Trayvon Martin Case

If an 80 year old is attacked by a teenager I'd like the 80 year old to be armed.

There are a lot of people who can kill with a single punch/kick. More amateurish attempts can take longer to kill, affording the victim the opportunity to fight back without being physically even to the aggressor.

rat - i really like your somewhat different view of the world but .. if, in trying to make your point, you need to set the parameters as an "80 yr old vs a teenager"or "me vs chuck norris". . . . .maybe your point is a little weak.

are you talking about zimmerman or martin? i am assuming your are kidding and not seriously implying that martin is at fault for not having "gone somewhere safe, call the cops, let them deal with it"... yet the same set of rules wouldnt apply to zimmerman.

That was a general recommendation: Don't try to confront a pursuer/harasser, you're playing into their hands if they want an altercation.

My take on it is Martin resented Zimmerman following him and thought it would be a good idea to confront him.

How? I can imagine any number of ways. Been on the bottom of a fight and needed to pull a knife while being choked? It's a brawl my man. Shit happens. "you would imagine a long struggle"? Martin is angry, is staring him in the eye as he does the "pound" and momentarily loses track of Z's hands; taking advantage of the momentary lapse of his opponent, Z fumbles his gun out and gets a lucky shot off. Not saying that's how it happened but it's one of a myriad of ways a moment can turn a fight.





you said Mr. Good's testimony was very helpful for the defense but ... he testified that it appeared the lighter skinned person was on the bottom and that PUNCHES were being thrown but he couldnt tell if the PUNCHES were landing and he also sd just bc someone is on top doesnt mean the person on the bottom couldnt be punching back . . . (technically i think Mr. Good qualified "punches" as being movement of arms). I dont think Mr. Good's testimony supports Zimmerman's assertion that he was getting his skull bashed in and he thought he was going to die ..

but this comes to what i am starting to think is the whole issue of the case:

Is it justifiable to shoot someone because you are losing a fist fight?

I clearly say "hell no". Zimmerman voluntarily put himself in this position. he wanted to act like a tough guy . . but when the moment of truth arrived, he was really a wimp.

we cant have citizens totting guns, creating confrontational situations and then allow them to kill others because they were losing the confrontation.

rat - i really like your somewhat different view of the world but .. if, in trying to make your point, you need to set the parameters as an "80 yr old vs a teenager"or "me vs chuck norris". . . . .maybe your point is a little weak.

Exaggeration in order to highlight the point, nothing more.

That was a general recommendation: Don't try to confront a pursuer/harasser, you're playing into their hands if they want an altercation.

My take on it is Martin resented Zimmerman following him and thought it would be a good idea to confront him.

i would resent someone following me around to.

and if words escalate to a fist fight ... you cant shot the other person if you are not in reasonable fear of your own life.

not reasonable fear of getting beat up or getting a black eye or reasonable fear that you are going to the hospital .... but reasonable fear of imminent death.

Exaggeration in order to highlight the point, nothing more.

rat - im just surprised on your view. i thought you would support the notion that things should be handled with fists.

dont you think it is a wimp move to shoot an unarmed person just because they are winning the fight?

i mean come on. weve all been in fist fights. they are scary. your addrenalin is pumping, your muscles get lascitity running through them but dang it man ... be a man and accept the consequences of a fair fight.

ive been beaten, jumped, knocked unconscious etc .. it happens. especially if you take it upon yourself to confront others and play mall cop.

but this comes to what i am starting to think is the whole issue of the case:

Is it justifiable to shot someone because you are losing a fist fight?

If you are in fear for your life, and you're not the aggressor, yes.

I clearly say "hell no". Zimmerman voluntarily put himself in this position. he wanted to act like a tough guy . . but when the moment of truth arrived, he was really a wimp.

Your perception.

we cant have citizens totting guns, creating confrontational situations and then allow them to kill others because they were losing the confrontation.

Again, that's your perception. Zimmerman followed Martin because he looked sketchy, Martin resented being followed and confronted Zimmerman.

Why is it assumed Zimmerman want a cofrontation? From his past reporting it seems he was more a person who was reporter of these people and not someone who wanted a cofrontation. Seems from Martins own GF he was the one that doubled back around and cofronted Zimmerman.

And I'll beat the crap out of you and then sue your ass into the poor house for starting the fight.

And I'll win again.

lol this is funny to me.

under your logic and seeming support of zimmerman's defense - garyclark could just shoot you dead during the fight then point to the state v. zimmerman case as precedent that you can kill someone because they were winning the fist fight.

basically if zimmerman gets off - it totally changes the agreed upon rules of combat i thought all guys understood.

this is a bad case for pro-gun advocates imo.

edit - im not a criminal defense or FL atty but .. im guessing "self defense"is an affirmative defense and zimmerman has the burden of proving he was 1) not they aggressor, 2) he was in reasonable fear of his own life (not safety but life) and 3) there were no other non-lethal alternatives available.

i think he needs to take the stand to satisfy his burden. Mr. Good's testimony shows it was a fist fight, nothing more.

Why is it assumed Zimmerman want a cofrontation? From his past reporting it seems he was more a person who was reporter of these people and not someone who wanted a cofrontation. Seems from Martins own GF he was the one that doubled back around and cofronted Zimmerman.

id like to know the exact routes each took as well and exactly what zimmerman did from the time he left his truck to the fight.

i read the article linked by someone were it tries to re-patch zimmerman and martin's foot steps but .... it was highly bias towards zimmerman with huge leaps in logic and fact twisting.

to answer you question FD - if guess bc of zimmerman's confrontational words used on the dispatch call as well as the dispathcer telling him to not follow martin.

plus he did get out of his truck which is more than "observe and report" and seemingly followed martin - now im sure the counter argument to that would be that he had to get out of his truck to further "observe" martin bc he went on a foot path where zimmerman couldnt visually follow him in his truck ..