Thread: Trayvon Martin (pardon me if this subject is verboten.)

My 2 cents,
First, it is a tragedy. That said, it is my understanding that Zimmerman was on his way back to his vehicle when the tide changed to Treyvon following and confronting him, punching him in the face which knocked him to the ground, maybe even knocked him out, then getting on top of him and started bashing his head in the ground ( this last part is confirmed by the only eyewitness so far ). Even if George Z. was a little over zealous, he wasn't breaking any laws either, and if someone is on top of you beating your head in the ground, how do you know when they will stop? That sounds life threatening to me. It wasn't like a gentleman's boxing match where you knock the crap out of each other and shake hands at the end. If that is G. Zimmerman heard screaming on the 911 tape, he is in shear terror, panic, melt down mode, whatever you want to call it. T Martin's own father said at the begining of all this that it wasn't Treyvon screaming on the tape but just the other day when the hearings started, his mother said she believed it WAS Treyvon. I'm sure the pressure from good ol'e Rev. Al and Jesse are playing a Major role in this. They are what is keeping the dying fading heart of what little bit of racism there is out there alive and well. If racism ever truly dies, those two are out of a job.

IMHO, the real tragedy of this whole post-incident handling is the distorting influence of "social media." This became an internet sensation and every busy body across the country suddenly decided they needed to apply "pressure" through petitions and protests (e.g., the million "hoodie" march). Sadly, few if any of these activists will ever actually be in a position to know the truth about that night. Yet, they spun the issue to a point the national media, and even the President, felt they needed to comment and drive the case.

Having practiced criminal law for over eight years on both sides of the aisle (prosecutor and defense attorney), the one overwhelming truth I recognized in every single case whether contested or not is that there are always two sides to every story and neither one is actually accurate. The truth 99.99% of the time is to be found somewhere in the middle. As for me, I don't know whether Zimmerman was guilty, innocent, or justified in his actions because I'm not privy to the evidence that has been actually uncovered. So, I'll just sit on the sidelines and watch as the local justice system in Florida is manipulated by internet citizens and new "reporters" from across the country.

"(T)here are always two sides to every story and neither one is actually accurate." Well written LegalBeagle. A lesson we all must learn in this life. Thank you for your insight, my regret is most folks not capable of understanding what you wrote.

Originally Posted by sharptonn

I suppose we shall rely on the wisdom of the State of Florida on this one. It is really sad how the mainstream media has jilted this unfortunate situation both ways.

Wisdom from the State of Florida. Hmmm, wisdom from the Hanging Chad state?

What I am interested in the most is what kind of wounds, if any, were on Zimmerman's head. If this kid was banging his head on the concrete as Zimmerman claims, that is justification to shoot. I've heard there there is an eye witness that backs Zimmerman's story. If so, it could put the whole thing to bed.

Apart from the media circus , the big 'fail' here is that both parties could seek protection under the stand your ground doctrine.
Trayvon felt threatened according to the girlfriend (was there a recording or is it just her testimony?) which allowed him to use force.
Zimmerman felt threatened at some point or other because there was a fight, which would be threatening.

Regardless of whether Zimmerman was right to engage or not, from the moment he did, the syg law created a context where both parties were allowed to use force because they both felt threatened. I agree with Nelson that a more apt name would be 'Dead men tell no tales' or possibly 'the quick and the dead'.

Originally Posted by Crotalus

Wisdom from the State of Florida. Hmmm, wisdom from the Hanging Chad state?

What I am interested in the most is what kind of wounds, if any, were on Zimmerman's head. If this kid was banging his head on the concrete as Zimmerman claims, that is justification to shoot. I've heard there there is an eye witness that backs Zimmerman's story. If so, it could put the whole thing to bed.

Not quite. At that point, Trayvon could be entirely justified in starting the fight, especially if zimmerman had shown his weapon and trayvon felt threatened (which is a real option). I think that if you do no wrong and someone hassles you, follows you, and threatens you with a gun, you'd be justified in using force. Whether zimmerman has wounds because of that really does not have any bearing on whether trayvon was justified in starting the fight.

Common sense would dictate this to be the case, and the syg law does so explicitly.

Picture the opposite: I threaten you with a gun. You jump me and beat me in the head. I shoot you. Can I claim self defense?

Just wanted to say to all you fine gentlemen out there that it is refreshing to see so many different opinions expressed and that everyone here is willing to hear these opinions, and whether they agree or not, to show some civility and restraint. That is part of what makes this such a great group. Thank you for your considered opinions and kudos to you all.

Interesting. I've never considered the stand your ground law as justifying the Treyvon's beat down on Zimmerman. However, if Zimmerman had shown his gun to Treyvon, I highly doubt that Treyvon would have countered the threat with fists. I know for darn sure that I wouldn't. You don't bring fists to a gun fight.

What is interesting here is that, from what I can tell, Zimmerman was doing nothing illegal. Stupid maybe, but not illegal. I can follow anyone I want for as long as I want. If I couldn't, then private investigators would be out of business. The first "illegal" action that I can see is the assault and battery initiated by Treyvon. However I will wait and see what the evidence shows.

Also, if the races (if you will because Zimmerman is Hispanic, but everyone calls him white) were reversed, and a black man shot a white man, and the media covered it as they have in this case, it would be called a lynching party. If the "New White Panthers" had put out a bounty on the black man's head, and said "wanted, dead or alive" it would be a lynching party. (CITE) Why is no one calling his media coverage and public demonstrations what they are? A lynching party. They need to let the legal system work, and stop trying to lynch Zimmerman.

Originally Posted by Bruno

Not quite. At that point, Trayvon could be entirely justified in starting the fight, especially if zimmerman had shown his weapon and trayvon felt threatened (which is a real option). I think that if you do no wrong and someone hassles you, follows you, and threatens you with a gun, you'd be justified in using force. Whether zimmerman has wounds because of that really does not have any bearing on whether trayvon was justified in starting the fight.

Common sense would dictate this to be the case, and the syg law does so explicitly.

Picture the opposite: I threaten you with a gun. You jump me and beat me in the head. I shoot you. Can I claim self defense?

The facts that we do know is that the eyewitness didn't say they were wrestleing around for a gun, which would mean the gun was still holstered, which means G. Zimmerman wasn't brandishing or waving it around threatening with it. If someone was holding a gun on me and I'm foolish enough to go for it, I wouldn't punch them in the face and climb on top of them banging their head in the ground all the while they are still holding the gun and could shoot way to easy. Until more FACTS come out, we can speculate all we want but that is all it is.

Originally Posted by Wullie

When I listened to the complete 911 tape made by Zimmerman, he was in his truck and had agreed with the dispatcher to meet the unit that was dispatched to his location.
If he'd stayed in his truck, I doubt this discussion would be taking place.

This tape tells us nothing, and GZ might well have been returning to the truck when the fight started as the 911 Dispatcher requsted (note the request, as it is NOT a lawful order)... there is no proof either way from this exchange..

One thing is certain he had not broken any laws "at this point in time" nor was it against the law if he did NOT return to his car...