety? and if you're claiming Stand Your Ground, guess it helps when the other guy is no longer around to make his defense... I mean who's to say you didn't feel threatened?? and maybe justifiably, just saying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdy_0513 Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 Stand your ground cannot apply here. It should not be relevant. I dont think there is any question that Zimmerman followed Martin...thus fleeing "his ground". Stand your ground is means of self defense, allowing you to defend yourself, rather than retreat. This does not apply when you're following somebody. Not only are you not fleeing, but actually approaching conflict. This is in no way stand your ground even though anti-gun activists are diving in head first. There is no relevance at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mystikol87 Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 Stand your ground cannot apply here.  It should not be relevant.  I dont think there is any question that Zimmerman followed Martin...thus fleeing "his ground".  Stand your ground is means of self defense, allowing you to defend yourself, rather than retreat.  This does not apply when you're following somebody.  Not only are you not fleeing, but actually approaching conflict.  This is in no way stand your ground even though anti-gun activists are diving in head first.  There is no relevance at all. A good lawyer would frame it such that Zimmerman was, up to a certain point, doing his job on community watch. Then, that "stopped" when he was attacked, at which point Stand Your Ground could apply.Most states do say you can't create a dangerous situation and then claim self-defense, but it's the lawyer's job to characterize the events differently. An easy task? Maybe not. But not impossible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mystikol87 Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 A question I find interesting that I haven't really seen asked is, at what point does someone who can reasonably believe (because "I reasonably believed I was in danger" is the burden of proof in a Stand Your Ground case) they are being stalked have to fear for their own safety? I'm not 100% sure if you're getting at what I think you're getting at, but keep in mind that it's possible that both parties are innocent. There are definitely fact patterns such that both parties could be reasonably construed (by a jury) to have been within their legal rights to (physically) act as they did. It may seem logically inconsistent, especially if the state has a law that you can't invite a dangerous situation and then claim self defense. However, the matters would be adjudicated in separate proceedings, even if Martin were still alive; so, juries could have found them both innocent, and those verdicts could have then even been sustained on appeal, where the court would have to find something akin to clear error on the jury's part, or that no reasonable jury could have found as the (trial court) jury did, which generally aren't very demanding standards when there are highly-disputed facts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdy_0513 Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 Good point! I would be interested to hear that arguement. It would take some serious lawyering... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mystikol87 Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 I should say that it stopped at some point BEFORE he was attacked, not right when he was attacked. That would be the better argument to make. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbob1313 Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 A question I find interesting that I haven't really seen asked is, at what point does someone who can reasonably believe (because "I reasonably believed I was in danger" is the burden of proof in a Stand Your Ground case) they are being stalked have to fear for their own safety? I'm not 100% sure if you're getting at what I think you're getting at, but keep in mind that it's possible that both parties are innocent. There are definitely fact patterns such that both parties could be reasonably construed (by a jury) to have been within their legal rights to (physically) act as they did. It may seem logically inconsistent, especially if the state has a law that you can't invite a dangerous situation and then claim self defense. However, the matters would be adjudicated in separate proceedings, even if Martin were still alive; so, juries could have found them both innocent, and those verdicts could have then even been sustained on appeal, where the court would have to find something akin to clear error on the jury's part, or that no reasonable jury could have found as the (trial court) jury did, which generally aren't very demanding standards when there are highly-disputed facts. I definitely understand how they can both be innocent. I've just seen people say that Martin brought it on himself by attacking Zimmerman, so I wonder whether his actions could be deemed "standing his ground" as well. My friend's dad is a federal prosecutor, I should ask him these questions next time I see him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mystikol87 Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 A question I find interesting that I haven't really seen asked is, at what point does someone who can reasonably believe (because "I reasonably believed I was in danger" is the burden of proof in a Stand Your Ground case) they are being stalked have to fear for their own safety? I'm not 100% sure if you're getting at what I think you're getting at, but keep in mind that it's possible that both parties are innocent.  There are definitely fact patterns such that both parties could be reasonably construed (by a jury) to have been within their legal rights to (physically) act as they did.  It may seem logically inconsistent, especially if the state has a law that you can't invite a dangerous situation and then claim self defense.  However, the matters would be adjudicated in separate proceedings, even if Martin were still alive; so, juries could have found them both innocent, and those verdicts could have then even been sustained on appeal, where the court would have to find something akin to clear error on the jury's part, or that no reasonable jury could have found as the (trial court) jury did, which generally aren't very demanding standards when there are highly-disputed facts. I definitely understand how they can both be innocent. I've just seen people say that Martin brought it on himself by attacking Zimmerman, so I wonder whether his actions could be deemed "standing his ground" as well. My friend's dad is a federal prosecutor, I should ask him these questions next time I see him. From what I've heard -- I haven't read anywhere near the level of detail you and some others here have -- it seems that he could. But what do you think would be the relevance; I don't particularly see any (aside from just being interesting/ironic/something like that), hence my confusion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbob1313 Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 The way I see it, it is part of a line of things I've seen used in an attempt to discredit Trayvon/make it more OK that Zimmerman did what he did. It's there with things like bringing up things he posted on facebook or twitter, the allegations that he was suspended from school for marijuana possession, etc. For instance, a friend of Jorge Zimmerman even went on one of the Networks and said this: "Well, and if what george claims is true, none of this would have happened if Trayvon just said, 'I'm staying with my parents'." There is an effort by some to make Martin seem like less of a victim, especially people who believe wholeheartedly that Zimmerman acted in the right. I don't think it is malicious in all examples; however I do think there is an effort being made to make him less of a victim. I think that is probably wrong. (And yes, I realize this is absolutely happening to Zimmerman, as well, which is why I also decried the actions of the New Black Panthers earlier in this thread.) I don't know if Zimmerman acted in the right; I don't know if Martin did. But I find the attempts to defame each of them publicly unconstructive. But if people are willing to give Zimmerman the benefit of the doubt under the 'Stand Your Ground' law, I'd be interested in seeing how they would react if Martin was also found to have acted within accordance of the law. At the very least, it would be much harder for them to criticize his actions while defending Martin's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Out of the Past Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 It seems to me Zimmerman can claim self-defense. I don't know why Stand Your Ground is even being discussed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mystikol87 Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 It seems to me Zimmerman can claim self-defense.  I don't know why Stand Your Ground is even being discussed. I'm guessing here, since I don't know the state of the law; but, normally self-defense typically requires a reasonable response, which may not include using a gun to someone who appears unarmed, even if said person is physically assaulting you. Conversely, the Stand Your Ground law might more easily allow the use of a gun in such situations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonny Ramos Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 It seems to me Zimmerman can claim self-defense. I don't know why Stand Your Ground is even being discussed. I'm guessing here, since I don't know the state of the law; but, normally self-defense typically requires a reasonable response, which may not include using a gun to someone who appears unarmed, even if said person is physically assaulting you. Conversely, the Stand Your Ground law might more easily allow the use of a gun in such situations. Stand your ground law shouldn't apply either since he directly ignored the police operator. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mystikol87 Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 I can't say without reading the statute and the case law, but it's unlikely that what you're saying is unequivocally true; however, that fact might make it very difficult. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Out of the Past Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 It seems to me Zimmerman can claim self-defense. I don't know why Stand Your Ground is even being discussed. I'm guessing here, since I don't know the state of the law; but, normally self-defense typically requires a reasonable response, which may not include using a gun to someone who appears unarmed, even if said person is physically assaulting you. Conversely, the Stand Your Ground law might more easily allow the use of a gun in such situations. Stand your ground law shouldn't apply either since he directly ignored the police operator. Per the leaks, Zimmerman was walking and Martin came-up behind him and asked Zimmerman if he had a problem to which Zimmerman replied no. Martin then told him now he had one and punched him in the face knocking him to ground and then got on top of Zimmerman and continued beating him. If anything Zimmerman was retreating just prior to getting attacked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbob1313 Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 It seems to me Zimmerman can claim self-defense. I don't know why Stand Your Ground is even being discussed. I would say it is because it allows a man to walk free after shooting an unarmed person based almost solely on his own testimony. It doesn't even let the case go to trial. It is certainly possible Zimmerman did everything he could not to use lethal force and only did so as a last resort. I'd be much more comfortable with that conclusion being reached after a full trial. Not after a single night and a few hour's worth of questioning at the crime scene. I have a problem with a law which allows this to happen. This isn't justice. This is a faulty law that circumvents the justice system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy42Jack0 Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 According to police surveillance at the station, Zimmerman looked fine, not bloodied or beat up at all..........hmmm, kinda makes me think Trayvon Martin stood his ground and got shot for it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.