Trayvon Martin Case

He called police to report "a suspicious black male, 7-9 years old, skinny build." I think we have passed the realm of speculating about his state of mind.

Maybe you think so, but then, you don't live in my neighborhood. We have had elementary age kids commit crimes - vandalism, breaking an entry, and, yes, assaults (happened three or four years ago three elementary age kids mugged an elderly lady (80'ish) while she was walking to the bus stop in the afternoon). It doesn't happen often (including the assault, I'd say around 10 times in my 18 years in the neighborhood), but it does happen. Yes, little kids are curious. Sometimes they are just being kids, but sometimes they are up to things beyond just childish curiousity or "hijinks". What's the difference? Hard to say ... Since I always try to be reasonable and go with my gut, I am probably impermissibly profiling.

What you are basically saying Stand Your Ground Law allows me to stalk you and your family and if you were to ever approach me I would be at liberty to shoot you dead and vice versa. Am I to understand that so long as I feel threatened the Stand Your Ground Law trumps all other laws regarding what constitutes murder? What constitutes self-defense and retreat? Can anyone ever be liable for murder in the state of Florida in any confrontational situation? Would it matter who approached who first? If you and I were to get into a bar fight because I uttered fighting words and I ended up gunning you down should I be held liable for murder? How would this situation be different than what happened here?

No, what I am saying is that no one has the right to initiate a physical attack. If I just "approach you" after you "stalked" me, you would not have the right to shoot me. If you shoot me after I "approached you" in response to your "stalking" me AND I am the first to either physically attack you in a manner where you reasonably believe your life to be threatened or credibly threaten you with imminent physical harm likely to cause serious injury or death --- then, yes, you can use deadly force to protect yourself. Neither one of us, however, is allowed to begin the physical altercation regardless if I do or say something short of initiating the physical contact or using legally recognized "fighting words".

If Zimmerman approached and physically assaulted (pushed, bumped, shoved, hit etc.) Martin first (or brandished the gun, or used "fighting words" first), it's outright murder period. You don't get to pull a gun when you start losing a fight you started. If, however, all Zimmerman did was "stalk and approach" Martin, Martin can't can't can't throw the first punch and this is exactly what Zimmerman has alleged that Martin did. Zimmerman has said that Martin physically attacked Zimmerman first. As I set out several posts ago - in Florida, that creates a presumption he was attacked.

All I have ever said in this matter is, we don't know who initiated the physical altercation. At this point, that fact is simply surmise based on fragments of evidence. My opinion at this point, is that Zimmerman escalated the conversation and crossed the line first. However, I just don't know to the point where I am willing to ruin another person's life - it's close but I am just not there yet. Given the lack of evidence about the start of the fight, I may never be.

Your logic matrix is twisted because the implication of what you are saying are very serious and quite frankly antithesis of the letter as well as the spirit of the law. At worst Zimmerman is guilty of 2nd degree murder and if you were on the jury I would hope you would have the sensibility to realize this.

My logic matrix is fine thank you. Go back and read my post No. 212. Personally, I think Zimmerman should have to get on the stand assert and prove the affirmative defense of "self-defense and reasonable belief of serious injury or death" under oath and subject to cross examination. If a jury says "okay, we believe you", I am good with that - if they say "we don't believe you", I am also good with that. Unfortunately, under Florida's self-defense immunity law, it doesn't look like that will happen.

Joe, it doesn't matter who initiated the physical altercation. Trayvon Martin was being pursued by an unidentified adult male armed with a 9mm. He was on the phone with his girlfriend who told him to "run". By your logic, if Martin threw the first punch that negates self-defense. Bogus.

What was he supposed to do, drop his Skittles and put his hands in the air?

By the way, JoeRedskin.

Florida teen's body showed no sign of fight, funeral director says | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/30/us-usa-shooting-florida-undertaker-idUSBRE82T19R20120330?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&dlvrit=60573)

Acting like Martin? What does that mean? How was Martin acting, Joe? He was walking down the street with tea and Skittles. And he was wearing a hoodie, so I'm pretty sure his tats weren't visible. Besides it was dark, so I don't think that was the issue.

Zimmerman said, “This guy looks like he's up to no good or he's on drugs or something.”

The dispatcher immediately asks, “Is he white, black or Hispanic?”
George Zimmerman responds, “He looks black.”


Zimmerman went to say, "they always get away". Who the **** is they is what I want to know. "****ing coons" or "goons".

The truth is, absent of some disgusting racial slur it's hard to prove racial profiling, isn't it? It's like saying prove racism. You really can't because we often, wrongly, associate racism with the obvious, like the word nigger. In our modern day politically correct culture, even the racists, have long moved beyond using the word nigger. If it looks and feels like profiling there's a good chance, though not a 100%, it is.

It is hard to prove profiling, I grant you that. At the same time, I meant exactly what I said. "Acting like". Zimmerman didnt describe the suspicious behavior by saying "Well, his left hand is twitching and he's looking into cars/people's houses". Fair enough. Are you confident, to the point of certainty, however, that, regardless of race, Zimmerman wouldn't have reported any unfamiliar kid in a hoodie, carrying skittles and walking the neighborhood in the same manner as Martin (whatever that manner might be)? I guess I don't see it.

What makes you think this minority individual who has mentored African American youths, was racially profiling? The fact he said "suspicious" but didn't sua sponte articulate the specifics of the behavior that was suspicious?

We do agree that this is a tragedy and, at a minimum, an arrest should be in order to assuage the Martin family and the citizens of the Sanford community.

Well, I agree it was a tragedy and I agree the law should require an arrest. However, no arrest should be made unless it is legally allowed and, certainly, no arrest should be made simply to "assuage" the victims or citizenry - when we start arresting people to make some group feel better, it is really a step away from torches and pitchforks.

I do believe the Florida law should be changed and I hope this tragedy convinces someone to initiate that change.

Maybe you think so, but then, you don't live in my neighborhood. We have had elementary age kids commit crimes - vandalism, breaking an entry, and, yes, assaults (happened three or four years ago three elementary age kids mugged an elderly lady (80'ish) while she was walking to the bus stop in the afternoon). It doesn't happen often (including the assault, I'd say around 10 times in my 18 years in the neighborhood), but it does happen. Yes, little kids are curious. Sometimes they are just being kids, but sometimes they are up to things beyond just childish curiousity or "hijinks". What's the difference? Hard to say ... Since I always try to be reasonable and go with my gut, I am probably impermissibly profiling.



No, what I am saying is that no one has the right to initiate a physical attack. If I just "approach you" after you "stalked" me, you would not have the right to shoot me. If you shoot me after I "approached you" in response to your "stalking" me AND I am the first to either physically attack you in a manner where you reasonably believe your life to be threatened or credibly threaten you with imminent physical harm likely to cause serious injury or death --- then, yes, you can use deadly force to protect yourself. Neither one of us, however, is allowed to begin the physical altercation regardless if I do or say something short of initiating the physical contact or using legally recognized "fighting words".

If Zimmerman approached and physically assaulted (pushed, bumped, shoved, hit etc.) Martin first (or brandished the gun, or used "fighting words" first), it's outright murder period. You don't get to pull a gun when you start losing a fight you started. If, however, all Zimmerman did was "stalk and approach" Martin, Martin can't can't can't throw the first punch and this is exactly what Zimmerman has alleged that Martin did. Zimmerman has said that Martin physically attacked Zimmerman first. As I set out several posts ago - in Florida, that creates a presumption he was attacked.

All I have ever said in this matter is, we don't know who initiated the physical altercation. At this point, that fact is simply surmise based on fragments of evidence. My opinion at this point, is that Zimmerman escalated the conversation and crossed the line first. However, I just don't know to the point where I am willing to ruin another person's life - it's close but I am just not there yet. Given the lack of evidence about the start of the fight, I may never be.



My logic matrix is fine thank you. Go back and read my post No. 212. Personally, I think Zimmerman should have to get on the stand assert and prove the affirmative defense of "self-defense and reasonable belief of serious injury or death" under oath and subject to cross examination. If a jury says "okay, we believe you", I am good with that - if they say "we don't believe you", I am also good with that. Unfortunately, under Florida's self-defense immunity law, it doesn't look like that will happen.

No it's not fine at all Joe. If you are the stalker or the instigator, the root cause of the confrontation, you lose grounds for a self-defense claim. I would think and hope this is self-evident.

We agree on one thing though, he should certainly be arrested and stand trial.

Joe, it doesn't matter who initiated the physical altercation. Trayvon Martin was being pursued by an unidentified adult male armed with a 9mm. He was on the phone with his girlfriend who told him to "run". By your logic, if Martin threw the first punch that negates self-defense. Bogus.

What was he supposed to do, drop his Skittles and put his hands in the air?

If I see you on the street and start to run after you, are you allowed to punch me when I get close enough to you?

Did he tell his girl friend the guy had a gun? Honestly, I was not aware of that. I would agree that changes things if the gun came into play before the fight. About to leave work, but I'll think about that. If Zimmerman was chasing Martin brandishing or obviously showing the gun, that is a different story altogether.

Let me ask you, if the events transpired as Zimmerman said. He was walking away, an unprovoked Martin assaulted him, broke his nose and bashed Zimmerman's head into the cement, did Zimmerman have the right to use deadly force?

No it's not fine at all Joe. If you are the stalker or the instigator, the root cause of the confrontation, you lose grounds for a self-defense claim. I would think and hope this is self-evident.

We agree on one thing though, he should certainly be arrested and stand trial.

the instigator? I can follow you all I want on a public street saden. I can run after you if you run away. I can stare at you. I can call you names. I can say your stupid as I run in the same direction as you. What I cannot do, is touch or threaten you.

I think the crux of it is we are disagreeing on what "threaten" means. You think the act of "chasing" is the threat. Okay. I get that. If an unfamiliar kid I think is acting "suspiciously" in my neighborhood sees me watching him and starts to run away, am I "threatening" him if I chase him while I call 911? Can he turn and assault me?

If I see you on the street and start to run after you, are you allowed to punch me when I get close enough to you?

Did he tell his girl friend the guy had a gun? Honestly, I was not aware of that. I would agree that changes things if the gun came into play before the fight. About to leave work, but I'll think about that. If Zimmerman was chasing Martin brandishing or obviously showing the gun, that is a different story altogether.

Let me ask you, if the events transpired as Zimmerman said. He was walking away, an unprovoked Martin assaulted him, broke his nose and bashed Zimmerman's head into the cement, did Zimmerman have the right to use deadly force?

Your example isn't a good one. Zimmerman followed Martin in a vehicle, got out against the orders of the 911 operator, and approached Trayvon Martin. His actions precipitated the ensuing the events. Had Zimmerman been an officer of the law, properly identified himself, then that's a different story. But he made up his made that Trayvon Martin was up to something and decided to take matters into his own hands. That much is very clear from the 911 audio.

Where we disagree is this, you're assuming because George Zimmerman suffered in a physical altercation, he's justified in pulling out his weapon. That is not stand your ground, sir. Even if George Zimmerman got his ass beat, which he didn't, that doesn't give him the legal grounds to pull his firearm and shoot an innocent teen in cold blood.

Jeb Bush: 'Stand Your Ground' Doesn't Apply in Trayvon Case (http://www.newsmax.com/US/Stand-Your-Ground-Law/2012/03/24/id/433756)

the instigator? I can follow you all I want on a public street saden. I can run after you if you run away. I can stare at you. I can call you names. I can say your stupid as I run in the same direction as you. What I cannot do, is touch or threaten you.

I think the crux of it is we are disagreeing on what "threaten" means. You think the act of "chasing" is the threat. Okay. I get that. If an unfamiliar kid I think is acting "suspiciously" in my neighborhood sees me watching him and starts to run away, am I "threatening" him if I chase him while I call 911? Can he turn and assault me?

No, this is not a "OK, I get that" type of situation. It's "if an adult was following your little girl that adult is a threat." Following someone can only result in two things:

a) confrontation which is a hostile or argumentative meeting or situation between opposing parties.

b) one individual takes flight out of fear for their safety.


The act of following someone you don't know is a threatening act.