Trayvon Martin

[JickyJuly]

But if that person that shot you has wounds, has a few eye-witnesses backing up his claim of self-defense and the Original Investigator claims you were acting unlawfully, the person that shot you has a credible claim to self-defense. And your character, associations and past comes into play.

Like it or not, TM's character, associations and past actions are on trial just like Zimmerman's. That is the nature of less clear-cut Self-Defense cases. not allowing it is tantamount to railroading Zimmerman.

You can't bring a gun to a hair pulling fight. If you are a physically healthy person with a gun, standing in the street with an unarmed, thin minor there is every opportunity to avoid confrontation escalation. I've been punched, knifed and once stabbed with a key. If I'd shot someone in any of those situations, jail would be on the other end. Maybe the other person would go as well, but that wouldn't lessen my crime. If Zimmerman got a few scratches out of the ordeal, good on Trayvon for trying to fight off a dude with a gun no matter how futile that is.

I will spell it out for you. If you are not engaged in a crime, are someplace you have a legal right to be and are attacked in such a way that you have a reasonable fear for your life or a reasonable fear that grievous bodily harm will be inflicted upon you, you can draw your handgun and fire as many rounds as it takes to drop your attacker and walk away without criminal charges or civil liability for wounding or killing your attacker.

Adding a condescending tone to what you are writing does not make it correct. If you are following the person you are in fear of, you're doing it wrong. If you pull a gun on an unarmed person in a street where he is allowed to be and doing nothing wrong, you are a murderer. Thanks for the spelling lesson though, douchenoz.

 

[Bocefish]

I will spell it out for you. If you are not engaged in a crime, are someplace you have a legal right to be and are attacked in such a way that you have a reasonable fear for your life or a reasonable fear that grievous bodily harm will be inflicted upon you, you can draw your handgun and fire as many rounds as it takes to drop your attacker and walk away without criminal charges or civil liability for wounding or killing your attacker.

Right, but to the majority of people an unarmed 17 year old with no history of violence, a highschool honors student according to his older brother, and so skinny as to be almost underweight, on his way home is so NOT likely to cause life-theatening injuries that this is just...perverse.
Where did this skinny highschool kid learn to (apparently) almost beat a man to death in the matter of a couple of minutes? Was he trained by Chuck Norris after school or something?

Here we go again describing Trayvon as this frail, angelic kid that never did anything wrong. His Twitter account name and photo alone should be enough to dispel that myth.
George Zimmerman is 5'9" & weighs 170#; Trayvon Martin was a 6'2" athlete that played football and weighed 160# http://www.examiner.com/charleston-cons ... martin-160

Lets not forget Trayvon would not have been there had he not been suspended from school for the 4th time and was also caught with a backpack full of women's jewelry and a large flathead screwdriver described as a break-in tool. Yes, he also said he was holding that for a friend, yeah right.

Nobody here knows how exactly the confrontation started or what happened, so stop pretending you do. The facts of the case are all we know and it's now in the hands of the court system. If it gets past the evidentiary hearing, the trial won't start for at least 6 months, but more like a year to 18 months from what the lawyers are saying now.

 

[Jupiter551]

His twitter name is a reference to a rap song bye Kane & Abel. That and getting his teeth capped is about level with a white 17 year old kid dressing like a goth. In other words, it's what 17 year olds DO.
Whatever he may have been suspended for has fucking NOTHING to do with violence, and as for the jewellery he wasn't charged, but if you want to keep bringing that up then why not mention Zimmerman's 2005 assault charge, for which he wasn't convicted? See the correlation? They were both lacking evidence but if you want to hold shit against Trayvon, hold shit against Zimmerman too.

170lbs 5'9 is stocky, 160lbs 6'2 is skinny as fuck, and still not that tall. I don't see the threat, according to the BMI it's really close to being UNDERweight for his height.

Trayvon is a victim, whatever you THINK he did to Zimmerman, Zimmerman DEFINITELY did worse back to him - those are the facts.

 

[Bocefish]

Neither of them were angels, Zimmerman's past has been brought up several times while Trayvon is always described as somebody who was weak and never did ANYTHING wrong. Let's be fair, at least, and look at both sides honestly and equally.

 

[Jupiter551]

Neither of them were angels, Zimmerman's past has been brought up several times while Trayvon is always described as somebody who was weak and never did ANYTHING wrong. Let's be fair, at least, and look at both sides honestly and equally.

Trayvon's past has been frequently brought up, embellished, and somehow seen by some people as relevant to his killing - whatever Trayvon did at school, whatever his twitter name was, etc, remember this; he was a MINOR. God forbid any of us should be judged by the silly shit we did in our teens.

 

[Bocefish]

Jails are full of 17 year old murderers and rapists too. Zimmerman had no idea of Tray's real age other than guessing late teens as he told the operator.

Oh, and 6'2" 160# is not skinny as fuck, especially for a growing young man. http://www.halls.md/ideal-weight/met.htm

 

[SoTxBob]

Let's be fair, at least, and look at both sides honestly and equally.

LMAO.. :laughing-rolling: With this case.. Ain't gonna EVER happen, simply because of so much emotional involvement from everyone dissecting the case, both amateur and professional. :handgestures-thumbup:

 

[JickyJuly]

Jails are full of 17 year old murderers and rapists too. Zimmerman had no idea of Tray's real age other than guessing late teens as he told the operator.

Oh, and 6'2" 160# is not skinny as fuck, especially for a growing young man. http://www.halls.md/ideal-weight/met.htm

Zimmerman didn't need to know the kid's age. He didn't need to know anything about him. If he hadn't have followed the guy, NOTHING would have happened to him. I can walk by someone on the street any day and think they're trouble. The proper thing to do if no wrong doing is occurring that needs to be immediately stopped, is to keep walking. If you fear something is going to happen, call 911. Disliking the way someone looks does NOT give you the right to stalk them out. We all get into situation where we dislike someone and might enjoy acting against them, but it's not right and it's NOT legal.

Even if Trayvon Martin were a thief, that's a crime that revolves around lying. It doesn't automatically lead police to suspect he's a violent character. Even if he were violent in the past it wouldn't prove Zimmerman's case. If I see someone throwing punches one day, follow them the next and claim I needed to shoot them in case they were going to punch me to death, it wouldn't fly. My theory is that George Zimmerman got scratches by skulking around playing army man. His lawyers would help him more by getting his mental issues looked into than by claiming self defense.

 

[Jupiter551]

Jails are full of 17 year old murderers and rapists too. Zimmerman had no idea of Tray's real age other than guessing late teens as he told the operator.

Oh, and 6'2" 160# is not skinny as fuck, especially for a growing young man. http://www.halls.md/ideal-weight/met.htm

it's very much on the lower end of BMI, the table you linked says it's a "small frame", and another link on that page suggests the average ideal for that height for a young adult is 170. Any way you spin it, characterising him as a scary giant is straight up bullshit.

 

[Bocefish]

LOL, I never said he was a scary giant. He had a good 5 inches in height advantage though.

Jails are full of 17 year old murderers and rapists too. Zimmerman had no idea of Tray's real age other than guessing late teens as he told the operator.

Oh, and 6'2" 160# is not skinny as fuck, especially for a growing young man. http://www.halls.md/ideal-weight/met.htm

Zimmerman didn't need to know the kid's age. He didn't need to know anything about him. If he hadn't have followed the guy, NOTHING would have happened to him. I can walk by someone on the street any day and think they're trouble. The proper thing to do if no wrong doing is occurring that needs to be immediately stopped, is to keep walking. If you fear something is going to happen, call 911. Disliking the way someone looks does NOT give you the right to stalk them out. We all get into situation where we dislike someone and might enjoy acting against them, but it's not right and it's NOT legal.

Even if Trayvon Martin were a thief, that's a crime that revolves around lying. It doesn't automatically lead police to suspect he's a violent character. Even if he were violent in the past it wouldn't prove Zimmerman's case. If I see someone throwing punches one day, follow them the next and claim I needed to shoot them in case they were going to punch me to death, it wouldn't fly. My theory is that George Zimmerman got scratches by skulking around playing army man. His lawyers would help him more by getting his mental issues looked into than by claiming self defense.

I've said repeatedly that he was an idiot if he did indeed follow Tray. However, there's nothing illegal about that and he was head of the neighborhood watch. Zim stated he was looking for an address that the operator asked him for.

I agree their pasts don't 100% matter, but they are likely going to be factored in by both sides if it gets to a jury trial. Zim's injuries will be a big factor and if the medical reports don't back up a broken nose and lacerations to the back of his head, then he's in deep chit and should plead out. If the medical records back up his claimed injuries, it's going to be awfully hard to prove he didn't reasonably believe his life was in danger. It's a tragedy all around and could have been soooo easily avoided.

 

[sorrowfool]

But if that person that shot you has wounds, has a few eye-witnesses backing up his claim of self-defense and the Original Investigator claims you were acting unlawfully, the person that shot you has a credible claim to self-defense. And your character, associations and past comes into play.

Like it or not, TM's character, associations and past actions are on trial just like Zimmerman's. That is the nature of less clear-cut Self-Defense cases. not allowing it is tantamount to railroading Zimmerman.

You can't bring a gun to a hair pulling fight. If you are a physically healthy person with a gun, standing in the street with an unarmed, thin minor there is every opportunity to avoid confrontation escalation. I've been punched, knifed and once stabbed with a key. If I'd shot someone in any of those situations, jail would be on the other end. Maybe the other person would go as well, but that wouldn't lessen my crime. If Zimmerman got a few scratches out of the ordeal, good on Trayvon for trying to fight off a dude with a gun no matter how futile that is.

I will spell it out for you. If you are not engaged in a crime, are someplace you have a legal right to be and are attacked in such a way that you have a reasonable fear for your life or a reasonable fear that grievous bodily harm will be inflicted upon you, you can draw your handgun and fire as many rounds as it takes to drop your attacker and walk away without criminal charges or civil liability for wounding or killing your attacker.

Well, let's flip this situation.

If you are not engaged in a crime (as Trayvon wasn't), are someplace you have a legal right to be (as Trayvon was) and are attacked in such a way that you have a reasonable fear for your life or a reasonable fear that grievous bodily harm will be inflicted upon you (as Trayvon may have been), you can draw your handgun (raise your dukes) and fire as many rounds (or throw as many punches) as it takes to drop your attacker and walk away without criminal charges or civil liability for wounding or killing your attacker.

Say Trayvon was the one left standing... he claims he was headed back to his Dad's GF's house, when he noticed someone stalking him in their truck. He begin to run (or walk quickly) to his destination, only to be pursued on foot. He stopped to ask why this person was following him, the man didn't identify himself as anyone of proper authority. When he turned to leave the man grabbed him. Zimmerman isn't a small guy, height isn't really a big factor in a fight. If you have to factor in things such as reach into the equation, that means the fight would have been fairly evenly matched. In the course of the fight (which everyone was saying occurred on the ground, so why would height matter?) Trayvon smashed Zimmerman's head repeatedly on the ground, until he stopped resisting/moving. According to the Stand Your Ground law, isn't Trayvon well within his right to disable his attacker with whatever force necessary?

Nevermind, that Zimmerman had a gun, because Trayvon didn't have a gun and you're all still saying he was a threat. Zimmerman did have a gun, though.

It seems to me that everyone is saying that Zimmerman was within his right to defend himself, forgetting the fact that Trayvon was probably defending himself, as well. If Zimmerman was within his right to shoot a person to death to defend himself, wouldn't Trayvon have been within his right to beat a person to death to do the same? And if so, doesn't that mean that Zimmerman shot someone who was defending themselves (in accordance to SYG) against Zimmerman? Seems like a bit of a Catch-22.

I guess whoever was less dead at the end, gets to be right.

 

[Paulie Walnuts]

Anyone with an ounce of brains doing a neighborhood watch would at most have shadowed the kid until the cops picked him up, or just kept the 911 guy informed on where the kid was going/what he was doing.

He did it wrong. He killed an innocent kid who was not up to no good in any way.... that night, if you wanna still try to smear the kid's position.
Zim would have found that out if he had stayed back 50 feet and just tailed him.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions, as they say.

 

[Paulie Walnuts]

I guess whoever was less dead at the end, gets to be right.

Pretty much the truth, as the law is used. If nobody saw it go down the one still breathing gets to make the truth whatever they want it to be.

I own guns, I even carry one now and then, and this is not the kind of country I want to live in. It puts ME (and you) in a very dangerous position.

Any fucktard can whack you and literally say "He hit me back first".

 

[Jupiter551]

I agree their pasts don't 100% matter, but they are likely going to be factored in by both sides if it gets to a jury trial. Zim's injuries will be a big factor and if the medical reports don't back up a broken nose and lacerations to the back of his head, then he's in deep chit and should plead out. If the medical records back up his claimed injuries, it's going to be awfully hard to prove he didn't reasonably believe his life was in danger. It's a tragedy all around and could have been soooo easily avoided.

Keep in mind that laceration literally means a "cut" or "scratch", and my mother for instance broke her nose falling out of a bunk bed when she was a kid (I guess she fell on her nose). Neither of those injuries, seperate or together, go anywhere to proving his life was in danger. If his head was slammed repeatedly into concrete then we can expect evidence of a fractured skull, disorientation, possible concussion. If those aren't present then his injuries are negligible and/or not a result of events he has described.

 

[Anonymous]

I think Harvrath is really Zimmerman's mom or something. Nobody else would waste so much time trying to convince people of his innocence.

I will spell it out for you. If you are not engaged in a crime, are someplace you have a legal right to be and are attacked in such a way that you have a reasonable fear for your life or a reasonable fear that grievous bodily harm will be inflicted upon you, you can draw your handgun and fire as many rounds as it takes to drop your attacker and walk away without criminal charges or civil liability for wounding or killing your attacker.

Adding a condescending tone to what you are writing does not make it correct. If you are following the person you are in fear of, you're doing it wrong. If you pull a gun on an unarmed person in a street where he is allowed to be and doing nothing wrong, you are a murderer. Thanks for the spelling lesson though, douchenoz.

 

[Bocefish]

I agree their pasts don't 100% matter, but they are likely going to be factored in by both sides if it gets to a jury trial. Zim's injuries will be a big factor and if the medical reports don't back up a broken nose and lacerations to the back of his head, then he's in deep chit and should plead out. If the medical records back up his claimed injuries, it's going to be awfully hard to prove he didn't reasonably believe his life was in danger. It's a tragedy all around and could have been soooo easily avoided.

Keep in mind that laceration literally means a "cut" or "scratch", and my mother for instance broke her nose falling out of a bunk bed when she was a kid (I guess she fell on her nose). Neither of those injuries, seperate or together, go anywhere to proving his life was in danger. If his head was slammed repeatedly into concrete then we can expect evidence of a fractured skull, disorientation, possible concussion. If those aren't present then his injuries are negligible and/or not a result of events he has described.

Now you're a doctor too, lol, and think a laceration is a scratch?

I'm beginning to think you'd argue if I said the sun sets in the west or the earth was round. For me, the entire key to his reasonable belief that it was life threatening or that a serious injury could occur was the head being banged against the concrete. Even boxers with padded gloves aren't allowed to hit their opponent in the back of the head because it can cause spinal chord injury or death. You don't have to fracture the skull to paralyze or kill someone.

laceration [las″ĕ-ra´shun]
1. the act of tearing.
2. a wound produced by the tearing of body tissue, as distinguished from a cut or incision. External lacerations may be small or large and may be caused in many ways, such as a blow from a blunt instrument, a fall against a rough surface, or an accident with machinery.

 

[Jupiter551]

I'm beginning to think you'd argue if I said the sun sets in the west or the earth was round. For me, the entire key to his reasonable belief that it was life threatening or that a serious injury could occur was the head being banged against the concrete. Even boxers with padded gloves aren't allowed to hit their opponent in the back of the head because it can cause spinal chord injury or death. You don't have to fracture the skull to paralyze or kill someone.

Then prepare to disbelieve, because eyewitnesses say their struggle was on grass, nowhere near the concrete. We all know bashing someone's head into concrete is going to cause serious injury, which is precisely why we've all wondered why there doesn't seem to *be* any serious injury.

Technically you're correct that lacerations are wounds caused by blunt instruments that don't have the capacity to "cut" the way sharp instruments do, but the result is pretty much the same. "Lacerations" is not some buzz-word for mortal wounds, it doesn't hold any qualitative value. Just like an incision could be caused by a sheet of paper or a samurai sword, lacerations can be equally minor or major. Ones that don't require any medical treatment are generally minor.

You say I'm argumentative, yet most of the people in here are arguing with you, not me. Unarmed black kid shot dead walking home from the store and you side with the shooter.

 

[Bocefish]

A scuffle in the grass will not cause these type lacerations.

 

[Jupiter551]

Oh ok then, the witness was lying I guess. Or Trayvon didn't cause the injuries. Maybe he did it himself after the shooting? Hell I'd back my head on the pavement to avoid a murder charge.

 

[SweepTheLeg]

"Even boxers with padded gloves aren't allowed to hit their opponent in the back of the head because it can cause spinal chord injury or death. You don't have to fracture the skull to paralyze or kill someone." And YET Zimmerman had the clear presence of mind to take out his gun and shoot while professional boxers who work out for a living would have gone paralyzed. this man is a super hero.

But in either case, the defendants of Zimmerman have yet to explain to me why it's okay for him to shoot and kill Trayvon when he found his life to be in danger but yet Trayvon didn't have the right to do the same with his bare hands when he was being followed by a man with a gun? When would it have been ok for Trayvon to defend himself? After he's been shot?

 

[Jupiter551]

A scuffle in the grass will not cause these type lacerations.

After careful and exhaustive study, a panel of earwitnesses and testimony from Zimmerman's brother (an expert in the field of Zimmerman), we've concluded that the "lacerations" on the back of his head are in fact none other than the fabled Loch Ness Monster!

Just to really prove this is what happened, Nessie isn't around to deny the charges and as a final clincher, goes under the twitter name '@Head_Lacer8n_Monsta'.

 

[Nordling]

A scuffle in the grass will not cause these type lacerations.

That is NOT the original photo, and has been already discussed, it's an ENHANCED photo--meaning it's been sharpened and increased in contrast--when you do that, you do not show things that can't be seen on the original, you CREATE artifacts that upon further "enhancement" widen and create all kinds of false pixels.

 

[Bocefish]

Believe whatever ridiculousness you want, it's the judge and/or the jury who will decide.

 

[Nordling]

The big question about the "injuries" is, why did the police not use a cop photographer and make GOOD photos of the "lacerations" and broken nose? Isn't injury evidence?

 

[Bocefish]

The big question about the "injuries" is, why did the police not use a cop photographer and make GOOD photos of the "lacerations" and broken nose? Isn't injury evidence?

Good point.

Maybe they did, I would hope so anyway. All the info we have is what the media has been able to get a hold of so far.

 

[Nordling]

Believe whatever ridiculousness you want, it's the judge and/or the jury who will decide.

I would suggest you do the same.

 

[Bocefish]

Believe whatever ridiculousness you want, it's the judge and/or the jury who will decide.

I would suggest you do the same.

Not a problem, but I'm not one saying he beat his own head against the sidewalk just so he could justify shooting someone he never met before.

 

[SweepTheLeg]

Adrenaline could be a hell of a drug, but panic can cause people to do some crazy things. Both are plausible.

We could have either a grown man getting his ass beat by a teenager his head being repeatedly bashed against the pavement and with one last grasp of consciousness pulls out his gun and shoots the kid who's only intention that night was to kill.

OR we could have a grown man who follows someone who he believes to be the person breaking into everyone's house and he plans to be the man to stop it gun in hand looking for any excuse then realizes he just shot an unarmed teen and panics and self-preservation begins.

 

[IsabelleL]

Believe whatever ridiculousness you want, it's the judge and/or the jury who will decide.

I would suggest you do the same.

Not a problem, but I'm not one saying he beat his own head against the sidewalk just so he could justify shooting someone he never met before.

I'm not saying that happened: but if I were a piece of scum who just realized I'd shot and killed some kid I was following, you can bet your ass I'd do anything to stop me from getting in jail.

A huge problem I'm having with the character assassination of Trayvon is that it doesn't fucking matter. If we couldn't tell that from the pictures, neither could Zimmerman. Unless Trayvon was shouting "HEY GUYS MAYBE I SELL WEED AND SOMETIMES I LIKE TO POST SILLY PICTURES OF MYSELF LOOKING INTIMIDATING AND I'M IN A LITTLE BIT OF TROUBLE AT SCHOOL," Zimmerman had no way of knowing this. If I follow some guy down the street because he looks suspicious, he confronts me, and I shoot him, and it turns out this guy was unarmed and just picking up some candy for his brother, it doesn't matter what his life is. He could be a murderer who'd escaped from prison. He could be a child molester. He could be a wealthy philanthropist who was helping poor children all over the country. Whatever the case, it would still be wrong for me to pursue and shoot him when the only thing I was sure of was that I didn't recognize him.

I'm not going to address gun laws, because I'm not going to pretend I'm educated or interested enough in the matter to say anything worth reading.

As for the race issue:

On April 22, 2011, Zimmerman called to report a black male about “7-9” years old, four feet tall, with a “skinny build” and short black hair. There is no indication in the police report of the reason for Zimmerman’s suspicion of the boy.

I mean seriously. You think a four foot skinny black CHILD is suspicious? You aren't calling because you're worried about where the parent is. You haven't gone up to them and talked to them and they've said there's an emergency. You see a black CHILD and get nervous and suspicious?

Even *if* race wasn't a factor in Zimmerman committing the crime, it definitely has been in the handling of it. If this had happened to me, a white 20-year old woman, followed and shot in the gated community in which I was living--first, there'd have been a media frenzy. Anchors would have been interviewing psychiatrists as to what the hell was going on in Zimmerman's head when he followed me down the street and shot me. The media everywhere would be clamoring for his arrest. Someone might bring up my camming as a weird twist, someone might bring up the weed they found in my room--no one would be saying "this twenty year old female stood an imposing 5'11", was wearing sturdy black boots that looked like they could hurt someone, and a scaaary hooded sweatshirt! Isabelle's family has been trying to show her sweet side, but what you DON'T know is that sometimes Isabelle would yell back at men who harassed her in the streets--this girl was aggressive, often swearing at men who made sexual remarks at her as she passed. Isabelle oftentimes referred to herself as a bitch--this tall intimidating woman with a checkered past probably FOUGHT BACK or reacted in terror when a stranger followed her in a car for a while before pursuing her on foot! In fact, after being followed for some ways by this stranger, and calling her boyfriend because she was terrified and didn't know what to do, some conflicting reports say that Isabelle may have even nervously stood her ground when this interloper who'd been following her got out of his car. Isabelle was taller than the man who stood 5'9", so obviously the 185-lb Zimmerman would have been terrified if she acted aggressive at all, in an attempt to make him back off."

I have a lot of feelings.

 

[Bocefish]

I would consider the possibility of self-inflicted injuries if he had time to think and was in a private location instead of people's back yards where any number of people could have seen what happened. Suggesting he shot somebody in public view of who knows how many witnesses, with the police on their way, and then immediately decides "Oh, I better bang my head against the sidewalk a few times real quick before the police get here" is not plausible IMO.