Senate The shooting of Trayvon Martin

The good news for gun owners here is that in a gun nut universe, no one should ever go anywhere unarmed. If Trayvon Martin felt threatened by Zimmerman following him, and Zimmerman came up to him after racially profiling and tailing him, and Martin didn't know why he was being followed, and they both felt threatened, and neither had a duty to retreat, and both had a right to defend themselves under the reasonable assumption that they were in imminent danger of bodily harm, then whoever is still alive at the end wins both legally and in the sense of still being alive. It's an important lesson. Shoot early, and aim for the chest. The Trayvon Martins of the world should never go for skittles without being fully armed.

Of course, the Trayvon Martins of the world can't legally own a handgun, because they're only 17 year old boys. But Zimmerman knew that.

 

Defense has rested, Zimmerman's not testifying.

 

Jabba- You're just transferring emotions because Quinn got his veto overridden....

Seriously though, no matter what side one is on over the issue, you're rational enough to realize that none of the above is true. Concern that someone is following you doesn't equal imminent danger, and certainly not the level of death or great harm with regards to deadly force. Concern over being followed doesn't even reach a level of non-deadly force, so if someone carried pepper spray in their purse, they wouldn't even be able to use it in your scenario. This entire situation is nothing more than an extreme lesson of the Golden Rule.

Against Martin-This is why a "punk jr muscles" attitude never works. If Martin, in his words, was being followed by a "creepy-*** cracker," then just go home. Cross the street and go enjoy your skittles. Martin's situation appears to be a combination of false bravado and peer pressure relating to that idiotic girl he was talking to on his cell phone, who didn't do Martin any favors.

Against Zimmerman- again, just go home and peer out your window with binoculars like every other self-respecting obsessive neighborhood watch volunteer does. Even if he was "on his way back" to his car, he should have never left it in the first place. But what it highlights more than anything is the reality of the decision to utilize a firearm. The gun is just a tool-neither bad or good. But it is a responsibility. This is why, even if justified, it's a choice that has far reaching consequences, of which every aspect will be dissected.

Because I agree with other assessments, in that legally, I don't think the prosecution has come anywhere near the level to achieve a conviction, or refute anything of Zimmerman's account- no matter what the actual situation was that night.

 

Technically, Zimmerman's account doesn't have to be convincing. It just has to be reasonably plausible and without any evidence that convincingly refutes it. In this case, however, I think it is convincing, even if it doesn't approach an understanding of the truth about why Zimmerman and Martin ended up grappling each other, leaving Zimmerman feeling his only option was to fire his gun point blank into Martin's chest. Just prior to that moment, there's an evidentiary black box that has to be filled with reasonable doubt. In a setting outside a murder trial, any reasonable person would conclude that the proximate cause of all this happening was Zimmerman getting out of his vehicle in pursuit of someone he suspected of being a criminal despite being told by the police dispatcher not to do it. Yank says he was behaving recklessly only vis a vis his own life, not Martin's, but I think his obvious recorded animosity toward the criminals invading his neighborhood plus the very fact that he was armed amounts to reckless behavior vis a vis Martin's life as well. At least, that would be the case in a just world.

Let's be honest. "To shoot Trayvon Martin" is practically the Platonic Form of why disgruntled white men buy handguns.

Even so, in a practical world with constitutional due process requirements, Zimmerman has to go free.

 

If you are going to stand your ground and kill a person then you be better be a man and face up to it in court. Take the stand or else be a coward. No gun owner can deny that fact.

 

Quite simply, this sort of armchair quarterbacking is a big problem. It's hard to kick someone in the crotch when they just sucker punched you and have you on the ground, kneeling over you. Not everyone is able to give a "wind-killing punch in the gut". From some of the testimony in the trial (given by the owner of a gym that Zimmerman had joined and took all of one MMA lesson at) Zimmerman essentially couldn't punch his way out of a wet paper bag.

Quite simply, none of us were there, and we can't assume that any one specific other option was available to Zimmerman. Remember also that Zimmerman had already had his head smashed against the ground and was at least somewhat disoriented.

But also, from the legal standpoint, Zimmerman was under no obligation to try every possible option before using lethal force. Once Martin started beating on him, particularly with the head injuries involved, Zimmerman wasn't required to try kicking him in the crotch, or punching him in the gut. He was legally allowed to do whatever he had to do to stop the imminent threat of death or serious injury. The goal was to use the most effective tool at his disposal to stop the threat.

That's why when you are talking about self-defense, the guideline is always "shoot to stop", not "shoot to kill". You are legally justified in shooting someone only up to the point that they are no longer an imminent threat. If they happen to die as a result of you stopping the threat that they posed then so be it, but the goal isn't the attacker's death. (That's also why once they are stopped, if you continue shooting at them, then you can easily be convicted of at least manslaughter.)

 

Well it's good to see some progress with this case I guess.

 

Will you please stop peddling that outright falsehood? Zimmerman got out of his car in order to gather information that the dispatcher requested. Specifically, at about 2 minutes into the call, the following exchange happened:

It wasn't until a little later in the call that this exchange happened:

At that point, according to every witness, Zimmerman stopped following Martin, as requested by the dispatcher.

Zimmerman got out of his car to answer the question from the dispatcher about "Which way is he running?". It wasn't until later that he was told he didn't need to follow Martin.

 

Yeah, that is the strange thing here. Zimmerman should not have been stalking the boy. What Trayvon did seems reasonable given the circumstances. I certainly don't think it is appropriate to use lethal force in a fist fight...

Also, I find it bizarre that people's opinions on this case all seem to line up so evenly along the Left - Right spectrum.

 

You think it is reasonable to physically assault someone who is heading in the same direction that you are? Tell me, then, how many people have you assaulted because of that? How many people do you know have assaulted people in such circumstances?

Also, it was more than just a "fist fight". Zimmerman's injuries show that his head was bashed against the ground. As the PA who examined him the next day testified, had Zimmerman not ended the fight when he did, continued injuries could have killed him. That indicates that Martin was using lethal force in what you are terming a "fist fight".

 

And Zimmermann is what, like in his 30s? Trayvon Martin is a teenager.

If this were reversed, and Zimmermann was black with Martin being white, would Righties still be gungho about defending him?

Was Trayvon using a knife or gun? No? Then yes, it was a fist fight.

 

Weren't there a rash of house robberies by black men during that time period? I can understand see paying a bit of attention to the kid with the hood on. Something maybe seemed off. But stand the hell down when told to. Reminds me of that mall cop movie with Seth Rogen. Way over the top. Zimmerman is guilty of something. Included being a jackass.

Also, my political beliefs weigh in on this 0%.

 

Zimmerman was out of shape, while Martin was in fairly good athletic condition. Age alone doesn't mean much in this sort of case.

I've been pretty consistent all around about explaining what the actual legal standard is, and that doesn't change based on the race of the person defending himself.

And, as the PA's testimony (as a witness for the prosecution, I will add) demonstrates, a "fist fight" can still rise to the level of lethal force. According to her testimony, this one did. If you are faced with lethal force, you aren't limited to only responding with the same type of lethal force (i.e. knife v. knife, hand to hand, or gun v. gun). It makes no difference whether you apply lethal force from a knife, a gun, a bat, or your bare hands. The legal standard is the same.

 

But that isn't what I am asking. I understand that on one level Righties view this as being about the law, but on the much deeper level it is about race and right-wing resentment of sympathy for a black teenager.

I am not arguing about legal standards here...in any context but a trial they are mostly irrelevant. I am having a non-legal conversation about whether Zimmermann is pathetic, and whether what he did was actually justified.

 

I have some of the training materials provided to our neighborhood for neighborhood watch several years ago. (I'm in our local civic association's leadership, and we got the materials after our neighborhood watch program fizzled out.)

The program is a lot more than simply looking out of your window and reporting suspicious persons. They actively encouraged you to have a team of people who would actively go out and walk through the neighborhood to look for anything suspicious, although they discourage confronting suspects in the act. (It is important here to note that none of the testimony indicates that Zimmerman confronted Martin. Some of the testimony does indicate that Martin confronted Zimmerman.)

 

As someone who believes Zimmerman didn't commit any crime and was only defending himself... had Trayvon been quicker... had Trayvon smashed Martin's skull on the concrete and killed him, or had he grabbed his gun and shot him. Had Trayvon done that I'd be arguing the same about how he did nothing criminal. Both thought they were defending themselves from a threat. Both did the best they could. Zimmerman got lucky.

 

That's not true. Ms. Jeantel's testimony, I thought, indicated that Zimmerman confronted Martin.

 

The only people I see injecting race into this are the people calling for Zimmerman's head. If it's so much about race, then why have several of the defense witnesses been black neighbors or friends of Zimmerman's who have backed up his side of the story?

If Martin was beating on him the way that his injuries and the testimony indicate that he was, then yes, he was justified, both morally and legally. It's called self-defense, and it is an inherent natural right. As Malcolm Reynolds famously said, "If someone tries to kill you, you kill them right back!"

By beating on him the way that he did, Martin was using lethal force on Zimmerman. As a result, Zimmerman rightfully feared for his life, as the testimony of his PA demonstrates. At that point, Zimmerman was fully justified in every way to "kill [him] right back", regardless of his age, race, or clothing choice.

Honestly, I have sympathy for both Zimmerman and for Martin's family, but I have little sympathy for Martin himself. He made a stupid choice to attack someone who it turned out was better equipped to defend himself. Now, both Zimmerman and Martin's family have to live with the consequences of that choice. It is a tragedy what they all have had to go through, but the responsibility for that tragedy lies primarily with Martin, not with Zimmerman.

 

According to Zimmerman's statements to police (which fit the general timeline from his non-emergency call and the later 911 calls), Martin jumped him when he was on his way back to his truck. This is generally supported by where the shooting happened relative to the descriptions that Zimmerman gave while on the phone for the non-emergency call. (Where Zimmerman ended the call was closer to where Martin's father was staying than where the shooting occurred, which would have required Martin to double back.)

 

This seems like a naive response.

a. Of course the defense wants to get black people on the stand for Zimmermann. To forestall the possibility of the "race card" being played (because in right-wing logic, if some subset of black people are okay with something, it isn't racism.)

b. What I am saying is not that Zimmermann killed Martin because he was black or whatever. I AM however saying that right-wingers being unanimously (unless I am missing somebody) on Zimmermann's side means that their defense of Zimmermann is motivated by either racism against Martin or resentment of "leftie" claims about racism being a factor in the crime.

 

Her testimony was extremely contradictory on that point at best, and she was solidly impeached as a witness by changing her story under oath multiple times, including on that specific point.

 

Yeah he did when he jumped on top of Zimmerman and continued to beat him after the man went down.

 

Plus we have the damn 911 call in which Zimmy said, clear as crystal that Martin was walking towards him.

Here's the whole thing: