Support NeoGAF

[Korey]

People need to back off on the "he looked suspicious" comments.

It's dangerously close to the "she was asking for it by dressing that way" comments in threads about rape.

Zimmerman was 100% wrong to do what he did, and has been proven to be an overzealous self-appointed captain of the neighborhood watch. Walking while wearing a hoodie or admiring houses is not grounds for shit.

 

[Ignis Fatuus]

No one should have to fear wearing a hoodie in their own neighborhood, what the fuck? If someone finds that suspicious that's a fault on them, not the guy minding his own business.

 

[Dahellisdat]

No, not when there are no witnesses and there is evidence of self defense. Again, if they arrested him, it goes to trial, how do they prove it? They should wait for more evidence or a witness who saw it, so they can actually go to trial and have a chance.

You can only try someone for a crime once, its extremely dumb to rush it. You cant disprove the shooters self defense (at least that Im aware of).

If they arrested him, he would get out on bail probably, and lawyer up. And it would do nothing but make the case harder for them to prove. Plus if a weak case goes to trial, and he gets off, everyone will get even more pissed and probably be riots.

Idk I dont know all of the details, but from what I read, I dont know how they prove it to a jury. And they could end up spending hundreds of thousands on the trial, and get nowhere with it. And lose their ability to arrest and try him later on.

Honestly, whether he goes to jail or somehow does not, his life and reputation is pretty much fucked at this point.

 

[Imm0rt4l]

edit: nvm

 

[KHarvey16]

The law didn't help him, there was reasonable evidence, Sanford PD is fucked up



Maybe you should actually read it, it might make more sense then.

He made a general statement that is falsified by the existence of the law in Florida. A person who shoots someone else will not always be arrested.

Also, I'll point out again that the Florida law does not necessarily bar someone using the self defense defense even if they were initially the aggressor or in some way provoked the attack. The law provides a rather wide berth.

 

[Jim E. Rossler]

I think people are really belaboring moot points. As for hoodies, as this documentary clearly shows: Hoodie down, never frown. Hoodie up, you gonna get raped:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmZpY2qVJiA

spoiler for irrelevant rambling

Spoiler

That dude had 30 second to do whatever before the 2nd stage 'ALERT' phase activates, at which point they get the message and a minute later they call you, if you dont reply they call the PD who might send someone down within 15 minutes if you live in a decent part of town
That guy could've made her put the code in, if he misses stage 1 and tries to make her tell the security guys when they call everything is ok, she can give the false password, and they'll accept it and pretend everything's cool while still calling the PD
In all actuality the guy would've moved on to a different house after having his face seen by the husband, and when the wife tells him what happened his description will still be fresh in his head

TLDR Hood down, never care, Hoodie up, Be aware

if wearing a hoodie makes you suspicious, would any half smart criminal wear one?

He made a general statement that is falsified by the existence of the law in Florida. A person who shoots someone else will not always be arrested.

Also, I'll point out again that the Florida law does not necessarily bar someone using the self defense defense even if they were initially the aggressor or in some way provoked the attack. The law provides a rather wide berth.

Yeah, that part can go

 

[Raxus]

Plenty of people.

Some honestly believe that one must say "I can't stannnnnnnnnd those jungle bunnies" before race is officially a factor. Racism, the majority of the time, is not expressed in a loud and direct manner like that.

There are plenty of studies proving that race factors into every decision in the justice system. Arrests, punishment, severity of the charge, etc.

The Supreme Court is actually meeting to discuss this very subject. This case will only be further proof that more must be done in terms of equality in the justice system.

 

[DY_nasty]

No, not when there are no eyeball witnesses and there is evidence of self defense. Again, if they arrested him, it goes to trial, how do they prove it? They should wait for more evidence or a witness who saw it, so they can actually go to trial and have a chance.

You can only try someone for a crime once, its extremely dumb to rush it. You cant disprove the shooters self defense (at least that Im aware of).

If they arrested him, he would get out on bail probably, and lawyer up. And it would do nothing but make the case harder for them to prove. Plus if a weak case goes to trial, and he gets off, everyone will get even more pissed and probably will riot.

Idk I dont know all of the details, but from what I read, I dont know how they prove it to a jury. And they could end up spending hundreds of thousands on the trial, and get nowhere with it. And lose their ability to arrest and try him later on.

It doesn't work that way. You can't kill someone, claim self-defense, and legitimately expect police to take your word for it without an investigation.

You have to prove self-defense. Not prove that it wasn't self-defense.

 

[AiTM]

People need to back off on the "he looked suspicious" comments.

It's dangerously close to the "she was asking for it by dressing that way" comments in threads about rape.

Zimmerman was 100% wrong to do what he did, and has been proven to be an overzealous self-appointed captain of the neighborhood watch. Walking while wearing a hoodie or admiring houses is not grounds for shit.

I dont know why any of that matters anyways. Its not illegal to follow someone in your neighborhood, and its not illegal to think someone is suspicious. Yeah it may be fucked up or racist, but either way he says he thought the person was suspicious, and alot of other people would follow someone in their neighborhood if they thought the same thing.

People should be talking about the case, you cant convict the guy on the things everyone in this thread is obsessed over.

 

[Korey]

No, not when there are no eyeball witnesses and there is evidence of self defense. Again, if they arrested him, it goes to trial, how do they prove it? They should wait for more evidence or a witness who saw it, so they can actually go to trial and have a chance.

You can only try someone for a crime once, its extremely dumb to rush it. You cant disprove the shooters self defense (at least that Im aware of).

If they arrested him, he would get out on bail probably, and lawyer up. And it would do nothing but make the case harder for them to prove. Plus if a weak case goes to trial, and he gets off, everyone will get even more pissed and probably will riot.

Idk I dont know all of the details, but from what I read, I dont know how they prove it to a jury. And they could end up spending hundreds of thousands on the trial, and get nowhere with it. And lose their ability to arrest and try him later on.

I think the problem is that there was no investigation, or that the investigation was botched (either intentionally or not). "Arresting him" isn't really the problem, it's that the police never took it seriously and literally just took him for his word. Wasn't it thought at one point that he was intoxicated or on drugs, but they never tested him and now it's too late?

I dont know why any of that matters anyways. Its not illegal to follow someone in your neighborhood, and its not illegal to think someone is suspicious. Yeah it may be fucked up or racist, but either way he says he thought the person was suspicious, and alot of other people would follow someone in their neighborhood if they thought the same thing.

People should be talking about the case, you cant convict the guy on the things everyone in this thread is obsessed over.

It doesn't matter, which is why I don't understand why we're even talking about it.

 

[AiTM]

It doesn't work that way. You can't kill someone, claim self-defense, and legitimately expect police to take your word for it without an investigation.

You have to prove self-defense. Not prove that it wasn't self-defense.

No it is the burden of the State to prove Guilt. He had a wet back and a bloody nose right, indicating he was knocked down? Maybe there is evidence Im missing, and if so please correct me, but I don't see how the State could prove murder right now, or even manslaughter. Given nobody saw it, and the evidence indicates a struggle.

 

[Raxus]

I dont know why any of that matters anyways. Its not illegal to follow someone in your neighborhood, and its not illegal to think someone is suspicious. Yeah it may be fucked up or racist, but either way he says he thought the person was suspicious, and alot of other people would follow someone in their neighborhood if they thought the same thing.

People should be talking about the case, you cant convict the guy on the things everyone in this thread is obsessed over.

You can't nail Zimmerman for 1st degree or a hate crime (sadly) but there is plenty of evidence that points to 2nd degree murder (at best) and manslaughter, IMO.

 

[DY_nasty]

I dont know why any of that matters anyways. Its not illegal to follow someone in your neighborhood, and its not illegal to think someone is suspicious. Yeah it may be fucked up or racist, but either way he says he thought the person was suspicious, and alot of other people would follow someone in their neighborhood if they thought the same thing.

People should be talking about the case, you cant convict the guy on the things everyone in this thread is obsessed over.

It is part of the case. A big part - because it revolves around the altercation that led directly to the shooting. If he's the aggressor, it changes everything. The circumstances surrounding that altercation and events leading up to it are important. Perceived threat, negligence, vigilantism.. all of those things show up when you look at how and why the alteration occurred.

Also, it brings up a lot of issues that people outside of the situation have encountered. I'm pretty guilty of looking like a slut apparently.

 

[Korey]

No it is the burden of the State to prove Guilt. He had a wet back and a bloody nose right, indicating he was knocked down? Maybe there is evidence Im missing, and if so please correct me, but I don't see how the State could prove murder right now, or even manslaughter. Given nobody saw it, and the evidence indicates a struggle.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you can only kill someone in self defense if you think your life is in danger. Seeing how Trayvon was 100-120 lbs lighter than him and unarmed (except ice tea and skittles), I'm not sure having a bloody nose and grass stains on the back of your t-shirt qualifies.

Getting into a fist fight or pushing each other around is not grounds for one person pulling out a gun and killing the other.

Also, Trayvon has never had a violent record, while Zimmerman has had history of battery on a fucking police officer.

If you look at everything in context, which the jury will, it's pretty clear who was in the wrong here.

 

[iammeiam]

So the call at 32:20 on here is I think going to potentially wind up being key. The kid didn't see the shooting, but he apparently saw a guy on the ground, screaming for help. After the shot, the screaming stopped. Which matches the other reports, but it's weird that the 911 operator didn't ask for more details about the guy on the ground--race, clothes he was wearing, etc.

He's the only one of the calls who it sounded like could easily ID who was yelling, but what he describes sounds pretty much like murder to me. Other calls make reference to 'wrestling' between the two guys, but if the person on the ground screaming is the victim (and I wish they'd asked something in the call to confirm it) then Zimmerman had basically already won the fight before firing.

 

[dabig2]

Wait, isn't self-defense an affirmative defense...meaning the onus is on the defense to prove without a shadow of the doubt that your life was in danger? Or is that changed by Florida's completely dumbass law.

 

[DY_nasty]

No it is the burden of the State to prove Guilt. He had a wet back and a bloody nose right, indicating he was knocked down? Maybe there is evidence Im missing, and if so please correct me, but I don't see how the State could prove murder right now, or even manslaughter. Given nobody saw it, and the evidence indicates a struggle.

There is a dead body with gunshot wound. There is no question that Zimmerman killed that kid. "It was self-defense, officer" does not mean that an investigation should be thrown out the window.

Its not like we're talking about 'suspicion of Zimmerman killing Martin here'. Its known. Why? Needs to run its proper course. And simple things such as Zimmerman not even getting tested for drugs or alcohol indicate that the PD had no intention of doing such a thing. Which is obviously in the wrong.

Wait, isn't self-defense an affirmative defense...meaning the onus is on the defense to prove without a shadow of the doubt that your life was in danger? Or is that changed by Florida's completely dumbass law.

Yeah.

 

[BobLoblaw]

I dont know why any of that matters anyways. Its not illegal to follow someone in your neighborhood, and its not illegal to think someone is suspicious. Yeah it may be fucked up or racist, but either way he says he thought the person was suspicious, and alot of other people would follow someone in their neighborhood if they thought the same thing.

People should be talking about the case, you cant convict the guy on the things everyone in this thread is obsessed over.

Nope. When you call the police and they tell you not to follow him and you say, "Ok" then it should be out of your hands at that point. No, it's not illegal to follow someone. No one's claiming that. But you don't follow someone that looks "suspicious", start chasing them, lose them, then find them again, get into a scuffle with them, have them scream for help repeatedly, shoot them dead, and then claim self defense. As far as we know, that kid might have thought he was some kinda of pedophile or rapist (since he clearly did not identitfy who he was or what he wanted) and fought for his life. Unfortunately, we'll never hear his side of the story.

 

[AiTM]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you can only kill someone in self defense if you think your life is in danger. Seeing how Trayvon was 100-120 lbs lighter than him and unarmed, I'm not sure having a bloody nose and grass stains on the back of your t-shirt qualifies.

Getting into a fist fight or pushing each other around is not grounds for one person pulling out a gun and killing the other.

Ok but look how this plays out had they arrested him right away. The shooter would have became even more defensive, hired a lawyer, and made bail. Now the cops cant be friendly and talk to him. They can still canvas and gather evidence, which they could do either way.

So his lawyer and him come up with a defense that he went outside to see if Trayvon was up to anything suspicious, and he could say Trayvon became aggressive and reached for his gun when he saw it. A scuffle occurred, and he had no choice to shoot Trayvon because he felt threatened for his life, and Trayvon was reaching for his gun.

Obviously this probably didnt happen. But if he argues this defense, and there are no other witnesses, how could the State ever convict? A decent lawyer will at least get the case dropped. And if hes found not guilty of murder or manslaughter, and a witness or evidence pops up later on, they cant do shit. You can convict someone on what you think may have happened. The State has to prove it.

Taking their time with it to build a stronger case only makes more sense.

 

[Onemic]

I dont know why any of that matters anyways. Its not illegal to follow someone in your neighborhood, and its not illegal to think someone is suspicious. Yeah it may be fucked up or racist, but either way he says he thought the person was suspicious, and alot of other people would follow someone in their neighborhood if they thought the same thing.

People should be talking about the case, you cant convict the guy on the things everyone in this thread is obsessed over.

You are out of your mind if you truly believe this. You call the police and let them handle it, not go into hero mode.

 

[Dude Abides]

No, not when there are no eyeball witnesses and there is evidence of self defense. Again, if they arrested him, it goes to trial, how do they prove it? They should wait for more evidence or a witness who saw it, so they can actually go to trial and have a chance.

You can only try someone for a crime once, its extremely dumb to rush it. You cant disprove the shooters self defense (at least that Im aware of).

If they arrested him, he would get out on bail probably, and lawyer up. And it would do nothing but make the case harder for them to prove. Plus if a weak case goes to trial, and he gets off, everyone will get even more pissed and probably will riot.

Idk I dont know all of the details, but from what I read, I dont know how they prove it to a jury. And they could end up spending hundreds of thousands on the trial, and get nowhere with it. And lose their ability to arrest and try him later on.

LoL at the notion you need an eyewitness or more than a body and a gun to charge someone with murder. People watch too much CSI.

 

[AiTM]

Nope. When you call the police and they tell you not to follow him and you say, "Ok" then it should be out of your hands at that point. No, it's not illegal to follow someone. No one's claiming that. But you don't follow someone that looks "suspicious", start chasing them, lose them, then find them again, get into a scuffle with them, have them scream for help repeatedly, shoot them dead, and then claim self defense. As far as we know, that kid might have thought he was some kinda of pedophile or rapist (since he clearly did not identitfy who he was or what he wanted) and fought for his life. Unfortunately, we'll never hear his side of the story.

I agree with you, but what Im taking issue with is people getting mad he wasn't arrested. Without more evidence, it seems like a waste to me to press foward with a case at this moment.

LoL at the notion you need an eyewitness or more than a body and a gun to charge someone with murder. People watch too much CSI.

Actually Im going off what I learned in the Wire. And Im secretly hoping someone will quote my avatar.

 

[Korey]

My guess is that Zimmerman was so overly-zealous and foaming at the mouth to nail this suspicious looking, hoodie-wearing, house admiring trespasser on his turf that his nose started bleeding from excitement. In his excitement, he began running and slipped on the wet nighttime grass and got stains on his shirt.

 

[AiTM]

You are out of your mind if you truly believe this. You call the police and let them handle it, not go into hero mode.

I was saying alot of other people would follow someone. I dont know where you live in the US. But their are alot of gun owners who feel the need to protect their property. And would follow someone, I didn't say for a second it was the right thing to do.

 

[squidyj]

I agree with you, but what Im taking issue with is people getting mad he wasn't arrested. Without more evidence, it seems like a waste to me to press foward with a case at this moment.



Actually Im going off what I learned in the Wire. And Im secretly hoping someone will quote my avatar.

Low hanging fruit bro.

 

[CrazyDogg77]

I agree with you, but what Im taking issue with is people getting mad he wasn't arrested. Without more evidence, it seems like a waste to me to press foward with a case at this moment.



Actually Im going off what I learned in the Wire. And Im secretly hoping someone will quote my avatar.

Please tell me you're joking.

 

[AiTM]

There is a dead body with gunshot wound. There is no question that Zimmerman killed that kid. "It was self-defense, officer" does not mean that an investigation should be thrown out the window.

Its not like we're talking about 'suspicion of Zimmerman killing Martin here'. Its known. Why? Needs to run its proper course. And simple things such as Zimmerman not even getting tested for drugs or alcohol indicate that the PD had no intention of doing such a thing. Which is obviously in the wrong.

Yeah.

I never said this, seems like people have a bad habit of putting words in peoples mouths. Read what I said.

Please tell me you're joking.

Yes

 

[KodMoS]

Ok but look how this plays out had they arrested him right away. The shooter would have became even more defensive, hired a lawyer, and made bail. Now the cops cant be friendly and talk to him. They can still canvas and gather evidence, which they could do either way.

So his lawyer and him come up with a defense that he went outside to see if Trayvon was up to anything suspicious, and he could say Trayvon became aggressive and reached for his gun when he saw it. A scuffle occurred, and he had no choice to shoot Trayvon because he felt threatened for his life, and Trayvon was reaching for his gun.

Obviously this probably didnt happen. But if he argues this defense, and there are no other witnesses, how could the State ever convict? A decent lawyer will at least get the case dropped. And if hes found not guilty of murder or manslaughter, and a witness or evidence pops up later on, they cant do shit. You can convict someone on what you think may have happened. The State has to prove it.

Taking their time with it to build a stronger case only makes more sense.

I think they have a good case since now that Trayvon's girlfriend has come to the foreground. Her statements contradicts what Zimmerman told the police, which raises doubt in Zimmerman's story. You don't need Eye Witnesses, and Trayvon's girlfriend's testimony may have be a big part on winning this case.

 

[Houston3000]

The "stand your ground" thing doesn't make any sense.

Doesn't it basically imply that if you get into any fight or altercation in Florida, whoever pulls out their gun and kills the other first wins the fight and can't be charged for it?

How the fuck does that make any sense? That's like saying everyone who goes to a bar should bring a gun in case they get into a bar fight and need to "defend" themselves.

The law is pretty simple

In most states you are allowed to defend yourself inside your home, with force, if you feel your life is being threatened. However, when you're outside your house and you feel you're safety is in danger, you need to make an attempt to escape the situation before using any force (basically you have to at least try and run away). In Florida (among about 15 other states), when you're outside your house, you're not obligated to try and run away first. You're allowed to "stand your ground" and use force to stop people right away without having to attempt to escape if you feel your safety is threatened.

Ideally the law almost doesn't seem terrible at face value but it's too easy for people to lie and get away with murder by claiming they felt they were assaulted, but - because of this "Stand Your Ground" law - didn't feel the need to just leave or run away. Then, in situations like this, where one man gets in a fight where he could of just ran away instead of shooting - they try to construe the law to say he was never obligated to leave (though other laws do state you can't claim self defense if the other person surrenders and you continue attacking)

 

[AiTM]

I think they have a good case since now that Trayvon's girlfriend has come to the foreground. Her statements contradicts what Zimmerman told the police, which raises doubt in Zimmerman's story. You don't need Eye Witnesses, and Trayvon's girlfriend's testimony may have be a big part on winning this case.

What did she say? And why did she come foward late?

 

[Onemic]

I was saying alot of other people would follow someone. I dont know where you live in the US. But their are alot of gun owners who feel the need to protect their property. And would follow someone, I didn't say for a second it was the right thing to do.

From Toronto, but the picture you and the others in this thread have been painting about the US makes it seem like it's some type of no mans land.

 

[soundahfekz]

I'd just like to point a couple things out to people needing absolute proof of racism. It's 2012. It's not exactly politically correct, nor accepted to be an outright bigot. Those who think anything less than Sanford PD involved and the former chief standing in solidarity and saying "we aren't fond of x race" isn't racism are fooling themselves.

As people and professionals, we live beyond our communities these days. As public figures, Police officers can receive condemnation outside of the community walls that impact job security and status of freedom. There's not much that doesn't reach the internet these days, which in turn blows up in the news media. It is extremely rare that you'll have a direct admission of racism by anyone who doesn't eat, sleep and shit it.

Casual racism does exist. People don't have to think about blacks or hispanics, etc in a negative light 24/7 for apathy and disdain to present itself at ample opportunity. I wish those sheltered and naive enough to continue arguing this point could realize that, but I can understand doubting passive racism if you've never directly experienced it.

 

[BobLoblaw]

I agree with you, but what Im taking issue with is people getting mad he wasn't arrested. Without more evidence, it seems like a waste to me to press foward with a case at this moment.

But that's the thing. Police have probable cause. They've had it since the incident happened. Everything I just described has been in their hands since the beginning and they haven't even arrested him. The way it works is if you find evidence that a crime may have been committed, you arrest the suspect and hold them until they can be arraigned. In this case, they're taking the suspect's words over the vast amount of evidence that contradicts everything the suspect, his father, AND the police have said at this point.

With the way this situation has turned out, if I walk down an alley at night, find someone, pick a fight with them, shoot and kill them, I'll get off because I said they assaulted me and they weren't any eyeball witnesses. Do you know how fucked up this country would be if that were the standard?

 

[Korey]

The law is pretty simple

In most states you are allowed to defend yourself inside your home, with force, if you feel your life is being threatened. However, when you're outside your house and you feel you're safety is in danger, you need to make an attempt to escape the situation before using any force (basically you have to at least try and run away). In Florida (among about 15 other states), when you're outside your house, you're not obligated to try and run away first. You're allowed to "stand your ground" and use force to stop people right away without having to attempt to escape if you feel your safety is threatened.

Ideally the law almost doesn't seem terrible at face value but it's too easy for people to lie and get away with murder by claiming they felt they were assaulted, but - because of this "Stand Your Ground" law - didn't feel the need to just leave or run away.

Yea, I get that. You're allowed to defend yourself to a reasonable extent. But this doesn't include murdering the other guy, unless you have reason to believe your life is in danger, correct? Which Zimmerman should have to prove considering how one-sided everything looks.

 

[AiTM]

From Toronto, but the picture you and the others in this thread have been painting about the US makes it seem like it's some type of no mans land.

Well its 300 million people. I would never do that (and my parents house was just broken into and robbed a month ago). But there is crime here, and people are scared of it, mix that with most of our populace having guns, and you get some people who try to play the hero when they shouldnt or arent needed to.

 

[KodMoS]

What did she say? And why did she come foward late?

.

"He said this man was watching him, so he put his hoodie on. He said he lost the man," Martin's friend said. "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."

Eventually, he would run, said the girl, thinking that he'd managed to escape. But suddenly the strange man was back, cornering Martin.

"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://abcnews.go.com/US/trayvon-ma...death-recounts/story?id=15959017#.T2uMVBEgcsI

 

[AiTM]

Yea, I get that. You're allowed to defend yourself to a reasonable extent. But this doesn't include murdering the other guy, unless you have reason to believe your life is in danger, correct? Which Zimmerman should have to prove considering how one-sided everything looks.

Yes but Im willing to bet he will say he asked Trayvon where he lived, and that Trayvon became aggressive and struggled for his gun, and that he shot him in self defense. And match that with the bloody nose and grass stains on his shirt, he has a defense he can argue. And the State needs to make sure they have a strong case going against that. Because as bad of a situation it is now, if he was found Not guilty, things would be much worse.

I mean look in the one thread about the girl going off in the biology class, its pretty apparent she was at least partially motivated by that killing. She was on the news the day before talking about how badly it upset her. The next day she goes off in class against white students and hits one. Understandably black people are upset, but it would be worse if they fuck up the arrest and he gets off.

 

[Aaronology]

Yes but Im willing to bet he will say he asked Trayvon where he lived, and that Trayvon became aggressive and struggled for his gun, and that he shot him in self defense. And match that with the bloody nose and grass stains on his shirt, he has a defense he can argue. And the State needs to make sure they have a strong case going against that. Because as bad of a situation it is now, if he was found Not guilty, things would be much worse.

I mean look in the one thread about the girl going off in the biology class, its pretty apparent she was at least partially motivated by that killing. She was on the news the day before talking about how badly it upset her. The next day she goes off in class against white students and hits one. Understandably black people are upset, but it would be worse if they fuck up the arrest and he gets off.

Except in your scenario he admits following and confronting Martin to begin with, which nullifies any subsequent claim of self defense. That's why this criminal justice student came up with the story that he was ambushed from behind when he got out of his truck, carefully avoiding any implication that he actually chased after the boy.

 

[AiTM]

Except in your scenario he admits following and confronting Martin to begin with, which nullifies any subsequent claim of self defense. That's why this criminal justice student came up with the story that he was ambushed from behind when he got out of his truck, carefully avoiding any implication that he actually chased after the boy.

So if I go up to someone on the street to ask directions, or ask if they are lost, or whatever, and they attack me, I can no longer argue self defense? (serious question)

 

[Reallink]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you can only kill someone in self defense if you think your life is in danger. Seeing how Trayvon was 100-120 lbs lighter than him and unarmed (except ice tea and skittles), I'm not sure having a bloody nose and grass stains on the back of your t-shirt qualifies.

Getting into a fist fight or pushing each other around is not grounds for one person pulling out a gun and killing the other.

Also, Trayvon has never had a violent record, while Zimmerman has had history of battery on a fucking police officer.

If you look at everything in context, which the jury will, it's pretty clear who was in the wrong here.

This one's pretty simple really. He'd just have to claim Trayvon sucker punched him (bloody nose) which in turn either made him fall backwards or disoriented him enough for Trayvon to tackle him (Wet/Stained back). Once on the ground, he could claim he found himself at a decided disadvantage and was forced to fire off a shot as Trayvon attempted to curb stomb his head or otherwise kick the shit out of other vital regions.

 

[KHarvey16]

Except in your scenario he admits following and confronting Martin to begin with, which nullifies any subsequent claim of self defense. That's why this criminal justice student came up with the story that he was ambushed from behind when he got out of his truck, carefully avoiding any implication that he actually chased after the boy.

That would not necessarily nullify the defense if that's what happened. The florida law is not written that way.

 

[Kinitari]

So if I go up to someone on the street to ask directions, or ask if they are lost, or whatever, and they attack me, I can no longer argue self defense? (serious question)

Only if you give that person reason to believe you're an aggressor, or if you are an aggressor. In this case, stalking and chasing down give that impression, reasonably.

 

[KodMoS]

So if I go up to someone on the street to ask directions, or ask if they are lost, or whatever, and they attack me, I can no longer argue self defense? (serious question)

Yes, you can. However, Zimmerman was following Martin when he was trying to get away. As of right now, it appears Trayvon was the one acting in self-defense.

The dispatcher told Zimmerman not to follow Martin, but he him ignored. The dispatcher then suggested he wait near the mailbox - Zimmerman said "That's fine", but then Zimmerman asked the dispatcher to call him back so he could tell them where he was. This shows Zimmerman was aggressor.

 

[Enzom21]

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...nford-police-chief-will-step-down-temporarily The police chief is stepping down temporarily.

 

[Onemic]

This one's pretty simple really. He'd just have to claim Trayvon sucker punched him (bloody nose) which in turn either made him fall backwards or disoriented him enough for Trayvon to tackle him (Wet/Stained back). Once on the ground, he could claim he found himself at a decided disadvantage and was forced to fire off a shot as Trayvon attempted to curb stomb his head or otherwise kick the shit out of other vital regions.

To a teenager that's over 100lb lighter than you? I doubt that would stand.

 

[Aaronology]

That would not necessarily nullify the defense if that's what happened. The florida law is not written that way.

"There's nothing in the Florida law that allows him to follow someone with a damn gun." -Durell Peaden, former Florida state senator & co-author of Stand Your Ground

"That's not how the law works" -KHarvey, NeoGAF

 

[Dahellisdat]

has their been any ballistics testing done that would indicate how far away and what position Trayvon was in when he was shot?

 

[KHarvey16]

"There's nothing in the Florida law that allows him to follow someone with a damn gun." -Durell Peaden, former Florida state senator & co-author of Stand Your Ground

"That's not how the law works" -KHarvey, NeoGAF

Fantastic argument! Now, show us the law along with the entry on use of force as the aggressor.

 

[Reallink]

To a teenager that's over 100lb lighter than you? I doubt that would stand.

Maybe, maybe not The evidence is certainly there to cast a reasonable doubt though. It's absolutely conceivable that a 140lbs man (specifically an athletic football player) could kill an overweight, out of shape 250lbs man if he managed to get him on the ground.

 

[Kinitari]

Fantastic argument! Now, show us the law along with the entry on use of force as the aggressor.

The girlfriend of the victim claims he was fleeing - ie, running.

If someone is chased down, is that an act of aggression?