398 replies to this topic

[TerraPrime]

Former Lord of Winterfell, on 23 April 2012 - 01:17 PM, said:

To me, one of the more interesting pieces of alleged evidence are the powder burns on Trayvon's sweatshirt, indicating it was fired at extremely close range.  That means they were in extremely close proximity to each other when it was fired, which is consistent with some sort of physical struggle.

Supposing that the gun powder on Martin's shirt was from the gunshot and not from transfer from Zimmerman's hands, it merely indicates the distance between the two people at the time the gun was fired. It doesn't really give strength to claim.

[Ser Robin Hill]

Nuke,

Had I blacked out there would have been a time loss, but though things appeared dim, the continuity seemed there.  I do remember that my arm and hand appeared loathe to move and it seemed to take more effort than normal to get that task done.  On the other hand, assuming the round was already chambered, all Zimmerman had to do is get it from his pocket and point it in front of him before squeezing the trigger.  True, the dog wasn't beating me...just looking very startled.

Of course, most of this discussion is based on one part fact and many parts, guess work, so who knows.  Not you, not me and certainly not those who decide based on race.

Edited by Robin Hill, 23 April 2012 - 03:32 PM.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Typical Woman, on 23 April 2012 - 03:03 PM, said:

Supposing that the gun powder on Martin's shirt was from the gunshot and not from transfer from Zimmerman's hands, it merely indicates the distance between the two people at the time the gun was fired. It doesn't really give strength to claim.

It confirms that they were in extremely close quarters when Martin was shot, so both the defense and prosecution theories must account for that.  And one question that raises is why a guy with a gun would want to get in a wrestling/fighting match with someone, thereby giving up the advantage of having a firearm.  To me, that gives at least circumstantial corroboration for the claim that a physical confrontation would more than likely have been started by Martin.  It's something the prosecution will need to address in its theory of the case.  Maybe the theory will be that Zimmerman pointed the weapon at Martin, and Martin lunged because he felt threatened.  Don't know -- just pointing out that it's a fact that will need to be explained.

[TerraPrime]

Former Lord of Winterfell, on 23 April 2012 - 03:58 PM, said:

And one question that raises is why a guy with a gun would want to get in a wrestling/fighting match with someone, thereby giving up the advantage of having a firearm.

No, and that's my point. Physical proximity does not indicate physical altercation. Forensic evidence on Zimmerman's head and nose at the time, and also forensic examination of Martin's body, will either confirm or reject the hypothesis that there was a physical fight

Quote

To me, that gives at least circumstantial corroboration for the claim that a physical confrontation would more than likely have been started by Martin.

I don't see it how this points to Martin having "more than likely" started the confrontation at all. It's just as possible that

Quote

Zimmerman pointed the weapon at Martin, and Martin lunged because he felt threatened.  

Quote

Don't know -- just pointing out that it's a fact that will need to be explained.

Yes it will have to be explained. But I disagree with your initial offered interpretation.

[CloudFlare]

Typical Woman, on 23 April 2012 - 04:07 PM, said:

No, and that's my point. Physical proximity does not indicate physical altercation.

It's hard to have a physical altercation without being in physical proximity.

The head wounds strongly indicate a physical altercation; the broken nose almost certainly so.

Quote

Forensic evidence on Zimmerman's head and nose at the time, and also forensic examination of Martin's body, will either confirm or reject the hypothesis that there was a physical fight

Uhh, how much evidence do  you think they can come up with from a broken nose? Barring some sort of truly amazing coincidence, the broken nose and cuts on the back of his head indicate a fight. Zimmerman doesn't look like that athletic of a guy, but I can't see how he tripped and broke his nose, got up, then fell backwards and hit is head.

[Nukelavee]

TW - powder burns aren't gunpowder, ie, it indicates Martin was close enough to the barrel that the muzzle flash and residue burned the clothing.

But... that doesn't mean Martin started anything physical.

Robin - I'm just saying that what you experienced points out how uncoordinated any complex actions are.

Try and sprawl on your back, and remove something like a gun from your pocket... it ain't gonna be easy.

What I'm doing is just trying to envision and describe the end of the encounter, based on what Zimmerman has said.

So - Gun in pocket.  If it's hidden in the pocket, the odds of him drawing it while on the ground getting his head bashed seem pretty low.  If it's partially in his pocket, grip out...it's less an issue.

Of course, in the latter version, that means Martin could have seen it.  So, if Zimmerman was close enough for Martin to deck, Martin could have seen the gun, and reacted in fear for HIS life.  Zimmerman goes down, and fires, close enough for teh powder burns.

Or, Zimmerman had the gun out already.

Basically, I think TW has a good point.

[The Great Unwashed]

FLOW,

My position remains unchanged regardless of the evidence presented, which is essentially that SYG is a stupid fucking law.

By introducing no duty to retreat, then you get into all kinds of these stupid fucking arguments.  Was Martin justified in attacking first because Zimmerman had a weapon...if Zimmerman attacked first, could he be justified under SYG if things went poorly for him and he killed Martin because he was in fear of his life even though he initiated the confrontation...all that stems from no duty to retreat.

My personal opinion is that even if Martin attacked Zimmerman first, he was justified because Zimmerman was following him and had a firearm.

Regarding the woman's case, my stance remains the same...she wouldn't be in jail if she had just killed her husband.

[Ser Robin Hill]

The Great Unwashed, on 23 April 2012 - 05:16 PM, said:

My personal opinion is that even if Martin attacked Zimmerman first, he was justified because Zimmerman was following him and had a firearm.

1.  Following someone does not justify their attacking you.
2.  If Martin didn't know Zimmerman was armed, it is irrelevant.
3.  If he did know, and attacked, it is evidence of stupidity.

[Nukelavee]

If he knew there was a gun...Martin had no good options.

And, Robin, why, like RiL, do you assume Martin attacked?  

Look at the scenario this way - Zimmerman is following Martin, keyed up because he's out at night following some hood, but, hey, he has a gun, so, feeling large and in charge.  They end up "face to face", and Zimmerman realizes he's got a gun, and is a lot bigger...Martin tells him to "fuck off", and turns to walk on... Zimmerman grabs at him to hold him for the cops...Martin swings or shoves...

I still don't see how people can NOT see chasing down somebody while carrying a gun isn't the same as watching from a distance without a weapon.

The only "good/smart" option Martin had was to just stand there, and wait for the cops to show.  Mind you, being black with that PD, and knowing you weren't in the wrong?  Valid reasons for NOT putting up with Zimmerman.

[Ser Robin Hill]

I was responding to the quote, "even if Martin attacked".  

Where is the evidence that anyone was chased?

Where is the evidence that Zimmerman's gun was visible to Martin?

Edited by Robin Hill, 24 April 2012 - 09:06 AM.

[Nukelavee]

Chased, followed, it works out the same.  If you think chased sounds too much like Tom Cruise chasing down terrorists, stick with followed.

It doesn't matter exactly when Martin becomes aware of the gun, Zimmerman knows he has it... so, his actions are influenced by that knowledge.

We can pretty much be certain it gave Zimmerman a sense of power and control, based upon what we absolutely know happened.

As a typical teen male, Martin isn't going to stop unless he's stopped somehow, either by speech or proximity.  If he sees a gun, odds are he won't turn his back on it.  If he doesn't, he's likely to ignore any commands to wait around, and simply walk home.

And, being younger, smaller, and black, I think he would have been less likely to start something.

[Ser Robin Hill]

Chased indicates more speed that followed.

Again, my response referred to this.

Quote

My personal opinion is that even if Martin attacked Zimmerman first, he was justified because Zimmerman was following him and had a firearm.

What I said was:

Robin Hill, on 24 April 2012 - 08:26 AM, said:

1.  Following someone does not justify their attacking you.
2.  If Martin didn't know Zimmerman was armed, it is irrelevant.
3.  If he did know, and attacked, it is evidence of stupidity.

Removing it from that context makes no sense.

[Nukelavee]

It's not really out of context, Robin, the continuity of the posts is pretty clear.

Following somebody might not be justification for attacking, or it might.

Martin doesn't need to know about the gun, he just has to wonder if the guy stalking him has a weapon.

If he did know, and made the first move (which wasn't first, Zimmerman made the first move when he left his car), well, having guns in the hands of random people following you can cause panic, and desperation.

Seriously, I understood what you were saying...I'm saying "Here, a scenario that covers what we know, but shows how it could have played out in a way that doesn't absolve Zimmerman".

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Nukelavee, on 24 April 2012 - 08:51 AM, said:

Look at the scenario this way - Zimmerman is following Martin, keyed up because he's out at night following some hood, but, hey, he has a gun, so, feeling large and in charge.  They end up "face to face", and Zimmerman realizes he's got a gun, and is a lot bigger...Martin tells him to "fuck off", and turns to walk on... Zimmerman grabs at him to hold him for the cops...Martin swings or shoves...

All of these scenarios are possible, so anyone who professes knowledge or certainty is just off.  But this case will depend largely on ZImmerman's state of mind, and whether a jury finds his version of events credible.  Addressing the latter bolded language first, If I'm his attorney, I argue that it makes little sense for someone armed with a gun to initiate a hand-to-hand struggle.  You've got the argument ender -- a weapon that is effective at a distance.  Why would you give up that advantage and risk being disarmed by initiating physical contact?

As to the first point, how do they manage to end up face to face?  Again, ZImmerman's attorney is going to argue that based on the elapsed time, and Martin's ability simply to run home across the grass (where a car couldn't follow), Martin must have, at some point, decided that he wanted to confront the asshole following him.  So his attorney is going to argue that, at some point, Martin must have approached Zimmerman voluntarily, and based on the point I mentioned above, likely is the person who initiated physical contact.  At that point, if Zimmerman did have injuries consistent with his story of being knocked down and pounded, I think getting a conviction is going to be tough.  Not because Zimmerman is "innocent", but because of the law, and because of the "beyond a reasonable doubt"  burden for a finding of guilt.  Zimmerman will remain a douche, but not a criminal.

Again, this is all speculation, and we'll have to wait to see the rest of the evidence to see if it is consistent with Zimmerman's version of events.  I will say that if there is convincing evidence that Zimmerman has lied about any aspect of this, the odds for conviction go way up.  And perhaps the prosecutors have such evidence but a simply keeping it closer to the vest.

In the meantime, here's a white guy attacked and in critical condition after being attacked by a group of black men who said that was "justice for Trayvon."  And that was a predictable result given some of the overheated rhetoric from some public figures when this began.  And I'm still rather amazed that none of the public figures who riled people up in the first place have asked for people to remain calm and let the process work.

http://www2.wkrg.com...ion-ar-3659891/

Edited by Former Lord of Winterfell, 24 April 2012 - 10:52 AM.

[TerraPrime]

Former Lord of Winterfell, on 24 April 2012 - 10:50 AM, said:

In the meantime, here's a white guy attacked and in critical condition after being attacked by a group of black men who said that was "justice for Trayvon."  And that was a predictable result given some of the overheated rhetoric from some public figures when this began.  And I'm still rather amazed that none of the public figures who riled people up in the first place have asked for people to remain calm and let the process work.

http://www2.wkrg.com...ion-ar-3659891/

The beating was uncalled for and very unfortunate. I hope the police catch the perpetrators.

However, from that brief report, I see no reason to believe that the beating was initiated because of the rhetoric. The reason seems more like that the kids who got told off for playing basketball got their parents riled up and they came to beat up the guy who told off their kids.

[ROLF]

Quote

In the meantime, here's a white guy attacked and in critical condition after being attacked by a group of black men who said that was "justice for Trayvon." And that was a predictable result given some of the overheated rhetoric from some public figures when this began. And I'm still rather amazed that none of the public figures who riled people up in the first place have asked for people to remain calm and let the process work.

I find this as equally reprehensible as the Martin killing.

Though I would like to point out that your paragraph is a bit misleading.  This was a neighborhood altercation in which when the group of attackers were walking away, the sister says she heard one say that comment you referenced.  This isn't bands of black men and women roving the streets looking for any white devil to fuck up, so let's not distort facts or go into some type of agenda that you are claiming several other people are doing in this thread.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Not So Young Wolf, on 24 April 2012 - 11:06 AM, said:

Though I would like to point out that your paragraph is a bit misleading.  This was a neighborhood altercation in which when the group of attackers were walking away, the sister says she heard one say that comment you referenced.  This isn't bands of black men and women roving the streets looking for any white devil to fuck up, so let's not distort facts or go into some type of agenda that you are claiming several other people are doing in this thread.

And where did I say there was?  There was nothing remotely misleading about what I wrote except what you chose to read into it.  i

But in case you've missed it, there have been a few incidents where someone black has attacked someone white and used Trayvon Martin as a justification.  Here's another from earlier this week:

http://www.myfoxchic...suburb-20120420

My point is NOT that bands of black people are dangerous.  My point is that the race-charged, militant rhetoric used by some public figures has nasty consequences.  And it is absolutely no different then when it comes from whites who try to claim that there is a war by black people on white and whites have to start fighting back.  The issue is not the color of the victims and perpetrators.  The issue is the overheated public rhetoric with which this case began, and the potential real workd consequences.  I posted that link because it is a sample of what we might get if steps aren't taken to prepare people for a verdict.  There's already stories out there about people on Twitter calling for a riot if Zimmerman isn't convicted.

What we discuss on a message board doesn't have any real world consequences, so it's not really a problem if it occasionally gets overheated.  But if you are a public figure who draws media attention, then your rhetoric does have consequences, and those consequences can be very nasty.

Quote

I find this as equally reprehensible as the Martin killing.

I don't doubt that.  And I think it would provide an excellent opportunity for someone to point that out publicly, and use that as an example of why we shouldn't make this a bigger issue than it is.  If there is a crime here, it involves Zimmerman, not "white people" generally.  But I honestly think some of the race hucksters want this kind of thing to happen so it brings heat on the Trayvon Martin case.

Edited by Former Lord of Winterfell, 24 April 2012 - 11:41 AM.

[Nukelavee]

FLoW - Yeah, I don't want to sound like I'm saying my scenario is clearly the true account, because I'm not.  I just want to point out various routes to the end result.

As to Zimmerman's state of mind...I think it's fairly clear he was feeling, hmmm, aggressive, in that he was taking action against the advice of professionals; having a gun would only add to the nervous state, but would also give a false sense of control.

Plus, lots of people make stupid mistakes in high stress situations, closing the distance in a confrontation is a common one, so is thinking just having a gun means being in charge.

Why close the distance?  To prevent the suspect from getting away.

As a prosecutor, that's the version I'd work on selling.

I agree, it's not "beyond reasonable doubt", and that will likely be the defense tactic, to instill doubt into any version other than Zimerman's.

As a point I'd like to not make, but, meh, better now then later if somebody else has a moment of insight, lol, ....

The Snapple bottle.

Either Zimmerman says something, reveals the gun, Martin realizes a gun is in play, whatever...Zimmerman gets clocked in the face with the bottle, goes over backwards, panics, fires.

SYG saves his ass.

And, possibly, at that point, yeah, I could see him thinking he was in serious danger.

Personally, I still think he's at fault, because, y'know, gun, following, etc...and that SYG in that locale is way too loosely written...

And I think the PD deciding that invoking SYG meant not investigating properly is a huge huge injustice, and criminal neglect.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Nukelavee, on 24 April 2012 - 11:33 AM, said:

As to Zimmerman's state of mind...I think it's fairly clear he was feeling, hmmm, aggressive, in that he was taking action against the advice of professionals; having a gun would only add to the nervous state, but would also give a false sense of control.

I agree completely with that.  That's why I think he was so wrong to follow Trayvon with a gun.  A gun is supposed to protect you, not encourage you to take needless risks, even if the law permits you to take those risks.  Frankly, even based on ZImmerman's own version of events, I'd like to see him convicted of at least something, maybe manslaughter.  I don't think he thought any of this was going to happen when he started following Martin, and he didn't want to hurt him.  But I do think he made a very poor decision that resulted in someone dying needlessly.  I'm just not sure that, if you look at the entire sequence of events, you can prove any sort of criminal intent legally.

I kind of see it this way.  There are some places in my metropolitian area that you simply don't wander around in at night.  Really dangerous shit.  Now, I suppose I could go all Deathwish, arm myself for "protection", and then go walking around in those areas knows that I was likely to get threatened or assaulted eventually, and then pull that gun out and shoot.  Sure, it would technically be self-defense, and I probably couldn't be prosecuted, but it is still, in my mind, an immoral use of the right to protect yourself.

Edited by Former Lord of Winterfell, 24 April 2012 - 11:57 AM.

[Howdyphillip]

Former Lord of Winterfell, on 24 April 2012 - 11:37 AM, said:

  Im just not sure that, if you look at the entire sequence of events, you can prove any sort of criminal intent legally.

I agreed with your post all the way to here. I think that there is plenty of evidence supporting the aggressor in this situation was Zimmerman, and I think they will get a conviction of manslaughter.